Combinatorial Game Theory
who wins, and by how much
Concept

Fixed point — where it appears

A place where a process stops changing anything, which is where the backward labelling of a loopy game halts. Reaching one is what replaces the recursion when play may not end, and it answers a smaller question than the recursion did.

Named by 12 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A position that comes back. Three positions whose moves lead round in a circle. Every value in this subject is defined by recursion on the options, and that recursion assumes play ends — here it need not, so the definition has nothing to stand on and the outcome may be a draw, which normal-play theory has no name for.

Loopy 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.

limits · Loopy 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 on + off: 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.

One part that never ends

The game called `on` has one move and it is back to itself. Add anything to it — a star, a point, its own mirror image — and the whole board is drawn. So `off` is exactly the negative of `on` and their sum is not zero, which is the group law failing for a reason that has nothing to do with who is winning.

limits · Loopy Two operators that undo the same tax. Heating leaves every number alone; the warming operator leaves every number alone except an integer, which comes back with a star on it. That single clause is the whole difference between them, and it is what the Go endgame literature needs, because a chilled integer is usually a fight that has been frozen. The rows shown are the ones whose four entries fit in sixteen characters — a warmed day-three value runs to fifty-two, and the clause is legible only in the short ones.

The operator that puts the star back

Chilling is not invertible: it freezes, and 400 values born by day three collapse onto 29. Both heating and Norton's warming operator are exact right inverses of it — each lands back where it started, on all 400 — and they pick different preimages, differing on 396 of them and differing by exactly a star on 335. The clause that separates them is one line long and it is about the integers.

temperature · Chilling The reduction that puts options back. How the two reductions change the width of a form. Domination only ever removes an option. Bypassing a reversible option substitutes the answer's whole option list, so it can leave the form wider than it started — and the finished canonical form can be wider than the form it came from.

The reduction that puts options back

Canonical form is presented as simplification, and half of it is. Deleting a dominated option takes one away. Bypassing a reversible one substitutes the answer's whole option list, so it can leave the form wider than it started — and 60 of 32,428 forms end up with a canonical form wider than they are.

values · Reversibility How many options a value needs. The canonical form is the smallest form of its value, so the number of options it carries is a property of the value. Three days of the construction, with the widths that occur and the widest value of each.

How wide a form can get

Bypassing a reversible option replaces it with a whole option list, so a form grows in the middle of its own reduction. Whether it can come out wider than it went in is the question that leaves standing, and over 64,515 forms built from day-two options the answer is no, not once — the growth is real, it is transient, and the widest canonical form reached is exactly as wide as the widest form that reaches it.

values · Reversibility 7 symmetries, and the one that is a strategy. 4 games and 7 candidate symmetries, each tested by playing the strategy out against every opponent line rather than by argument. A pairing strategy needs a map that fixes the start, is an involution, and carries one player's moves to the other's — and the last condition is where most of these fail.

The strategy that is a symmetry

A pairing strategy is a symmetry of the board that turns one player's moves into the other's, and it wins without computing anything. Tested by playing it out rather than argued, it wins one of seven candidate symmetries across four games — exactly the Cram boards with both sides even, which is exactly where no domino is its own image.

impartial · Pairing 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 shuttle and a loop, judged by what the play returns to. A three-node loopy game drawn as a graph, with Left's moves in blue, Right's in red and position a marked. Beside it, each position-and-mover pair under the backward labelling and under the rule that a never-ending play goes to Left when it returns to a infinitely often. Four pairs are drawn by the labelling; the new rule gives two to Left and two to Right and leaves the decided pairs as they were.

What the play keeps coming back to

A draw is what the backward labelling never reaches, and handing every never-ending play to one player turns the draws into wins wholesale. Judge an infinite play instead by what it keeps returning to, and every draw gets a winner of its own: over the 262,144 three-node games, 15,432 send some of their draws to one player and some to the other, which no wholesale rule can do. Finding those winners takes a fixed point inside a fixed point.

history · Determinacy A hub with two spokes, and the bit of memory it needs. A three-node loopy game in which Left, at a hub, chooses between two spokes and Right must return from either. Left wins a never-ending play that passes through both spokes infinitely often. With one bit of memory recording which spoke is owed, Left wins from the hub; with a strategy that depends only on the position, Left always takes the same spoke and loses. Three position-and-mover pairs change hands.

One bit of memory

Judge an infinite play by whether one position keeps recurring and every winner can play from a table of one move per position, with nothing remembered. Ask for two positions to keep recurring and that stops being true. At a hub with two spokes a player has to alternate, and a table cannot alternate: over every three-node game, 49,487 position-and-mover pairs are won with one bit of memory and lost without it.

history · Determinacy Which conditions make a winner remember. Every condition on which set of three positions a never-ending play keeps returning to, grouped by two properties of the condition alone, against the arenas swept. 32 of 128 conditions have an arena Left wins and cannot win from a table of one move per position; 19 of those are closed under union.

The rule decides who has to remember

Whether a winner needs memory is a property of the winning condition and not of the board, and the property everybody reaches for is the wrong one. Of the 128 conditions on which of three positions a play keeps returning to, 32 demand memory and 19 of those are closed under union. What separates them is measured two independent ways and the two agree on all 128: a condition needs no memory exactly when it can be rewritten as a number on each position.

history · Determinacy 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

Named alongside it

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

Exhaustive searchDrawLoopyPosition graphDeterminacyOutcome classStrategyTerminationAlternationCanonical formCounterexampleNormal play

All concepts