Combinatorial Game Theory
who wins, and by how much
Concept

Closure — where it appears

Being shut under an operation, so that combining two members lands inside the set again. Tameness is closed under addition and wildness is not, which is what makes one of them a property of a game rather than of a position.

Named by 15 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Classes needed, as the heaps get bigger — Dawson's chess ·137. How many kinds of position there are, against how large a heap the universe allows. Under normal play the answer stops growing as soon as the Grundy values stop growing. Under misère play it does not stop, and every new class is a pair of positions that behave identically under normal play and differently under misère.

"Hopeless" was a claim about a method

Misère analysis was declared intractable in the 1970s, and the verdict was correct about what was being attempted. Quotients did not refute it thirty years later — they changed the question from a value per position to a monoid per universe, and the computed sizes show why the first question has no good answer.

history · Misère play Nim-multiplication below 16, and every field axiom checked. The nim-product, defined by taking the least value the product is not forced to be — the same manoeuvre as the mex rule, applied to a product rather than to a move. The result is that these values are not merely a group under nim-addition but a field: every axiom is checked over the whole table here, including an inverse for every non-zero value, and the sizes at which the axioms fail are reported rather than avoided.

The nimbers multiply

Nim-addition is exclusive-or and everybody meets it first. There is also a multiplication, defined by the same take-the-least-value-not-forced manoeuvre as the mex — and it makes the nimbers below sixteen a field, with every axiom checked here and an inverse for every non-zero value.

impartial · Nim Mock Turtles on 8 coins: every lost position. The rows a player to move has already lost, drawn in full. A filled disc is a coin showing heads. The set is closed under turning over every coin two of its members disagree about, which is what makes it a linear code, and the count of heads in the sparsest of them is the fewest coin turns that separate two lost positions.

The losing positions are a code

Turn over one, two or three coins, and the rows a player has already lost turn out to be closed under adding two of them together. That makes them a linear code — and on eight coins it is the extended Hamming code exactly, sixteen words with a weight enumerator of 1 + 14x⁴ + x⁸, produced by a move rule that knows nothing about codes.

impartial · Codes What a finite closed company is made of. The finite closed companies found by the search, counted by the properties they share. Every one of them consists of games equal to their own negatives and has a size that is a power of two, and not all of them are made of nimbers.

The company that is closed

Restricted equality licenses substitution only inside a company closed under addition, and none of the five companies this site computes in is closed — day two keeps a quarter of its own sums. Searching for companies that are closed finds seven, at one, two, four and eight members, and every member of every one of them is its own negative.

limits · Universes Thirty-two words, four of them lost. Every position of five heaps grouped by the parities of its heaps in decreasing order of size. Each word is uniform, and four of the thirty-two are losing.

The parities, in size order

The rung below settled four of six parity classes in bounded Moore's Nim and asked whether the sizes pick out the losing positions in the two it could not. They do — but only through the order they put the parities in. Sort the heaps largest first, read off their parities, and that five-bit word settles the whole game at every width of move, with the losing words forming a subspace.

impartial · Moores-nim A gap that widens without bound. Both savings as the number of components grows, enumerated where possible and given by the closed forms beyond.

One half multiplies, the other adds

The rung below priced the two halves of a substitution licence on sums of two Cram boards and predicted that the first half's saving would grow with the number of components while the second's would not. It is right, and both halves have closed forms: the component licence saves s^(k−1)/k and the subposition licence k·s over a shape count that never moves.

limits · Universes The genus of Kayles ·77, heap by heap. One row per heap: the genus symbol, the misère outcome it implies, and whether the symbol is one a Nim heap has. A game all of whose positions are tame is played in a misère sum exactly as Nim is; a single wild heap ends that, and the normal-play Grundy value gives no warning of which heaps those will be.

Closing the wild side

The twenty-two wild genus symbols are not closed under addition, and the rung below offered two answers: a monoid nobody had guessed, or no algebra at any size. Neither. Five of the six games with wild heaps close at three or four heaps, with closures of two to five symbols, and the sixth is still growing.

limits · Genus The condition has to hold underneath, not on top. Pairs of coin rows sorted by where the incentive condition holds, with Milnor's bound checked on each pair. Rows that satisfy the condition at every subposition never break the bound. Rows that satisfy it only at the top break it on a counted fraction — and a reader who tested the row rather than the row's insides would have called those safe. The distinction is invisible from the position and decides whether the theorem applies to it.

A hypothesis has to hold all the way down

Milnor's bound is proved by induction over the play, so the condition it needs has to hold at every position the play can reach. Checked on the row instead, ninety-two pairs pass the test and twenty-four of them break the bound. Checked at every subposition, twenty-eight pairs pass and none breaks it.

applied · Scoring Two solutions to one set of equations. The winning condition written as a single predicate and solved twice: once as the least solution of its own equations and once as the greatest. The least says Left can force a win; the greatest says Left cannot be forced to lose, which admits the positions where Left can keep the game going for ever. On a graph with no cycle in it the two coincide and the equations determine an answer. Where they differ, the difference is exactly the set the backward propagation never reaches — so a draw is not a leftover of the algorithm, it is the equations failing to have one answer.

The gap between two answers

A draw is usually described as what the backward labelling never reached, which makes it sound like a shortfall of the algorithm. Written as one predicate the winning condition is an equation, the equation is monotone, and it has a least solution and a greatest one — and the set the two disagree about is exactly the drawn set, on every game checked.

history · Determinacy A game every play of which ends, and no round settles. A game whose first move chooses how long the game will be, cut off at several sizes. Every play of it is finite and no position is drawn, so the fourth outcome class has nothing to do with what goes wrong. What goes wrong is the round counter: the opening is a loss, a loss settles only when the last of its options is known, and there is no last option. Cut the game off larger and the round grows, so no number in the column is the answer for the untruncated game — and the induction that labels it has to run past every finite stage.

Every play ends and no round settles

Take the finiteness hypothesis away carefully — not by adding a cycle, which has already been priced twice, but by adding infinitely many positions to a game every play of which still ends. Nothing is drawn, every line finishes, and the round the opening settles in grows with every cut: two, four, six, eight, twelve, sixteen, and no number in the column is the answer.

history · Determinacy How far a description of that kind could ever have gone. Subtraction games sorted by whether a Bouton-style column criterion describes their losing positions. His test reads the heap sizes in binary and counts the marks in each column, which works exactly when a heap's value is a function of its own bits — and that is true of a small minority of the family. Below it, the weaker readings: a criterion on the low bits, and a sequence that merely repeats. The method itself is available for every game and says nothing; what 1901 supplied was a set with a description shorter than the game.

A set with a short description

Bouton's argument is a closure argument about a set, and every impartial game has such a set — its own losing positions. So the method is complete and proves nothing. What made 1901 a theorem is that his set had a description shorter than the game, and swept over fifty-six subtraction games, exactly seven have one of his kind.

history · Bouton A vocabulary that is not closed under its own arithmetic. Every pair of named values added together, with the answer sorted by whether it has a name. The named vocabulary covers every game born by day two and one in twenty-three born by day three, and coverage is the wrong measurement: the notation exists so that positions can be added. A sixth of the sums of two named values at day three cannot be written without opening a brace, and the first one to escape is a sum of two of the symbols anybody learns first.

Two names that add to nothing nameable

The special symbols reach one game in twenty-three at day three. Coverage is the wrong measurement. The notation exists so that positions can be added, and a sixth of the sums of two named values at day three cannot be written without opening a brace — starting with a sum of two of the six symbols anybody learns first.

history · Notation Writing a board as a sum, and as the value it is. Every sum of two, three and four games born by day two, written as the parts joined by plus signs and as the single value the sum equals, with the number of distinct values, the share that can be written without a brace, the share longer as one value than as a sum, the middle length each way and the longest single value. The single value is shorter in the middle and far longer at the top, and needs a brace more often the more parts there are.

A board is written as a sum

Every measurement of the brace notation so far has been of a single position, and nobody writes a single position. A board is several parts, and it can be written as the parts joined by plus signs or as the one value they add up to. Over every sum of up to four games born by day two, the one value is usually the shorter — and the share of boards that need a brace climbs with every part added, until the longest value is four times its sum.

history · Notation The tree of {a and b and c}, and the states it costs. The Zielonka tree of one winning condition on which positions a never-ending play recurs at. The root is the whole set of positions; the children of a node are the largest subsets the condition judges the other way. The number of memory states a winner needs is read back up the tree by adding at accepted nodes and taking the largest at rejected ones, and this condition costs 3.

Two things to hold at once, or three

Whether a condition makes a winner remember has been settled over every condition on three positions; how much it makes them remember has not. A tree built out of the condition alone, with no board in it anywhere, prices all 128: sixty-one cost nothing, fifty-eight cost two states and nine cost three. It also names the property that was nearly right — closure under union of the sets a condition rejects decides it exactly, where being writable as numbers is sufficient and reaches twenty-six.

history · Determinacy Bouton's argument, indexed by a value. Bouton's two closure properties stated for every Grundy value rather than for nought alone: no move stays inside a value class, and every class above a value can reach it. Checked on each game and each value in range.

The picture Bouton's proof leaves behind

His argument is two closure properties of one set, and the Sprague–Grundy theorem is the same two sentences with nought replaced by a variable — checked here on five games and every value in range, with no move staying inside a class and no class failing to be reachable from above. What the argument also leaves behind is a picture in which the values descend, and that is false: 99 of 444 moves here raise a value, and none of them is in Nim.

history · Bouton

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Exhaustive searchEnumerationGrundy valueNimDisjunctive sumInductionNim-sumBoutonCanonical formCounterexampleDeterminacyDraw

All concepts