The collection

Every essay

One idea per essay, ordered so that the earlier ones set up the later ones — but nothing here depends on being read in sequence.

Impartial games

Both players have the same moves. Every such position is a Nim heap, and the theorem that says so is the field's first.

Values

What a position is worth — numbers, and the things that are not numbers, and how to find the simplest one.

0outcome P= 0whoever must move, loses10outcome L> 0Left wins, whoever starts-10outcome R< 0Right wins, whoever starts00outcome N‖ 0whoever moves first, winsblue edges are Left's moves, red are Right'sthree of the four are comparisons with zero; the fourth is not

Who moves last

The player who cannot move loses. That single convention generates the whole theory — and it produces four outcomes rather than three, because a position can be confused with zero rather than greater, smaller or equal to it.

8 figures
011/2{0 | 1}021{0 | 2}-550{-5 | 5}1/43/41/2{1/4 | 3/4}13/25/4{1 | 3/2}the marked point is the value; the hollow one, where it differs, is the midpoint

The simplicity rule

When both players' options are numbers, the position is worth the simplest number strictly between them. Not the midpoint, not the average, and the difference between "simplest" and "middle" is the entire content of the rule.

7 figures
as it arises1/201{0 | 1}dominatedoption removedcanonical1/201{0 | 1}both are worth 1/2and every game has exactly one canonical form, which is why values can be compared at all

Canonical form

Two positions are worth the same when neither player can tell them apart inside any larger game. Deciding that could be an infinite search. Instead there is a normal form — delete what nobody would play, bypass what backfires — and equality becomes a comparison of two small trees.

6 figures
{0 | {0 | 0}}> 0< 1/1024outcome L{0 | {{0 | 0}, 0 | 0}}> 0< 1/1024outcome L↑∗{{0 | 0}, 0 | 0}‖ 0< 1/1024outcome N{0 | 0}‖ 0< 1/1024outcome N{{0 | 0} | 0}< 0< 1/1024outcome Rvaluecanonical formagainst 0against a thousandth↑ is positive and smaller than every positive number — which no real number is∗ is none of greater, smaller or equal — the order is partial, and that is the point

Infinitesimals

Some positions are positive — Left wins them whoever moves first — and smaller than every positive number, including a millionth and a millionth of that. They are the values that decide close games, and the smallest of them is a single move's worth of nothing.

6 figures

Sums and comparison

Real games break into independent parts. Adding them up is the whole method, and comparing them is how it is checked.

Temperature

How much is at stake, measured. Thermographs, cooling, and why a player moves where the game is hottest.

Particular games

Hackenbush, Nim, Domineering, Toads and Frogs — the specific games the general theory was built to explain.

Where it stops

Misère play, loopy games and computational hardness — three ways the theory runs out, and what survives each.

normal playmisère playevery impartial position is a Nim heapno such reduction existsequal games can be swapped in any sumonly within a restricted universethe value is a single small integeran element of a quotient monoida canonical form exists and is uniquecanonical forms are enormousthe game is what mattersthe game is what mattersmisère quotients recover some of it, one game at a timeand there is no general theory, which after fifty years is a real result rather than a gap

Misère play

Change one word — the player who cannot move wins — and the games are identical, the strategies are not, and almost every theorem on this site stops being true. It is the cheapest possible modification and the most expensive.

6 figures
ABCthe moves lead back to where they startedno base case, so the recursion never bottoms outa third outcome appears: neither player can force a winloopy game theory is a separate subject with separate machinery

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.

6 figures
the value of a Nim positioninstantthe Grundy value of a small subtraction gamelinearthe canonical form of a moderate positionexponential in theorywho wins a general Domineering boardno efficient methodwho wins a generalised board gamePSPACE-completecostthe definitions are constructive, so everything here is computable in principleand the practical range of an exact evaluator is a few dozen moves, which is the working constraint

How hard is it

Every theorem on this site stays true at any size. The answers stop being reachable long before the games get interesting — deciding the winner of a generalised board game is PSPACE-complete, and an exact evaluator gives out after a few dozen moves.

6 figures