Combinatorial Game Theory
who wins, and by how much
Theme

The thread: It has to end

Every value here is defined by a recursion that needs play to stop. Sometimes that is obvious, sometimes it is a theorem, and sometimes the game ends with nothing bounding when.
A position that comes back. Three positions whose moves lead round in a circle. Every value in this subject is defined by recursion on the options, and that recursion assumes play ends — here it need not, so the definition has nothing to stand on and the outcome may be a draw, which normal-play theory has no name for. Where it stops

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.

 1 ko point, no ko rule. A ko fight drawn as a position graph and labelled by retrograde analysis: blue edges are Black's captures, red are White's, and each position carries the verdict for whichever side is to move. Positions the propagation never reaches are drawn — neither player can force a win and the game does not end — and they appear only where the rules permit a repetition. Out in the world

The rule that makes Go a finite game

A ko is a point in Go where a capture can be recaptured for ever, and every set of rules forbids it. That prohibition is not etiquette or tidiness — it is the hypothesis that puts Go inside the class of games every theorem on this site is about, and removing it removes the values.

 a loop with a way out: what the backward analysis settles. A position graph in which the moves can lead back to where they started. The labels are the order in which a backward analysis settles each position, starting from the ones where a player has already run out of moves. Positions the analysis never reaches are drawn — and there is no test for that; being unreachable is what a draw is. Where it stops

Start at the end and work backwards

When play can return to where it started there is no bottom for the recursion to stand on. What replaces it begins at the positions where somebody has already lost and propagates outwards — and the positions it never reaches are exactly the draws. There is no test for a draw, and there does not need to be.

 One of these is a game. Every length that came out of 40 random games from each starting position. Brussels Sprouts always ends after exactly five crosses less two moves, so whoever is to move at that point was decided before the first curve was drawn. Sprouts ends at different lengths depending on how it is played, which is what makes it worth playing. Particular games

Sprouts, and the game that is not one

Two games played with dots and curves, invented in the same room, all but indistinguishable on paper. One is unsolved past forty spots. The other has no decisions in it at all — the winner is fixed before the first curve is drawn.

 a cycle of three: what the backward analysis settles. A position graph in which the moves can lead back to where they started. The labels are the order in which a backward analysis settles each position, starting from the ones where a player has already run out of moves. Positions the analysis never reaches are drawn — and there is no test for that; being unreachable is what a draw is. Where it stops

An outcome with no value behind it

Retrograde analysis labels positions in rounds, outward from the ones already lost. Whatever is still blank when nothing more can be deduced is a draw — and there is no separate test for a draw, because a draw is exactly the residue the method never reaches.

 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. Impartial games

The move that gives counters back

Poker Nim adds one rule to Nim — a player may put counters back onto a heap from a private reserve. It looks as though a losing player could stall for ever. The winner is decided by exactly the same nim-sum, and the reason is the single most useful idea in the whole reduction apparatus.

 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. Where it stops

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.

 on + off: what the backward analysis settles. A position graph in which the moves can lead back to where they started. The labels are the order in which a backward analysis settles each position, starting from the ones where a player has already run out of moves. Positions the analysis never reaches are drawn — and there is no test for that; being unreachable is what a draw is. Where it stops

One part that never ends

The game called `on` has one move and it is back to itself. Add anything to it — a star, a point, its own mirror image — and the whole board is drawn. So `off` is exactly the negative of `on` and their sum is not zero, which is the group law failing for a reason that has nothing to do with who is winning.

 The gaps of ⟨5, 7⟩, which are the moves. A Sylver Coinage position drawn as the numerical semigroup it is. Gold squares are the numbers already named; plain squares are sums of them, and so cannot be named again; magenta squares are the gaps, which are exactly the legal moves. The largest gap is the Frobenius number, marked F — past it every integer is reachable, which is why the game has finitely many moves left and must end. Out in the world

The game that is a number system

In Sylver Coinage two players name integers and nobody may name a sum of what has already been named. Its positions are not boards — they are numerical semigroups, its termination is a theorem of Sylvester's from 1884, and the question of who wins after the opening move 16 has been worth a thousand dollars since 2017.

 One Sprouts game from 3 spots, counted. One randomly played Sprouts game, with the map counted after every move. A move spends two lives and the new spot brings one, so the lives fall by exactly one every time — and unlike the arms of a Brussels cross they are not replaced. Every move either cuts a face in two or joins two separate pieces of the drawing, and how many of each a game contains is up to the players, which is why the length is not fixed. How it was found

A conjecture from hand play

Sprouts was invented over tea and its outcome pattern was guessed from games played with a pencil. Computers have checked it far past where a person could go, and this site's own solver gives out at three spots — so the honest figure states the frontier it reaches rather than the number somebody else published.

 a loop with a way out under three rules for never ending. One graph, one labelling, and three ways of reading the residue the labelling never reaches. A draw is not a computed outcome here — it is what is left over — so declaring infinite play a win for one side is a legal alternative that costs no extra search and changes who wins. Where it stops

When never ending is a win

Retrograde analysis labels a position a win when somebody can force the opponent to be stuck, and leaves everything else blank. Calling the blanks draws is a rule from outside the game — and two other rules are available. The labelling does not change under any of them; only the residue does, and on a three-cycle that residue is every position on the board.

 What the outcome of a loopy sum can be. One row and one column per loopy outcome class, and each cell lists every outcome a sum of two such positions was found to have. Most cells hold several. The cell where both parts are drawn holds one. Where it stops

The one outcome that adds

Finite outcomes do not add: two first-player wins can sum to anything. Loopy play has seven outcome classes instead of four and adds even less — of the 28 cells in the table, eleven hold several answers. Two do not, and they are the two worth having: a second-player win added to anything leaves the outcome alone, and a draw added to a draw is a draw. A draw added to anything else is not.

 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. Where it stops

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.

 Two ways to be certain and ignorant at once. Ten positions from two games that both terminate for reasons no bound comes out of. Sylver Coinage's proof counts something that goes down and can be counted; the hydra's counts an ordinal, which cannot, and the last column shows what that difference is worth. Where it stops

Two ways to end with no bound

Sylver Coinage and the hydra are both guaranteed to finish and neither will say when. The difference is that one of them carries its own bound: every move in Sylver removes at least one gap, the gaps can be counted in a moment, and over ten openings the longest play uses every single one. The hydra has no decreasing quantity a solver can hold — three hydras of five nodes each take seven chops, twenty-one, and a number past two hundred and seventy-nine that this machine never reaches.

 Moore’s rule, reversed. Moore’s Nim under the misère convention at three values of k, with the normal-play rule and the same rule plus a clause about heaps of one. The patch is the one Nim takes, with the modulus the normal-play rule already carries, and it is right on every position swept. Impartial games

The patch that generalised

Misère Nim takes a one-line patch: play the normal-play strategy until every heap holds a single counter, then invert. Moore's Nim, where a move may take from up to k heaps at once, takes exactly the same patch with exactly the same modulus — and the two rules disagree on six positions out of 923.

 How two genus symbols make a third. The composition rule for genus symbols, stated with its cases and checked on every pair of heaps of nine games. The base exclusive-ors, the sum is fickle only when every component is, and the symbol follows from those two. Where it stops

The rule the symbols follow

Two genus symbols make a third by three lines and no lookup table: the base exclusive-ors, the sum is fickle only when every component is, and the symbol follows. Checked on 252 pairs across nine games it is right on 238 — and the fourteen failures are exactly the fourteen pairs with a wild heap in them, which is the boundary the genus is defined up to arriving as a measurement.

 The Fibonacci numbers are one row of a table. The losing heaps of Fibonacci Nim with the factor two replaced by one, three, four and up to eight. Each factor gives a different integer sequence: the powers of two, the Fibonacci numbers, and four more with no common name. Impartial games

The family the Fibonacci numbers belong to

Fibonacci Nim lets a player take at most twice what the last one took, and the heaps the opener loses are the Fibonacci numbers. Two is an arbitrary number. At one the losing heaps are the powers of two, at three and four and five they are four more sequences, each with a linear recurrence whose lag is twice one less than the factor — until the factor is six, where the pattern stops.

 Two counters, not one. The four periods of the odd-saltus class against the two base-three counters, with which each follows. Impartial games

Two counters, and one displaced term

The rung below found four Grundy sequences in the odd-saltus class and asked which term each displaces and whether the digits predict it. They do — but there are two base-three counters and not one, chosen by whether a heap of one can be taken away. And there are three sequences rather than four: the fourth is the third with three isolated values, and was counted separately because its period had not settled.

 Not rare at all. How many hexadecimal codes whose sequence settles have a stretch of heaps before the pattern begins. Impartial games

A pattern that has not started yet

A pre-period was supposed to be rarer in this family than a defect. Two hexadecimal codes in five have one, 321 have a pre-period longer than their own period, and the code the rung below found slow takes fifty-four heaps to settle rather than two blocks — which is also the account of three defects the rung below recorded and could not explain.

 Five kinds of empty square. Every empty square in a hopless Toads and Frogs strip falls into one of five kinds, and the value follows from which. Three of them are free moves for one player or the other, one of them is where a position stops being a number, and one is a wall that splits the strip into independent pieces. Particular games

The square that cannot be halved

Every number in hopless Toads and Frogs is a whole number, which the rung below measured on seven thousand strips and could not explain. The reason is that every empty square is either one player's alone or split evenly between them — except one, and that one is where the numbers stop.

 on: which positions play can return to. A position graph with the moves of both players drawn, and beside it the shortest sequence of moves that gets back to each position. A position play can return to is a position whose value is defined in terms of itself, so the recursion every value in this subject is built from has no base case there. A position with no way back is one the ordinary recursion terminates on. Where it stops

A stopper and how to find one

The class a value theory for loopy games would need is the ones with no infinite alternating run, and the qualifier does the work: seventy-nine of the two hundred and fifty-six two-node loopy games qualify and seventy-two of them have a cycle. Every one has a decided outcome, and under eight tests the seventy-nine collapse to six.

 Two ways to be certain and ignorant at once. Ten positions from two games that both terminate for reasons no bound comes out of. Sylver Coinage's proof counts something that goes down and can be counted; the hydra's counts an ordinal, which cannot, and the last column shows what that difference is worth. Where it stops

Which games end at which level

Between a game that ends within a computable bound and one that ends with no bound at all there are levels, each corresponding to a strength of induction. This site's games sit at three of them, and which level a game is at is decided by exhibiting its termination measure and checking that every move lowers it.

 A fortress, and the counter that gives it a label. A pawn ending where the defender's king shuffles for ever and the attacker needs time. Down the rows, how many moves of preparation the breakthrough needs; across the columns, how many moves the rule allows before declaring a draw. With no breakthrough the position is drawn whatever the rule says, and drawn as a residue the backward induction never reaches. With a breakthrough and no rule the attacker wins despite the cycle. Where the march is longer than the counter allows, the rule turns a won position into a drawn one. Out in the world

A position with no value, and the rule that gives it one

A fortress is a cycle in the position graph, so the recursion defining a value has nowhere to bottom out and the propagation never reaches it. Chess has a rule for that — count fifty moves and call it drawn — and the rule does not merely tidy the theory up. On eleven cells of the sweep it takes away a win.

 Two solutions to one set of equations. The winning condition written as a single predicate and solved twice: once as the least solution of its own equations and once as the greatest. The least says Left can force a win; the greatest says Left cannot be forced to lose, which admits the positions where Left can keep the game going for ever. On a graph with no cycle in it the two coincide and the equations determine an answer. Where they differ, the difference is exactly the set the backward propagation never reaches — so a draw is not a leftover of the algorithm, it is the equations failing to have one answer. How it was found

The gap between two answers

A draw is usually described as what the backward labelling never reached, which makes it sound like a shortfall of the algorithm. Written as one predicate the winning condition is an equation, the equation is monotone, and it has a least solution and a greatest one — and the set the two disagree about is exactly the drawn set, on every game checked.

All themes