Every essay — page 4
Out in the world
Games people played before there was a theory, and questions outside game theory that a game answers. Every one of them solved here rather than cited — including the one every child is taught to play wrong.
Three pairings and no order
The potential lost four-by-five Hex for Down, and fifty-five re-weightings lost it too, which left the question whether anything that orders the cells can hold the board. The plainest ordering — one fixed list, whatever the position — holds none of the boards the pairing is known for, and on four by five the best it can do is the left column. At the other end, every table of replies that wins a small board is a pairing, and four by five has exactly three pairings, each using all twenty cells.
The seven were the order
A Sylver Coinage proof told its depth beat the search that finishes on seven positions of 1,766, and on all seven the winning move came fifth when moves were tried smallest first. Run both searches under five orders and the seven vanish under every other one; try the largest move first and there are fifty-five new ones instead. Give both searches the winning move first, free, and the proof is cheaper on none. The exceptions were never positions where proving is easy. They were positions where one order made the finishing search stumble — and what is left when the order is perfect is the price of asking a proof's question.
Two rows still reward the move
A single coin row with an even number of coins always rewards the player to move, because the first player can take a whole parity class. Two such rows side by side break that argument, and the conclusion survives anyway: on every one of 16,380 sums of two rows the first player is never behind, and there is a proof — open the row worth more, then answer in whichever row the opponent moves in — that guarantees the difference of the two rows' margins, which is what two switches would give. The sum meets that floor on three pairs in four and beats it on the rest, once by both margins together. At three rows the switch arithmetic stops being a floor. The incentive does not.
Start at four
Every order a program could compute had made the Sylver Coinage search that finishes dearer than trying the smallest move first, and the free oracle that puts a winning move first costs under a third of it. Two orders a game program would actually use do better: a history table of numbers that have won before wins back 27 per cent of that gap, and a fixed order learned on small positions the same on larger ones. Both are learning one thing. Trying the smallest move first, but from four, wins back 31 per cent and beats smallest first on 1,695 of 1,766 positions — because naming 2 leaves a two-generator semigroup, which is symmetric and never lost for the opponent, unless 3 is already reachable.
The same rule on a star
Kōnane turned out to hold the theory's whole vocabulary, and one old game is an anecdote. Mū tōrere, a Māori game on an eight-pointed star, has the same rule for losing — a player who cannot move loses — and is small enough to solve whole. Of its 630 arrangements, not one is a win for whoever moves first or a loss for whoever must move, sixteen go to each side whoever starts, and most are drawn. A random player still loses it every time. The vocabulary was never in the rule for losing; it was in the captures.
Two neighbours keep a pairing, three lose it
In the switching game on points, Short wins moving second by a pairing when every smallest set of points that cuts A from B holds both points of some pair. On every graph of seven points — 971,104 of them — every Short win has one, at every degree. In random link games, where each contested point has two neighbours, every win has one too, although the winning strategy follows trees that change as the game goes. The first wins with no pairing appear at nine points with four neighbours and at ten points with three: a cubic graph Short wins whoever moves, which no fixed set of answers explains.
A pairing that changes once
The cubic ten-point graph is a win for Short that no fixed pairing explains, and the full strategy that does explain it is a tree of 68 decisions. One change is enough: after Cut's first deletion Short claims a stated point, and from then on a fixed pairing of what is left holds every cutting set. Four such plans, eight pairs between them, answer every opening. Of the 23 pairless wins in the samples, 21 need one change and two need a second, and in both the second is a forced claim. Unless the hard problems collapse, no fixed number of changes can be enough for every graph.
Two reflections and a corner
Hex boards of n rows and n + 1 columns are won by the player with the nearer edges, by a pairing, and the count of pairings that do it ran two, three, three. It is three again on five by six, against 1,225 chains, and three on six by seven, against 16,097. They are the same three every time, and they are not three strategies: one is the classical reflection, and the other two are a reflection across the board's other diagonal, which joins its two far corners, in two versions that disagree about six cells. Each is a rule a sentence long, and each holds on every board out to ten by eleven.
A win is not a way of winning
Solve a lone king against a rook completely and every one of 175,168 positions with white to move is won. Now let white play any move the table says keeps the win, and black resist as long as it can: in 400 games of up to 2,000 moves, white never mates. On a graph that loops, staying won is not progress. From every won position in the queen and rook endings white can stay inside the won set for ever, and what wins is a second number, the distance, which the theory of finite games never had to ask for.
Blocking is not enough
Everybody knows noughts and crosses is a draw, and the usual explanation is that the second player can always block. That explanation is false. Against an opponent who can only block, the first player wins, from the centre or any corner. The game is a draw only because the second player's blocks build threats of their own. On fifteen boards solved outright, it is the only one where those two things come apart: everywhere else a draw is a draw because blocking is enough.
Three ways to know a draw
A draw on a board too large to search has to be certified, and there are two standard certificates: a pairing of cells and the Erdős–Selfridge sum over lines. Set against exhaustive search, both miss 4 × 4, and a rule taken from the sum holds there anyway. The sum looks far stronger until pairs are allowed to serve several lines at once. Then across 440 boards up to 12 × 12, the sum certifies no draw that a pairing does not, and a pairing certifies 36 that the sum cannot.
A win priced in stones
Change the rate of play and a yes-or-no question becomes a number. Against a Maker placing one stone a turn, Breaker needs two stones to stop three in a row on every board up to 4 × 4 and six by three, and three on 5 × 4. Against a Breaker placing one, a Maker needs two stones on most boards drawn at one, and three to make four in a row on 4 × 3. The extra stone is enough to erase noughts and crosses altogether, and the biased sum is exact there and high everywhere else.
What it costs
Every theorem here can be true and the answer still out of reach. What a search costs, what a proof of a win looks like, and where the shortcuts are.
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.
Hard, proved
A game is as hard as a logical formula when the formula can be drawn as the game. Here is the drawing — a quantified formula turned into a graph with a token on it — with every formula over three variables played both ways and required to agree.
The game with the shortest rule is the hard one
Deciding a generalised board game is PSPACE-complete, which is a statement about families and encodings rather than about size. Nim in the same subject is settled by one pass over the input at any size, and green Hackenbush by one pass over the edges — while Domineering, whose rules take a single line, has no shortcut anybody has found.
All ladders · Every object named here · The position index · Figures that play back · Search