Combinatorial Game Theory
who wins, and by how much
Concept

Ruleset — where it appears

A particular game's rules, taken as the thing that decides which values are reachable at all. Two rulesets with the same theory behind them realise very different sets of values, and how large a position a value needs turns out to depend more on the ruleset than on the value.

Named by 11 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

How old a value is, against how big a board it takes to show it. For each birthday, the range of sizes of the smallest position exhibiting a value of that age. The bars do not march rightwards: values born on the last day of the sweep are shown by six-piece positions, and values born on the fourth need up to fifteen.

The cheapest way to show a value

Eleven thousand positions from fifteen rulesets reach 1,193 values, and for each of them there is a smallest board that shows it. Set against the birthday the two measures agree hardly at all — until the numbers are taken out, at which point they agree rather well, and the whole apparent independence turns out to be a fact about integers.

values · Realisability The trend, running backwards. The excess grouped by the width of the value's canonical form. Values with wide option lists are exhibited nearer their birthdays than narrow ones, which is the opposite of what the proposal predicted.

Wider costs less

The rung below found the cheapest exhibit of a value never smaller than its birthday, exactly equal on two thirds, and the ruleset explaining 40 per cent of the rest. The variable it proposed for the remainder was the width of the form. Width and excess correlate at −0.39: the wider the value, the closer to its birthday it is exhibited, and inside a ruleset the relation cannot even agree on a sign.

values · Realisability The excess is not a flat fee. The excess fitted against the birthday inside each ruleset with enough values to fit a line. A fee would have a slope of nought; every slope here but one is negative, so the excess is largest on the values born earliest.

The entry fee was the cap

Two rungs measured how much bigger a position has to be than the value it exhibits, and attributed what was left to the ruleset — Toads and Frogs paying 2.25 squares on everything, green Hackenbush paying nothing. Neither number is a property of the rules. Inside every ruleset the excess falls as the birthday rises, because the sweep's size cap censors exactly the values that would pay most — and three squares past the cap, Toads and Frogs exhibits values born later than the strip is long.

values · Realisability Two orders of magnitude. The share of positions of a size whose value is one no smaller position exhibits. Every Hackenbush string is a new value and fewer than one Clobber row in a hundred is.

The rate was the alphabet

The rung below asked for a quantity a size cap cannot censor and proposed the rate: how many new values a ruleset produces per extra square. The rate is honest and it measures the notation — every ruleset grows at close to the number of symbols its positions are written in, and the seven span less than a factor of two. What separates them is the yield, which spans a hundred and nineteen.

values · Realisability Where the two conventions come apart, counted. Every small Go endgame solved under both scoring conventions. The scores agree exactly when the number of neutral points is even and never when it is odd, which is the parity of the stones each side ends up placing. A counted fraction name different winners. And a smaller fraction are played differently, which is the half of the finding a rules argument does not predict: a neutral point is a one-point play under one convention and worth nothing under the other, so the two rule sets disagree about the order of the endgame and not only about its total.

Two ways to count a finished board

Territory scoring and area scoring are both in daily use and they are not variants of one rule. Over seventy-nine small endgames they agree exactly on the thirty-nine with an even number of neutral points and on none of the forty with an odd number — sixteen name a different winner, and twelve are played differently, which is not something a convention is supposed to do.

applied · Go The only two moves in Kōnane that are not captures. A filled Kōnane board with every opening Black may play marked on it, and the value of the position White's best reply leaves. The opening is the one place in the game where a player removes a stone rather than capturing with one, so it is played under a different rule from everything after it — and the choice is worth a computed amount rather than nothing.

The two moves that are not captures

Kōnane begins from a full board and the first two moves lift stones rather than take them, which is the only time in the whole game anybody does. Nothing on this site applies to them, and the choice is not free — on a 3 × 5 board two of Black's eight openings leave a position a whole move worse than the other six, and on a 3 × 3 board none of the five does.

applied · Kōnane A row of files, valued rather than won. Dawson's pawn diagram on a single row of one to 5 files, with the value of the position under each capture rule beside the nimber ·137 gives the corresponding heap. The winners agree throughout; the values agree until five files, where the diagram is worth ∗ and the heap is ∗3.

A wall the pawns cannot cross and the rule can

Two rows of Dawson's diagram separated by a file with no pawn on it: 1,616 moves were examined and not one crosses the gap. With captures optional the rows add on every diagram checked. With captures compulsory they do not, because the compulsion is a rule about the whole board — and the game that is a sum is the one ·137 does not describe.

history · Dawson 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 The money played out, and it never mattered. The bidding rule played move by move with a countable pool of chips, at every way of splitting it. The verdict is constant across the splits and opposite under the two ways of resolving equal bids, so what settles these positions is the tie-break rather than the money.

The auction never gets to the money

The critical fraction is computed and never played. Played out with a countable pool of chips — twelve positions, four pool sizes, every split of the chips, every bid answered — the verdict does not move with the money on a single one of the forty-eight sweeps, and the rule for equal bids settles all forty-eight. The reason is one line long: declining every auction wins, and bidding nothing declines.

limits · Bidding One split is enough, and some are not. Lasker's Nim beside five versions of it that allow only some splits, over the first twenty-four heaps, with every cell that leaves the formula outlined. Allowing only the split that takes one counter off reproduces the whole sequence; allowing only equal halves turns it back into Nim.

One split is enough

A heap of n in Lasker's Nim offers ⌊n/2⌋ ways to split, and the values use at most one of them. Allow only the split that takes a single counter off and every heap to six hundred keeps its value; of all sixty-three sets of split sizes up to six, a set keeps the formula exactly when it contains 1 or 2. Equal halves alone give back plain Nim, because a split into equal parts is a move to nought.

impartial · Lasker The formula as the limit of periodic games. Lasker's Nim above eight versions of it with the number of counters that may be taken bounded at one to eight. Each bounded game is periodic and agrees with Lasker's formula on its first few heaps; the region of agreement grows with the bound.

The formula is a limit

Cap the take in Lasker's Nim at k counters and the game is a finite rule table, 4.33…3, whose Grundy sequence repeats with period k + 1 rounded up to even and follows Lasker's formula until the cap bites. The formula is what those periods converge to. And the same column of codes, with a free split in front, holds Kayles itself: the rule 4.4 on a heap of n + 1 is Kayles on a row of n.

impartial · Lasker

Named alongside it

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

Exhaustive searchCounterexampleBirthdayEnumerationGrundy valueHackenbushOctal gameRealisabilityValueCanonical formDecompositionNormal play

All concepts