Combinatorial Game Theory
who wins, and by how much
Concept

Counting — where it appears

Answering a question by enumerating every case rather than by an argument, which is what a small board permits and what a theorem replaces. A count settles exactly what it covers and nothing beyond it, so the range swept is stated wherever a count is quoted.

Named by 13 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

What survives being added. The packing count and the packing interval on boards of one to four regions. The count is exact on 45 per cent of single regions and 11 per cent of four-region boards; the interval contains the value 67 per cent and 74 per cent of the time.

Two errors that cancel

Replacing the packing count with an interval left a doubt that the pessimistic half would add across a board. It adds, for a one-line reason. What is worth measuring is what the reading is then worth: over boards of one to four regions the count decays from exact on 45 per cent to exact on 11, and the interval's containment does not decay at all — it rises from 67 per cent to 74, because the interval's width adds and its error does not.

positions · Domineering 6 turns in strict alternation, priced. One quantifier prefix taken apart into its blocks, with the size of a winning strategy computed a term at a time. A choice made after k of the opponent's turns has to be written down once for each of the 2^k lines the opponent can produce, so the total depends on where the opponent's turns sit and not merely on how many there are.

Twelve turns, and three different prices

The earlier essay prices a universal quantifier at a doubling and leaves it there. Twelve turns with six of them the opponent's cost 6, 63 or 384 decisions to write down, depending on nothing but the order the turns come in — and the cheap arrangements are cheap for only one of the two players. What a claim costs is the number of times the choosing changes hands.

complexity · Alternation A turn is not a bit. The number of turns a game lasts, beside the number of quantified bits those turns amount to. Each ply is measured over the positions actually reachable at it rather than along one line, and the bits are the logarithm of the branching, which is what a quantifier prefix would need one of.

A turn is not a bit

The prefix a game is read as gives each player one quantifier a turn, and a turn on a board is a choice among however many moves there are. Nim on heaps of 3, 4 and 5 lasts twelve moves and carries 23.6 bits of choice; a Toads and Frogs strip lasts eleven and carries two. Corrected for that, the model predicts a strategy 539 times too large on one board and 67 times too small on another, and the two failures have different causes.

complexity · Alternation The same number, from a rule that needs no tie-break. The number computed twice: once as the critical share of a pot under the auction, and once as the probability that Left wins when a fair coin decides who moves at each turn. They agree on every position, and only the second derivation survives being played out.

A coin needs no tie-break

The same recursion has a second derivation: a fair coin decides who moves at each turn, a player whose turn it is with no move has lost, and both play to win. Written from those rules it comes out identical on every position — and it needs no rule for equal bids, because there are no bids. The number is a probability, it belongs to Left rather than Right, and the empty position is the one where the coin decides everything.

limits · Bidding A position Left always wins, and not always. Values grouped by the outcome class alternating play assigns them, with the range of probabilities the coin gives Left inside each class. A class that alternating play calls a win for Left every time holds no position the coin makes certain.

Left always wins, and loses more often than not

Alternating play answers with one of four classes and the coin answers with a chance, and the two do not have to agree. Over the twenty-two values born by day two they never disagree and the margin is exactly nothing — the lowest chance on a position Left wins whoever moves is a half. Over the 1,474 born by day three, seven of them sit at seven sixteenths, and seven mirror them on the other side.

limits · Bidding Every chance the coin gives, by day 2. The probabilities the coin produces over all the values born by a given day, drawn on the unit interval. They fall on a grid of dyadic fractions, every interior point of it is reached, and the two ends never are — so no position is ever a certainty under random turns.

Every chance but a certainty

The coin's number lands on a grid of dyadic fractions, and which points of that grid arrive is a count rather than a guess. Over the 1,474 values born by day three it reaches every one of the fifteen interior sixteenths and neither end — no position is ever certain. The groups sharing a chance run 1, 2, 4, 8 on the small pool, which looks like doubling, and 1, 2, 4, 20 on the large one, which is not.

limits · Bidding What the flip is worth, and what is at stake. Left's chances if Left moves and if Right moves, with the gap between them beside the position's temperature. The two are answers to the same question computed by different routes, and they do not order the positions the same way.

The coldest position has the biggest swing

How much a flip is worth is the gap between the coin's two branches, and it is a rival to the temperature — both answer how much is at stake. They disagree at once: the empty position has the lowest temperature there is and a swing of one, twice the hottest thing born on day two. On the small pool the two quantities look like a perfect three-way correspondence, and 255 of day three's values break it.

limits · Bidding The coin's move is often a blunder. Positions where Left has a choice and at least one option wins under alternating play, with how often the option maximising Left's chance under random turns is an option that loses the alternating game outright.

The best chance is the wrong move

Maximising a probability and denying an opponent a reply are different objectives, and on 189 of the 904 day-three positions where Left has a choice and a winning move, the option the coin prefers is one that loses the alternating game outright. The smallest case is two options and one line of arithmetic: five eighths beats a half, and a half is the move that wins.

limits · Bidding How much of a board the endgame theory reaches. Every subset of a board's strings, counted by whether the surviving coins fall into chains and loops. The share is taken over the positions with no free box on the table, since a position with a capture available is one a player takes rather than chooses from.

The endgame theory arrives late

Every component the chain-and-loop theory names has coins of degree two, so a position it can read is one where every surviving coin holds exactly two strings. Over a six-box board that is 1,033 of the 28,028 positions with no free box on the table — 3.7 per cent — and more than half of them only after twelve of the board's seventeen strings have been cut.

applied · Dots and Boxes What control is worth, to a box. The margin the player who does not have to open nets, beside the formula that predicts it: the total less four boxes for every long chain after the first. Computed against the solver on every endgame of long chains in range.

Four boxes for every chain after the first

Nimstring answers who is forced to open and says nothing about the score. The margin has a formula: the controller nets the total less four boxes for every long chain after the first — two surrendered and two not taken, each time control is kept. Checked against the solver on 175 endgames it is exact on 172, never too generous, and exact wherever it promises the controller anything at all. The three it misses are the three where it promises nothing.

applied · Dots and Boxes The fee the geometry charges. The same endgames solved with the cost of declining changed. Two boxes on a chain and four on a loop are what a single cut and a pair of cuts complete; altering them changes the winner of a large share of positions, which is what says the law depends on them.

Two and four are not conventions

Declining costs two boxes on a chain and four on a loop, and those numbers are read off the geometry rather than chosen: one cut completes the last two boxes of a chain and two cuts complete the last four of a loop. Solved again with the fee changed, 418 endgames give a different winner on up to a third of themselves — so the endgame's law is a law about the fee as much as about the shapes, and the fee is not a free parameter.

applied · Dots and Boxes Every region of three positions, counted. The 262,144 graphs on three positions reduced to the regions that are genuinely three positions with a cycle in them, and then split by whether the two-position vocabulary has a name for both of their sides.

Four thousand nine hundred regions with no name

Two positions give 256 regions and ten names cover every side of all of them. Three positions give 262,144 graphs, 110,934 genuine loopy regions — and 4,931 of those have a side that no name in the two-position vocabulary reproduces, with 3,990 of them named on one side and blank on the other. The count the earlier essay left open comes back in the affirmative.

history · Notation The guess, and what it covered. Two attempts to name the leftover sides out of the old vocabulary: every pair of the six stoppers, and every two-position region that is a stopper, each with small finite games added. Both cover nothing, and the count of distinct leftovers is what remains.

The names are not built out of the old ones

The guess was that a three-position region's missing names would be sums of two loopy ones — on plus over, and that family. Built and tried, every pair of the six stoppers covers none of the 4,931 regions that need one, and so does every two-position stopper there is, all seventy-nine of them with small games added. Thirteen names have to be invented, and forty-eight cover the whole census against ten at two positions.

history · Notation

Named alongside it

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

Exhaustive searchAlternationOutcome classComparisonComponentDay threeDecompositionDeterminacyEnumerationNormal playCounterexampleDay two

All concepts