Who wins, and by how much.
Two players, no dice, nothing hidden, and the player who cannot move loses. That is a narrow enough set of rules to be worth exactly — every position has a value, the value is computed rather than estimated, and positions add. These are essays about what comes out of that, one idea at a time, with the arithmetic done rather than asserted.
Start anywhere
19 essays
Who moves last
The player who cannot move loses. That single convention generates the whole theory — and it produces four outcomes rather than three, because a position can be confused with zero rather than greater, smaller or equal to it.
Impartial gamesNim, and the nim-sum
Three heaps of counters, take as many as you like from one of them, and the player who takes the last counter wins. The winning condition is not a search, not a table, and not a heuristic — it is the bitwise exclusive-or of the heap sizes, and it was found in 1901.
Sums and comparisonThe sum is the object
Real positions come apart into independent regions, and a move happens in exactly one of them. That operation — the disjunctive sum — is what the whole theory is built to survive, and it is the reason values exist at all.
TemperatureWhat is at stake
Some positions both players are desperate to move in, and some neither player wants to touch. The difference is a number — how much the move is worth — and it turns out to be the most useful single quantity for deciding where to play.
Particular gamesHackenbush is a numeral
Draw a stalk of coloured edges. Read it as a string, blue for one and red for zero, and the string is the binary expansion of what the position is worth. Not approximately — exactly, and the site computes it both ways and refuses to build if they disagree.
Where it stopsMisère play
Change one word — the player who cannot move wins — and the games are identical, the strategies are not, and almost every theorem on this site stops being true. It is the cheapest possible modification and the most expensive.
Impartial gamesEvery impartial game is a Nim heap
Sprague and Grundy proved, independently and four years apart, that any position in any impartial game is equivalent to a single heap of counters. Not similar to one — equal to one, interchangeable with it inside any larger game.
ValuesThe simplicity rule
When both players' options are numbers, the position is worth the simplest number strictly between them. Not the midpoint, not the average, and the difference between "simplest" and "middle" is the entire content of the rule.
Sums and comparisonComparing positions
One position is worth at least another when the second player wins their difference. That is the only definition there is, it is a computation rather than a judgement, and it produces an order in which some pairs are simply not comparable.
TemperatureReading a thermograph
A thermograph is two walls rising from a number line, closing in as the tax on moving increases, and meeting where the position stops being worth fighting over. Everything about a position's hotness is in the shape.
Particular gamesDomineering
One player places dominoes vertically, the other horizontally, on a shared grid. The rules take one line, the values are a mess, and that mess is the point — this is what the theory looks like applied to a game nobody designed for it.
Where it stopsLoopy games
The whole theory assumes play stops. Allow a position to recur and the induction that every value rests on has nothing to stand on — and a fifth outcome appears that normal-play theory has no name for.
Impartial gamesGrundy sequences, and where they stop being predictable
Computing one Grundy value is a mex. Computing all of them produces a sequence, and the sequences do something nobody has fully explained — most of them eventually repeat, some of them take thousands of terms to start, and for a few nobody knows whether they ever do.
ValuesCanonical form
Two positions are worth the same when neither player can tell them apart inside any larger game. Deciding that could be an infinite search. Instead there is a normal form — delete what nobody would play, bypass what backfires — and equality becomes a comparison of two small trees.
Sums and comparisonOutcomes do not add
Knowing who wins each part of a position tells almost nothing about who wins the whole. Two first-player wins can sum to a second-player win, or to another first-player win, and no rule distinguishes the cases from the outcomes alone.
TemperaturePlaying the hottest
Given several independent fights, play in the one with most at stake. The rule is simple, it is what strong Go players do without being told, it is provably close to optimal — and it is provably not optimal, which is the interesting part.
Particular gamesToads and Frogs
Toads shuffle right, frogs shuffle left, and either may jump over one of the other. A strip six cells long is worth exactly up. Another six-cell strip is worth exactly down. Nobody has a formula for which.
Where it stopsHow hard is it
Every theorem on this site stays true at any size. The answers stop being reachable long before the games get interesting — deciding the winner of a generalised board game is PSPACE-complete, and an exact evaluator gives out after a few dozen moves.
ValuesInfinitesimals
Some positions are positive — Left wins them whoever moves first — and smaller than every positive number, including a millionth and a millionth of that. They are the values that decide close games, and the smallest of them is a single move's worth of nothing.
Threads running through
themes, not chapters
Who moves last
The player unable to move loses. That single convention generates the whole theory, and reversing it — misère play — destroys almost all of it.
The sum is the object
Real positions break into independent parts that are played at once. Adding games up is not a technique within the theory; it is what the theory is for.
Not every game is a number
Some positions are worth a half or a quarter. Others are worth something no number can express, and the ones that are not numbers are where the subject becomes interesting.
The value is computable
A position's worth is not estimated. It is a symbolic object obtained by recursion, reduced to a canonical form, and comparable exactly with any other.
Play it and lose
The strongest argument this subject can make is to state the winner before the reader starts, and then be right. Optimal play falls out of the value; it is not a heuristic.
Small things decide
Infinitesimals are smaller than every positive number and are not zero. In a close game they are the whole margin, which is why the theory bothers with them.
The theory runs out
Misère play, loops and computational hardness each break something essential. Knowing which of the three is biting is most of knowing where a game stands.