Combinatorial Game Theory
who wins, and by how much
Theme

The thread: One clause decides it

Change a word of the rule and the values change completely. A cliff or a wall, a jump allowed or forbidden, a pass that may or may not end the game — the same board, and nothing in common.
What reversing the ending destroys. Everything that makes normal play tractable is a theorem about who moves last, and misère play contradicts every one of them. The positions are unchanged; the means of evaluating them is gone, and what replaces it is far heavier. Where it stops

Misère play

Change one word — the player who cannot move wins — and the games are identical, the strategies are not, and almost every theorem of the normal-play theory stops being true. It is the cheapest possible modification and the most expensive.

 Domineering on 2 by 3. Left places vertical dominoes, Right horizontal ones, and a player who cannot place loses. The two players see different games on the same board, which is what partizan means — and the value that results is not a number. Particular games

Domineering

One player places dominoes vertically, the other horizontally, on a shared grid. The rules take one line, the values are a mess, and that mess is the point — this is what the theory looks like applied to a game nobody designed for it.

 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.

 The octal game ·137, read out. An octal code is a rule table. The kth digit says what a player may do after taking k tokens from one heap: end that heap, leave one heap, or split the rest into two. Three bits, one digit, and the whole family of take-away games becomes something that can be listed and swept. Impartial games

Naming a game with a number

An octal code is a rule table compressed into an integer. It turns "which game" into something that can be counted through, which is how the family was swept — and how the games nobody can solve were found.

 Col and Snort on a path of four. One graph, two games, and one word of difference between the rules. Col forbids painting next to your own colour, which makes every move a small self-harm and drives the values towards numbers. Snort forbids painting next to your opponent's, which makes every move a land grab and drives them towards fights. Both values are computed from the same recursion. Particular games

One board, two rules

Col forbids painting next to your own colour. Snort forbids painting next to your opponent's. One word differs, the boards are identical, and the values that come out are not the same kind of object.

 a path with every link doubled: the criterion and the game. A Shannon switching graph with the two marked vertices in gold. Short secures links and Cut deletes them; Short wins by joining the two marks. Lehman's criterion says Short wins moving second exactly when some subgraph holding both marks splits into two edge-disjoint spanning trees — drawn here in blue and red where one exists. The verdicts beside the graph come from playing the game out, and the criterion is computed without looking at the game at all. Out in the world

A winning strategy that is a spanning tree

The Shannon switching game was sold in a box in 1960 and solved in 1964, and the solution is not an assertion that somebody wins. It is a property of the graph anybody can check, and the strategy falls straight out of it — whichever link the opponent cuts, take its partner in the other tree.

 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.

 Three ways to add the same games. One list of components, added three different ways. Under the disjunctive rule a move is a move in exactly one part; under the conjunctive rule it is a move in every part at once, and play stops as soon as any part runs out; under the selective rule it is a move in any non-empty set of parts. The outcomes are computed by search from each rule's own definition. Sums and comparison

Three ways to add the same games

A move in exactly one component is a choice, not a law. Move in every component at once and the game is different; move in any set of them and it is different again. The same two positions, added three ways, give three different answers — and only one of the three has values that add.

 a triangle on a stalk, worth ∗2. A Hackenbush position in which every edge is green, so either player may cut any of them and the position is impartial. Its value is a single Nim heap. Two principles find which one: fusion, which collapses every cycle to a point and leaves that many loops behind, and the colon principle, which replaces a branch by a stalk as long as the branch's own value. Particular games

Squash every loop to a point

Colour every Hackenbush edge green and the game becomes impartial, so the whole picture is worth a single Nim heap. Two principles find which one without playing anything — fuse the cycles, then run one pass up the tree — and a nine-vertex lattice that costs 1,283 positions to solve costs twelve steps to read.

 A green edge is not a number. Green edges may be cut by either player, which makes the position impartial in that part. A single green edge is worth ∗ — a value that is neither positive, negative nor zero, and which no number can equal. Particular games

A green edge on a blue one

Blue over green and green over blue are the same two edges in the other order. One is worth 1∗ and the other ↑∗ — a number with a star on it against something smaller than every positive number — so a stalk with all three colours in it stops being a numeral and starts being a position whose value depends on what is underneath.

 Top Entails, one heap at a time. Each heap with the outcome of playing it alone, the Grundy value an ordinary solver would give it, and the moves that win from it. Taking the top coin of a heap forces the opponent to answer in that heap, which is a kind of move no other game on this site has. Where it stops

A move that must be answered

Every argument on this site about sums assumes the parts are independent: a move in one leaves the others alone, and the reply may go anywhere. Top Entails denies it — take the top coin of a heap and the opponent must answer in that heap. The nim-sum then misreads 9 of 36 two-heap positions, and two heaps of two coins are a first-player win, which no impartial game the theory covers can be.

 Every position of both games, and where the fights are. Every colouring of every graph in the library, under both rules, with the temperature of each computed. A position with a positive temperature is one both players want to move in. Col has none anywhere; Snort has them on every graph, and the hottest grows with the graph. Particular games

One rule makes it cold, the other hot

Col forbids painting next to your own colour and Snort forbids painting next to your opponent's. Over all 540 colourings of six graphs, not one Col position has anything at stake and 61 Snort positions do — the difference between a game that is a count and a game that is a series of fights, produced by one word.

 Maundy Cake: the pieces must be equal. The same cake as Cutcake, cut by the same two players, with one extra rule: a cut must divide the cake into equal pieces, and every piece stays in play. The values are still whole numbers, but the arithmetic that decides them is not Cutcake's — it counts prime factors rather than binary digits. Particular games

Maundy Cake

Cutcake with one word added: a cut must divide the piece into equal parts. The values are still whole numbers, and the rule this site has been repeating about them is false — over all 1,296 cakes to 36×36 the largest-odd-divisor account has 946 counterexamples. What survives is a count of prime factors, and it says who wins without saying by how much.

 Moore's Nim with k = 2: the columns, divided by 3. The heap sizes in binary, with each column added as an ordinary sum rather than exclusive-or. In Moore's Nim a move may take from as many as k heaps at once, and the position is lost for the player to move exactly when every column sum is divisible by k + 1. Ordinary Nim is k = 1, where divisible by two means an even number of ones — the same picture with a different divisor. Impartial games

Taking from several heaps at once

Moore's Nim lets a move take from as many as k heaps at a time, and the losing positions are still read off the binary columns — divisible by k + 1 rather than by two. The rule agrees with exhaustive search over 54,264 positions and never disagrees, and it decides every outcome while supplying no value at all: reading the same columns as a base-3 number gets the Grundy value right on 42 of 330 positions.

 Cram on 4 by 4: the pairing strategy. Cram is Domineering with the orientations shared: either player may place a domino either way up, so both players have exactly the same moves and the game is impartial. Every position therefore has a Grundy value, and this board's was computed by the mex rule over its own placements. Impartial games

Cram

Domineering with one word of the rule changed: both players may place a domino either way up. That makes the game impartial, and the entire partizan apparatus collapses into a single Grundy value — on the 4 × 4 board, Domineering's canonical form runs to 114 characters of nested braces and Cram's answer is the one character 0.

 Generalized Geography. A token on a directed graph. A move slides it along an edge to a vertex not yet visited, and a player who cannot move loses. That is the whole game, and deciding who wins it is as hard as anything decidable in polynomial space — which is the strongest hardness claim anybody makes about a combinatorial game. Impartial games

A token on a graph

Geography is an impartial game whose position is a vertex and a history, so a ten-vertex graph has ten thousand states rather than ten. Take the arrows off and the same game is decided by a maximum matching — first player wins exactly when every maximum matching covers the start, verified on 41 vertices across eight graphs. One word in the rules separates a polynomial criterion from a PSPACE-complete problem.

 A pass that may not end the game is not a component at all. The same grouping with the pass forbidden as the final move. Each group now holds several values, and a group with several values is a proof that the parts do not determine the whole. Where it stops

A pass is not a move

Put a single pass token on a Nim board and one clause decides everything. If it may be taken at any time — including as the move that ends the game — the value of the whole is the nim-sum with a one added, in all 120 positions swept: the pass is a heap of one. Forbid it as the final move and the value stops being a function of the nim-sum at all, and 3 and 1 + 2 come apart.

 The same strips, with no jumping. Elephants and Rhinos: toads move right and frogs move left, one square into an empty one, and nothing may hop over anything. The pieces keep their order for ever, and the values are computed by the same recursion as the game with the jump in it. Particular games

The same strip without the jump

Delete one clause from Toads and Frogs — the hop over an opponent — and the game is Elephants and Rhinos. Over the same 3,279 strips the values do not become simpler in the way a reader would guess: every value that is a number becomes an integer, against 172 fractions with the jump in, and the count of positions worth fighting over nearly doubles. Removing a move made the game hotter.

 End-Nim: a player at each end of the row. Rows of heaps in which Left may take from the leftmost heap and Right from the rightmost. The value beside each row was computed by the game recursion and reduced to canonical form; the outcome beside it says who wins. A single heap is a Nim heap, because both players may take from it — and that is the last thing about this game that looks like Nim. Particular games

Taking from the ends

End-Nim is Nim's board with a player at each end, and it takes one sentence to state. Not one of its 5,460 small positions is worth a non-zero number — the game is all-small, so zero is the only number any of them can reach — and there are 2,693 distinct values between them. The outcome says a great deal more: 4,738 of those positions are won by the same player whoever moves, and on two heaps the rule is that the larger end wins.

 Welter positions and what they are worth. Coins on a strip, with the Grundy value the recursion returns and the nim-sum the squares would have if they were independent heaps. The two columns are the essay: they hardly ever agree. Impartial games

No two heaps alike

Welter's game is Nim with one extra clause — no two heaps may be the same size — and the clause is fatal to the nim-sum, which gives the right answer in none of the 120 three-coin positions. What replaces it is a function of pairs: ⟨a | b⟩ = (a ⊕ b) − 1, exact on all 55 two-coin positions, and nim-added over every pair it is exact on the whole board provided the number of coins is even.

 What the auction can and cannot see. Values under both conventions. The Richman value is the share of the money the second player needs; a half means the position itself decides nothing and whoever has more money wins. Every infinitesimal on the list, and zero with them, comes out at a half. Where it stops

Nobody has to move

Every convention here rests on one sentence nobody examines — the players move alternately. Replace it with an auction and a position stops having an outcome class and starts having a number: the share of the money the second player needs. The 22 values born by day two collapse to seven of those numbers, eight of them landing on exactly a half; the new number respects the game order on all 179 comparable pairs, and is not determined by the parts under addition on 14 of 49.

 Where a switch stops being a switch. The same Left option with the Right one raised past it. While the Left option is above the Right one both players want to move, the bar spans a real fight and the temperature is half the gap. Where the two meet the position is the number plus a star — no longer a switch, and not a number either. Above that the simplicity rule takes over: the value is the simplest number strictly between the options, and there is nothing to fight about. Values

When a switch is not a switch

A position {a | b} with numbers on both sides is a fight only while a is above b. Sweeping the boundary with a fixed at 2 and b climbing from −2 to 3 turns up three regimes rather than the two the definition suggests: eight fights whose temperature is exactly half the gap, one position at a = b that is 2∗ and is not a number, and beyond that numbers chosen by the simplicity rule — which on 8 of 12 sampled cases is not the midpoint.

 Which of the two operators distributes over a sum. Cooling and heating, each asked whether applying it to a sum is the same as applying it to the parts and adding. The pools are the values born by day two and a set of deliberately hot positions; the counts are of ordered pairs. Temperature

Cooling adds and heating does not

The two operators are presented as a pair, and they are not one. Cooling a sum is the same as cooling the parts and adding, on every one of the 1,768 pairs tried, at two taxes and on two pools. Heating fails on 263 — and not for the obvious reason: in every failure neither part and not the sum is a number, so the clause exempting numbers never fires at the top. It fires two levels down, where an option of a sum is one part's option plus the whole of the other.

 Shove strips, and what each is worth. A shelf of positions with the value the recursion returns beside each. Every one is a number: Shove has no hot positions at all, which is unusual for a partizan game and is the first of the essay's three claims. Particular games

Nothing worth fighting over

Shove is a strip of coins beside a cliff, and both players have completely different moves. Every one of its 728 positions is worth a number, so nobody ever wants to move; the winner is the owner of the coin furthest from the cliff, in all 728; and the number the board is worth is not the sum of its coins — that reading is exact on 126 strips and wrong on 588 of the other 602.

All themes