Combinatorial Game Theory
who wins, and by how much
Concept

Decision — where it appears

A question with a yes-or-no answer, which is what deciding a game is once the value is set aside. Setting the value aside makes the question much cheaper, and the two questions have different complexities on the same position.

Named by 11 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

a loop with a way out: what the backward analysis settles. A position graph in which the moves can lead back to where they started. The labels are the order in which a backward analysis settles each position, starting from the ones where a player has already run out of moves. Positions the analysis never reaches are drawn — and there is no test for that; being unreachable is what a draw is.

Start at the end and work backwards

When play can return to where it started there is no bottom for the recursion to stand on. What replaces it begins at the positions where somebody has already lost and propagates outwards — and the positions it never reaches are exactly the draws. There is no test for a draw, and there does not need to be.

limits · Loopy Which part to move in. A sum, and every move one player has in it. Each row is a component, the option taken in it, and what the whole position becomes. The values of the parts say who wins; they do not say where to play, and the winning move here is in the component worth the least.

Which part to move in

The value of a sum is the sum of the values. The move in a sum is not the move in any part, and there is no rule that reads it off the values — in the smallest interesting example, the only winning move is in the component worth nothing.

sums · Disjunctive sum The same position, two conventions, two winners. Three-player Nim with the last counter winning. The two columns differ only in what a player does when they cannot win themselves, which is a question the rules do not answer — and the answer decides who wins.

Three players and no answer

Every theorem here is about two players, and the reason is not convenience. With two players the game is zero-sum, so 'play well' needs no further explanation. Add a third and the winner of a Nim position becomes a fact about the convention: two reasonable ones disagree on 56 of the 71 positions swept. The one question no convention touches — can a player force a win against the other two together — is answered 'nobody' in 65 of the 71.

limits · Multiplayer What the auction can and cannot see. Values under both conventions. The Richman value is the share of the money the second player needs; a half means the position itself decides nothing and whoever has more money wins. Every infinitesimal on the list, and zero with them, comes out at a half.

Nobody has to move

Every convention here rests on one sentence nobody examines — the players move alternately. Replace it with an auction and a position stops having an outcome class and starts having a number: the share of the money the second player needs. The 22 values born by day two collapse to seven of those numbers, eight of them landing on exactly a half; the new number respects the game order on all 179 comparable pairs, and is not determined by the parts under addition on 14 of 49.

limits · Bidding A thousand shapes, and twelve pairings. Cram on every connected shape of at most eight squares, with the search for a symmetry that answers each of the opponent’s moves. Every pairing found is a second-player win, most shapes have no involution at all, and the strategy accounts for a sixth of the second-player wins there are.

Looking for the symmetry

Answering every move with its mirror image wins Cram on a board with both sides even, which is the argument everybody meets. Asked of every connected shape of at most eight squares instead of of thirteen rectangles, it wins twelve — and accounts for a sixth of the second-player wins there are, because 852 of the 1,042 shapes have no symmetry to answer with in the first place.

impartial · Pairing Two failures, not one. The decisions a Domineering strategy has to store, split by what the two content rules do: answer them, name a worse placement, or leave two candidates standing.

Seventy-two of them were not silence

The rung below said its 181 unanswered decisions were all the rules falling silent and asked whether the position's value picks the placement once the geometry cannot. Seventy-two of the 181 are the rules speaking and being wrong, which is a different failure. On the 109 that really are silence, a rule chosen per value answers more than half — and the star class the rung below singled out is settled outright by leaving the younger position.

values · Tempo 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 How many turns are choices. Every position of each game with both sides to move, classified by whether the turn is a choice at all: no move, exactly one move, several moves that all lead to the same verdict, and several that do not. Only the last is a turn at which the alternation is doing any work.

Eleven moves and one decision

A prefix has one quantifier a turn, so a game of eleven moves is eleven alternations. Counted on the boards themselves, a Toads and Frogs strip of eleven moves has twenty-six turns with exactly one move available and one turn anywhere at which the choice changes the answer; a Clobber board has a hundred and fourteen turns and none. Nim, the game everybody calls solved, decides at four turns in five.

complexity · Alternation What the opponent's choosing is worth. Every position answered twice: against an opponent who searches, and against one following a fixed rule with no search in it. Only a loss can change, so the share is taken over the losses. The spread between games is the measurement — in one of them nearly every loss is recovered and in another none is.

The opponent stops choosing

Replace one player by a rule with no search in it and the question has one chooser left, which is a puzzle rather than a game. Nim recovers five of its six lost positions that way, and six of seven on three heaps of five. Domineering recovers six of a hundred and twenty-two while the fixed rule throws away a winning move eighty-eight times, and one Clobber board recovers none at all — because on that board no rule can misplay.

complexity · Alternation The money played out, and it never mattered. The bidding rule played move by move with a countable pool of chips, at every way of splitting it. The verdict is constant across the splits and opposite under the two ways of resolving equal bids, so what settles these positions is the tie-break rather than the money.

The auction never gets to the money

The critical fraction is computed and never played. Played out with a countable pool of chips — twelve positions, four pool sizes, every split of the chips, every bid answered — the verdict does not move with the money on a single one of the forty-eight sweeps, and the rule for equal bids settles all forty-eight. The reason is one line long: declining every auction wins, and bidding nothing declines.

limits · Bidding 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

Named alongside it

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

Exhaustive searchAlternationOutcome classNormal playStrategyDeterminacyInfinitesimalComplexityCounterexampleDomineeringDyadic rationalImpartial

All concepts