Combinatorial Game Theory
who wins, and by how much
Concept

Error term — where it appears

What a summary leaves out, which here is a game with its own temperature rather than a small number. It stays bounded and gets steadily more complicated, so a summary that reports only its size has thrown away what it is.

Named by 16 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The endgame, accounted for. Several independent regions, each a fight with a settled value and a size. The account plays them hottest first: add up what each is worth on average, then add the largest amount at stake, subtract the next, and so on down. The exact value of the whole position is computed beside it, and the figure prints both.

The endgame, accounted for

Add up what each region is worth, then add the biggest thing at stake, subtract the next, and so on down. On a board of simple fights the result is exact — and the moment one region has a fight inside it, the account is out by a point.

temperature · Thermograph {2 | 0}, added to itself. The value of n copies of one position, for each n, beside n times its mean and the smallest distance between the two. The mean value theorem says that distance stays bounded however many copies are piled up — and the bound is the position's temperature, which is what makes the temperature a second genuine measurement rather than a diagram-reading convenience.

The same fight, eight times over

The mean is not roughly what a position is worth. It is the number that eight copies of the position stay close to — and the theorem is that the closeness does not decay as the copies pile up. The gap stops at the temperature, and stays there for ever.

temperature · Temperature A game where the last move decides nothing. Rows of coins taken from either end, with the exact score for each side moving first. Under the normal-play convention this family is settled entirely by the parity of the row — nobody is ever without a move until the coins run out — so normal-play theory returns the same answer for every row and it is not the answer anybody wants. The scoring answer depends on nothing but the numbers.

Counting at the end changes everything

Go is scored. So are Dots and Boxes, chess and almost everything anybody plays for money — and none of them is the kind of game this site's whole apparatus is built for. The simplest scoring game there is shows what that costs — the normal-play theory gives every position of it the same answer, and the answer is useless.

applied · Scoring {4 | 0} played out in a stack of 5 coupons. An idealised environment: coupons worth a fixed step less each, which either player may take instead of moving in the game. The rows are the line optimal play takes over the whole board, in order. What the game turned out to be worth is set beside its mean value, and the coupon the players stopped at beside its temperature — two quantities measured from the play, and two computed from the thermograph.

An environment made of coupons

Beside the game sits a stack of coupons worth 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, and a player may always take the top one instead of moving. Play the whole thing out and two quantities the theory computes are measured instead: {4 | 0} comes out worth exactly 2, its mean value, and the coupons stop at 2, its temperature. For {10 | {9 | 1}}, whose temperature is 1, they stop at 7/2 — because what the stopping coupon measures is the hottest temperature anywhere in the tree.

temperature · Coupons What a deeper position does to the shape. Thermographs side by side, two of them, with temperature running up each panel and value across it: {{6 | 2} | {1 | −3}}, with a bend where an option's own fight cools out; {4 | −1}, straight-walled. A wall that runs straight has nothing changing hands below the meeting point; a bend is an option's own fight cooling out at a lower temperature than this position's, and it is where a decision passes from one player to the other. The two marks on each base line are the stops — what each player gets by moving first with no tax charged.

The switch a player is imagining

Every account of a hot position ends up as "worth about m, and worth t to move in", which is the switch {m+t | m−t}. For a plain fight that summary is the position exactly. For a fight with anything behind it the leftover is not a rounding error — on one position here it is a whole second fight of temperature two.

values · Switches 4 | 0 and {2 | {1 | 0}} in the same environment. Two positions and one coupon stack, solved as a single board. The rows are the line optimal play takes; the coupon on top when each position is first entered is compared with the coupon it was entered at when it had the environment to itself. The mean contributions still add and the entry coupons need not agree.

Two games in one environment

A coupon stack measures a position: play the whole board out and the coupon the players stop at is the temperature, the score is the mean. Put a second position beside the first and one of the two measurements stops working. Over 36 ordered pairs the contributions still add to the means every time, and the coupon a fight is entered at moves on 13 of them — without either position changing.

temperature · Coupons What the rule costs. Every sum of three components from a fixed pool, played out twice: once with one side following the rule "move where the stake is largest" and once with both sides evaluating exactly. The rule is not optimal, the gap is bounded, and the bound is the largest temperature on the board.

A rule with a guarantee

Evaluating a sum of a dozen fights is impossible; following a rule is not. Move where the stake is largest, and over 220 sums of three hot components the rule scores exactly what perfect play scores in 196 of them, is never more than one point behind, and never ends more than the largest single stake below the mean. The rule that is supposed to be different — answer the threat — chose differently in none of the 220.

temperature · Strategy Which of the two operators distributes over a sum. Cooling and heating, each asked whether applying it to a sum is the same as applying it to the parts and adding. The pools are the values born by day two and a set of deliberately hot positions; the counts are of ordered pairs.

Cooling adds and heating does not

The two operators are presented as a pair, and they are not one. Cooling a sum is the same as cooling the parts and adding, on every one of the 1,768 pairs tried, at two taxes and on two pools. Heating fails on 263 — and not for the obvious reason: in every failure neither part and not the sum is a number, so the clause exempting numbers never fires at the top. It fires two levels down, where an option of a sum is one part's option plus the whole of the other.

temperature · Heating Four rules over 220 sums. Each rule plays every sum against an opponent evaluating exactly. Two of the rules come with a bound and two do not; the coldest rule is the control, and it violates the bound often enough to show that being inside it is a real constraint rather than a description of the pool.

A rule with no promise at all

Playing in a hottest component comes with a bound: never more than the largest single temperature below the mean of the board. Over 220 sums the bound holds 220 times — and so does the bound for a rule with nothing behind it, which scores exactly what perfect play scores on 205 sums against the hottest rule's 196. The control that shows the bound is doing work is the rule that plays the coldest component, which breaks it 74 times and loses up to eleven points.

temperature · Strategy Four candidate bounds, and the one that holds. Each candidate bound tested against every failing cut. One domino and the height of the cut both fail on six; twice the height holds on all twenty-two; the whole board's temperature fails on eighteen.

How wrong a nearly-independent split is

Treating a connected board as a sum of two halves is a claim, and the rung below counted how often it fails. This one prices it: over every vertical cut of every small Domineering rectangle the error is a game rather than a number, it is never in Right's favour, and it is bounded below by twice the height of the cut — a bound the height alone does not supply.

sums · Disjunctive sum The wall as an envelope. A thermograph with each option's contribution to its wall drawn over it, built from that option's two stops alone. The wall is the envelope of those contributions and it bends where the envelope has a corner.

The bend is in the stops

The rung below reduced the whole stop reading to one question — does this wall bend? — and asked whether that could be answered from the options' stops instead of from a diagram. It can, in four lines, and it gives more than the bend: on all 1,459 non-number values born by day three the options' stops determine the entire thermograph. One day deeper it breaks, and every failure is a value with a bent-walled option.

values · Switches A plateau, not a point. The rule's score as the coefficient is varied on a fine grid. It is constant across the open unit interval and drops at exactly one.

The worst value in its own interval

The rung below scored a component by its temperature less its hottest answer's and asked what rate the answer should really be charged at. Every weight strictly between nought and one scores the same and beats the rung below's choice of one at every board size — because a ranking rule's score is a step function of its own coefficient, and one is exactly where two components tie.

temperature · Coupons One quantity, two currencies. Each bent value with how far its temperature falls short of its stop reading and how far its stop falls short of the translation bound. The second is exactly twice the first.

The same number in two currencies

The rung below found bent-walled values falling strictly inside the translation bound and asked how far. The shortfall is the value's own hottest follow-up's temperature — exactly, on 400 of 408 pairs, and twice it on the other eight — which makes the whole error one expression. And it is the switches ladder's constant: a half there and a whole here, because a temperature is half a stop gap.

sums · Translation What a pass buys, and what it costs. Rows of coins solved with and without a pass. Milnor's mean-value theory needs a non-negative incentive to move, and rows containing a coin nobody wants break that condition — a player forced to take is a player who would rather have passed. Allow a pass and the condition is not merely satisfied but unbreakable, on every row in range. The price is that a player who may pass is never stuck, so the last-move convention has nothing to attach to and the game needs a separate rule to end at all.

What a pass is worth to a theory

The rung below finds fifteen of twenty-seven coin rows where having the move is a disadvantage, and those are exactly the rows Milnor's mean-value theory has to assume away. Allow a pass and the hypothesis stops being a hypothesis — nought violations, on every row in range. What it costs is the convention the rest of this site is built on.

applied · Scoring 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 One more row, and the correction comes back. Dawson's diagram of three files beside a row of one, then two, then three, each drawn with the difference between the whole board's value and the sum of its rows. The correction is ∗2, then 0, then ∗2: adding a row removes it and adding another restores it.

A difference the rows cannot predict

The diagrams that are not the sum of their rows have been counted and never priced. Priced over 50 diagrams and 63,408,981 positions, the difference takes three values and is a function of nothing a reader can see: seven diagrams whose rows are worth ∗ and ∗ split five to two on it, the third value arrives only at the ninth file, and the one rule that survives is a parity — all twenty-one diagrams of three, five and seven rows add, and every failure carries an even number of rows.

history · Dawson

Named alongside it

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

TemperatureMean valueDisjunctive sumExhaustive searchHot gameThermographAdditivityFollow-upSenteStopsSwitchApproximation

All concepts