Combinatorial Game Theory
who wins, and by how much
Concept

Game length — where it appears

How many moves a play takes, which a value says nothing about and which decides a race rather than a sum. Remoteness is the quantity that measures it under best play, with the two players pulling in opposite directions.

Named by 7 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Two ways to be certain and ignorant at once. Ten positions from two games that both terminate for reasons no bound comes out of. Sylver Coinage's proof counts something that goes down and can be counted; the hydra's counts an ordinal, which cannot, and the last column shows what that difference is worth.

Two ways to end with no bound

Sylver Coinage and the hydra are both guaranteed to finish and neither will say when. The difference is that one of them carries its own bound: every move in Sylver removes at least one gap, the gaps can be counted in a moment, and over ten openings the longest play uses every single one. The hydra has no decreasing quantity a solver can hold — three hydras of five nodes each take seven chops, twenty-one, and a number past two hundred and seventy-nine that this machine never reaches.

limits · Termination Two numbers from the same tree. Four subtraction games, each with its Grundy sequence and its remoteness sequence. The Grundy value decides a disjunctive sum and the remoteness decides a conjunctive one; the only thing they always agree about is which heaps are losses for the player to move.

How long it lasts

Move in every component at once and the game ends the moment any one of them does. Grundy values say nothing about that game; what decides it is the remoteness, a second number computed from the same tree that measures how long a component can be made to last. Over 2,268 positions the rule is right every time, and the two numbers determine each other in neither direction.

sums · Remoteness The number nobody needs. The shortened selective compound — move in any non-empty set of components, and the game stops as soon as any one component stops — solved directly on 1,176 three-heap positions across four subtraction sets, with four predictions beside it. The suspense number was introduced for this compound and it is right; so are three cheaper things, and the shortening leaves the winner unchanged.

The number nobody needs

The compound theory carries a third quantity — the suspense number — computed by the remoteness recursion with both preferences reversed, for the compound that stops as soon as any component stops. It governs that compound correctly. So does remoteness, so does the plain Grundy value, and the shortening does not change the winner on any of 1,176 positions.

sums · Remoteness Four rules, asked of compounds made of two different games. Compounds whose two components come from different subtraction games, solved in full and compared with what each rule predicts. The three rules the compound theory supplies are exact on every position; the shortcut a reader carries instead is not.

A compound of two different games

Every rule the compound theory has survives mixing exactly — the minimum-remoteness rule is right on all 5,184 mixed pairs and all 7,560 triples — and the reason is not that the rules are strong. It is that each of them reads one number per component, and a number does not remember which ruleset produced it. The thing mixing damages is the shortcut a reader carries instead.

sums · Remoteness How long a win takes, against how long the argument allows. Ordinary impartial games with the size of their position graphs, the number of rounds the backward labelling takes, and the number of moves the longest win actually lasts. The round a position settles in is the length of the play from it, which is computed here a second way so the two must agree. The rounds are a handful and the positions are many, which is the gap Zermelo's 1913 paper is about — his question was how many moves a forced win needs, and the answer he could prove was the size of the whole graph.

The paper was about how long

Zermelo's 1913 paper is remembered for a theorem it proves in passing. The question it actually asks is how many moves a forced win takes, the answer it can prove is the size of the whole position graph, and the round counter in the procedure is the real answer — a quantity nobody named for another forty years.

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 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

Named alongside it

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

Exhaustive searchRemotenessBoundConjunctive compoundGrundy valueInductionOutcome classParitySelective compoundSubtraction gameSuspense numberTermination

All concepts