Combinatorial Game Theory
who wins, and by how much
Concept

Recursion — where it appears

Defining a position's answer from its options' answers, which is how every value here is computed and why play must end. It halts at a number, which is why an infinitesimal is invisible to every quantity computed this way.

Named by 16 essays across 6 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Poker Nim from 3, 5, 7, with reserves of 4 and 4. Nim with one extra kind of move: a player may put any number of counters back onto a heap from a private reserve. It looks as though a losing player could stall for ever. They cannot, and the winner is decided by exactly the same nim-sum as ordinary Nim — checked here over every position within a stated range rather than argued.

The condition the recursion rests on

Not that the moves run out, and not that the options are few. Poker Nim's heaps can grow without bound and it ends; the game called `on` has one option and never does. What every value on this site needs is that no infinite run of moves exists — and there are three separate ways to fail it.

limits · Termination The days this site can compute, and the ones it cannot. Zero on the first day, ±1 on the second, and thereafter the simplest number in every remaining gap — the construction run by the game recursion, which produces only fractions with a power of two underneath however long it goes on. Below it, three objects the same recursion reaches when the stopping rule is removed, each written with its option set and the exact reason this site's machinery cannot hold it. They are named rather than drawn, which is the honest half of a figure-first collection.

The numbers came out of the game

The construction is always taught numbers first and games second, and the discovery ran the other way. Conway arrived at the number system from positions, which is why the definition quantifies over sets of previously built objects rather than over cuts — and why it produces a genuinely different collection at every finite stage.

history · Numbers The thermograph of {6 | {5 | {4 | 0}}}. Temperature runs up the page and value across it. Each wall is where a player is willing to move once a tax of that much is charged per move; above the temperature at which they meet, neither wants to move and the position is worth its mean value. The height of the meeting point is what is at stake.

A thermograph is built from its options'

The diagram is not measured, it is computed — each wall is an extremum over the options' opposite walls, shifted by the tax. That construction is why a hot follow-up lowers the temperature instead of raising it, and why two fights with the same swing can differ by a factor of two in what is at stake.

temperature · Thermograph The days this site can compute, and the ones it cannot. Zero on the first day, ±1 on the second, and thereafter the simplest number in every remaining gap — the construction run by the game recursion, which produces only fractions with a power of two underneath however long it goes on. Below it, three objects the same recursion reaches when the stopping rule is removed, each written with its option set and the exact reason this site's machinery cannot hold it. They are named rather than drawn, which is the honest half of a figure-first collection.

The recursion this site cannot run

Remove the stopping condition from the construction and it reaches ω, its reciprocal, and one third — none of which this site's evaluator can represent, because it interns a position from a finite list of options. The figure draws what it computes and names what it cannot, which is where the boundary belongs.

values · Numbers Hydras, and how long each takes to kill. Six small hydras with the ordinal the termination proof assigns to each and the exact number of chops it takes to finish it. Two of them are not finished here: the fight is guaranteed to end and the machine runs out of memory long before it does, which is the gap between a termination proof and a bound.

It ends, and nothing says when

The recursion this site runs needs every line of play to reach a position with no moves, and the condition is usually met by an obvious decreasing quantity. The hydra meets it with no such quantity anywhere: the tree grows at nearly every step and the fight ends regardless, because the only thing that decreases is an ordinal. A four-node hydra dies in twenty chops; one level deeper and 279 chops reach forty thousand nodes with no end in sight.

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 A sequence with a rule and no period. The values of the subtraction game with Left taking 1 or 2 and Right taking 1 or 3, from heap 5 up. Each is the game whose only Left option is nought and whose only Right option is the value three heaps below — checked at every heap rather than asserted, and the two heaps where it fails are the two below the seeds.

A sequence with a rule and no period

The values of the subtraction game where Left takes one or two and Right takes one or three never repeat — thirty-one heaps, thirty-one different values. They are nonetheless completely described: three seeds and the rule v(k + 3) = {0 | v(k)} generate every one of them, which is what a pattern without a period looks like.

positions · Partizan subtraction 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 Running products, and where to stop. Six Maundy Cakes with the prime factors of the longer side, the running products those primes make, and the value the sum of them gives.

The short side only says how many

The rung below settled which cut to make in a Maundy Cake and left the value open. With the cut settled the recursion is a walk, the walk unrolls, and what it unrolls into is the running products of the long side's prime factors, largest first. The short side never enters the products at all — it decides how many of them there are and nothing else, so sixty-two different short sides give one value.

positions · Cutcake 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 Term by term. Every cut of one long side, with its value written as running products beside the terms of the largest-prime cut.

The short side is not in the lemma

The closed form for a two-sided Maundy Cake rested on one unproved statement: that no divisor beats the largest prime. Written out, that statement never mentions the short side — it is an inequality between a multiset of primes and a term count — and once it is stated that way it has a two-line proof, term by term. The ladder ends in a theorem rather than a grid.

positions · Cutcake How many levels, and how often. Every value in both pools by the number of levels of the recursion its thermograph needs before the stops suffice.

A bend that never reaches the surface

How many levels of the recursion a thermograph needs before its stops suffice is a number attached to a position, and the rung below conjectured it was the depth of the deepest bend in the tree. It is not: on 124 values a bend one level down costs nothing at all. What the number counts is the longest unbroken chain of bends running down from the top, exact on 2,400 of 2,403.

values · Switches The two proofs, beside each other. Maundy Cake's rule was proved by restating its lemma so the short side vanished into a multiset of primes and a term count. Cutcake's rule takes the same five steps, with the multiset replaced by a binary length — one integer instead of a multiset — and the closing argument correspondingly shorter. The one line where they differ is which cut a reader would guess.

The obvious cut is the wrong one

Maundy Cake's rule was proved by restating its lemma so the short side vanished. Cutcake's collapses the same way — into a binary length instead of a multiset of primes — but the cut the argument needs is not the one the ladder predicted. Halving is wrong on a third of all cakes, and the smallest counterexample is six squares by two.

positions · Cutcake The chain, scored. The chain reading of the level count against both pools.

The bend above the top

The chain reading gets three values in 2,403 wrong because it counts bends that the diagram never reaches. Counting only the bends below the position's own temperature fixes all three and breaks none — the first exact reading on this ladder, and it needs one comparison rather than the envelope the rung below expected.

values · Switches The same game, written twice. A position as it arises and the same position reduced. Left would never move to 0 when 2 is available, so that option is dominated and can go. The two games are equal — checked, not assumed — and the second is the canonical form.

A reduction that reads a graph

The two reductions are defined as deletions from an option list, and the shared form has no option lists — a node is reached from several parents at once. Both restate as rewritings at a node, the rewriting is confluent, and its fixed point is the canonical form. What does not carry over is the sharing: four fifths of the shared nodes need a different answer under different parents.

values · Reversibility 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.

EnumerationExhaustive searchSimplicity ruleCanonical formClosed formInductionOutcome classValueBirthdayMean valuePartizanSurreal

All concepts