Combinatorial Game Theory
who wins, and by how much
Concept

Moores-nim — where it appears

Nim with a move allowed to take from up to a fixed number of heaps at once. Moore's rule answers it exactly — every binary column must sum to nought modulo one more than that number — and bounding the amount taken breaks the rule completely.

Named by 6 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Moore's Nim with k = 2: the columns, divided by 3. The heap sizes in binary, with each column added as an ordinary sum rather than exclusive-or. In Moore's Nim a move may take from as many as k heaps at once, and the position is lost for the player to move exactly when every column sum is divisible by k + 1. Ordinary Nim is k = 1, where divisible by two means an even number of ones — the same picture with a different divisor.

Taking from several heaps at once

Moore's Nim lets a move take from as many as k heaps at a time, and the losing positions are still read off the binary columns — divisible by k + 1 rather than by two. The rule agrees with exhaustive search over 54,264 positions and never disagrees, and it decides every outcome while supplying no value at all: reading the same columns as a base-3 number gets the Grundy value right on 42 of 330 positions.

impartial · Moores-nim Sorted by how many heaps are odd. The 2,002 positions of the census grouped by how many of their heaps hold an odd number of counters. Four of the six groups are entirely lost or entirely won.

The count of odd heaps

The rung below refused a family of two-part rules for bounded Moore's Nim and asked what the 364 losing positions have in common as a set. They have an invariant, and it is a statistic of the whole position rather than of a heap: how many heaps hold an odd number. Every all-even position is lost, at every width of move, by a restoring strategy — and the count settles every position at one heap a move and at four, and a little over half at two.

impartial · Moores-nim Thirty-two words, four of them lost. Every position of five heaps grouped by the parities of its heaps in decreasing order of size. Each word is uniform, and four of the thirty-two are losing.

The parities, in size order

The rung below settled four of six parity classes in bounded Moore's Nim and asked whether the sizes pick out the losing positions in the two it could not. They do — but only through the order they put the parities in. Sort the heaps largest first, read off their parities, and that five-bit word settles the whole game at every width of move, with the losing words forming a subspace.

impartial · Moores-nim Four conditions. The four linear conditions whose kernels are the losing sets, with the cases each covers.

The parameter was the difference

The losing words of bounded Moore's Nim form a linear subspace and no map was known whose kernel they are. The equations exist, four conditions cover all thirteen cases at three to six heaps, and they are indexed not by the heap count but by the heaps less the width of a move — which turns the failure at six heaps into a prediction about seven.

impartial · Moores-nim Five of six. The six predictions made for seven heaps by the difference reading, each scored against the sweep that was declined at the time.

The family with two witnesses

Six predictions about seven heaps were written down and deliberately not run. Five of them held. The one that broke is the condition that had been checked against two cases when it was proposed — the fewest of the four — and at seven heaps it does not merely give the wrong answer, it asks a question the parity word has stopped being able to answer.

impartial · Moores-nim Three complete solutions, each asked about the others. Bouton's 1901 criterion for Nim, Wythoff's 1907 description of his own cold positions, Moore's 1910 rule for taking from several heaps, and the Grundy criterion that arrived thirty years later, each checked against the truth on every position of four games. Every one of the old criteria is exact about its own game and wrong about the others. The blanks matter more than the numbers: Wythoff's is a description of a pair and has no form for three heaps at all, and the Grundy criterion has no form for a game whose moves touch several heaps at once.

Three complete solutions in nine years

Bouton in 1901, Wythoff in 1907, Moore in 1910 — three airtight solutions of three games, all published before there was any theory of games at all. Asked about each other's games they all fail, and two of them fail by being wrong while one fails by having no form for the question. Only the last kind of failure decides anything.

history · Bouton

Named alongside it

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

ImpartialInvariantNimEnumerationNormal playParityBoutonCounterexampleGrundy valueNim-sumDisjunctive sumExhaustive search

All concepts