Combinatorial Game Theory
who wins, and by how much
Theme

The thread: Play it and lose

The strongest argument this subject can make is to state the winner before the reader starts, and then be right. These are the essays carrying a figure that plays back.
The picture is the numeral. Blue-red Hackenbush strings and their values. Left may cut a blue edge, Right a red one, and everything above the cut falls. The value of each string is a number, and reading the string from the ground upward gives the binary expansion of exactly that number. Particular games

Hackenbush is a numeral

Draw a stalk of coloured edges. Read it as a string, blue for one and red for zero, and the string is the binary expansion of what the position is worth. Not approximately — exactly, and the site computes it both ways and refuses to build if they disagree.

 Nim with heaps of 3, 5, 7. Heaps of counters; a move takes any number from one heap. The position is a loss for the player to move exactly when the binary digits of the heap sizes cancel in every column — the nim-sum — and that is the whole of the theory of Nim. Impartial games

Nim, and the nim-sum

Three heaps of counters, take as many as you like from one of them, and the player who takes the last counter wins. The winning condition is not a search, not a table, and not a heuristic — it is the bitwise exclusive-or of the heap sizes, and it was found in 1901.

 Four things a position can be. Every position falls into one of four outcome classes, and only three of them correspond to a comparison with zero. The fourth — first player wins — is a position confused with zero, neither greater, smaller nor equal, and it is where the subject departs from arithmetic. Values

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.

 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.

 Bouton's invariant, checked over 512 positions. Nim positions in binary, one column per bit. Bouton's 1901 argument is that a position is a loss for the mover exactly when every column holds an even number of marks — and that from such a position every move breaks a column, while from any other position some move repairs them all. Both halves are checked here over every position in the range rather than illustrated once, and the middle row shows the repairing move being made. How it was found

The theorem that needed none of the theory

Bouton solved Nim completely in 1901, with an argument that mentions no value, no sum of games and no Grundy number, because none of the three existed. The argument is two closure properties and it is airtight — and run on any other game it fails at the step that does the work.

 Toads and frogs. Toads move right and frogs move left, one square into a gap or hopping over exactly one opponent. A player unable to move loses. It can be played on squared paper by anybody, and its values are immediately stranger than the game looks. Particular games

Toads and Frogs

Toads shuffle right, frogs shuffle left, and either may jump over one of the other. A strip six cells long is worth exactly up. Another six-cell strip is worth exactly down. Nobody has a formula for which.

 Every row of 8 squares, and the 36 values they hold. A census of Kōnane rows: how many arrangements of a row of squares carry each value, with the shortest row carrying that value printed beside it. Most arrangements are worth nothing at all; the rest spread over numbers, halves and quarters, stars, switches and infinitesimals — the whole vocabulary of the theory, from a game that predates it. Out in the world

A game older than the theory

Kōnane was played on carved lava boards in Hawai‘i long before anybody wrote a brace notation, and its rule for losing is the normal-play convention arrived at some centuries early. Evaluate a row of it and the answers are halves, quarters, stars and infinitesimals — the theory's whole vocabulary, out of a game that was not built to display any of it.

 One node per route, one node per position. For each board, the number of nodes in the recursion tree a solver with no memo table would walk, beside the number of distinct positions that tree contains, beside the longest run of moves in it. The first number is the cost of forgetting; the second is the size of the table that avoids it; the third is the stack, and it stays small however the other two grow. What it costs

A position reached eleven ways is one position

A 4×4 Domineering board has 5,700 positions in it and 6,257,129 routes through them. Three heaps of 7, 11 and 13 have 480 positions and 7.6 × 10¹⁶ routes. The gap between those two numbers is not an optimisation — it is the difference between a search that finishes and one that does not.

 Wythoff's game, and the line the losing squares lie on. A queen moves left, down, or diagonally down-left any distance, and whoever cannot move loses. Every square carries the Grundy value the mex rule gives it. The squares worth nothing — the ones a player wants to hand over — lie along two lines whose slopes are the golden ratio and its reciprocal, in a game with no geometry and no continuous quantity in its rules. Impartial games

Wythoff's game, and the ratio nobody put there

Two heaps, three kinds of move, and losing positions that lie along a line of irrational slope. Nothing in the rules mentions a ratio, a length or a continuous quantity — and the golden ratio comes out anyway.

 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.

 Turning Turtles: a row of 12 coins. A row of coins, some heads and some tails. A move turns some of them over, and the rightmost coin turned must go from heads to tails — which is what makes the game end. The number under each place is what a lone head there is worth, and the row is worth the exclusive or of the places showing heads. Impartial games

A row of coins is already a sum

Everywhere else on this site a sum is several positions side by side. In a coin-turning game it is one row — each coin showing heads is a game in its own right, and the row is worth the exclusive or of them. The decomposition is inside a single picture.

 A winning strategy on 3×3, drawn whole. The whole of one player's winning strategy on a small Domineering board: their own move at each of their turns, and every reply the opponent has at each of theirs. The strategy branches only where the loser chooses. Its size is what somebody would have to be handed to check the claim that this player wins, and it is far larger than the claim itself. What it costs

"Left wins" has no short proof

A complete solution of Nim on heaps of 7, 11 and 13 is 480 table entries. A winning strategy for the same position — one move of the winner's at each of their turns, and an answer to every reply — has 56,167,022 nodes in it. The answer is smaller than the proof by a factor of a hundred thousand.

 Clobber: every value smaller than every number. Blue and red stones on a small board. A move takes one of your own stones onto an orthogonally adjacent enemy stone, which is removed. Because adjacency is symmetric, a player has a move exactly when the opponent does — so no position can ever be worth a whole move to anybody, and every value that comes out is an infinitesimal. Particular games

A game where nobody can be ahead in moves

A blue stone beside a red one is a move for both players at once. So neither player can run out while the other still has something to do — and every value the game produces is smaller than every positive number, by the shape of the rule rather than by inspection.

 The cold positions, written in Fibonacci base. The first several cold pairs of Wythoff's game with both heap sizes written in Fibonacci base — as sums of non-consecutive Fibonacci numbers, which every integer has exactly one of. Blue is the smaller heap and red the larger. Read as digits, the pair is a shift: the larger numeral is the smaller one with a zero appended, and the smaller one always ends in an even number of zeros. Out in the world

The digits say which move wins

Wythoff's cold positions are usually given as a pair of golden-ratio formulas. Written in Fibonacci base they are a statement about digits instead — the smaller heap ends in an even number of zeros and the larger is the same numeral shifted up a place — and a rule about digits answers a question about a heap of a trillion.

 Toads and frogs. Toads move right and frogs move left, one square into a gap or hopping over exactly one opponent. A player unable to move loses. It can be played on squared paper by anybody, and its values are immediately stranger than the game looks. Particular games

The strip nobody has a formula for

Some toads, a gap, some frogs. Two counts and a spacing is the whole description, and the values that come out of it are integers, stars, switches with eighth-point options and a down — four classes inside one two-parameter family, which is why nobody has written the formula.

 Three things the word “solved” is used for. The three standard senses of a solved game, priced on positions this solver can settle completely. Ultra-weak names the winner; weak supplies a strategy from the opening; strong supplies one from every position. They differ by orders of magnitude, and a claim that a game is solved is nearly useless until it says which of the three it means. What it costs

Three different claims are all called solved

Hex is solved in the sense that the first player provably wins, by an argument that names no move whatever. Nim is solved in the sense that a formula gives the right move from any position at any size. Between them sit strategies for one opening, and databases of a few billion positions. The word covers all four.

 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.

 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.

 Clobber: every value smaller than every number. Blue and red stones on a small board. A move takes one of your own stones onto an orthogonally adjacent enemy stone, which is removed. Because adjacency is symmetric, a player has a move exactly when the opponent does — so no position can ever be worth a whole move to anybody, and every value that comes out is an infinitesimal. Particular games

One row of Clobber

Every string of blue, red and empty squares up to eight long — 9,840 rows — carries one of only 111 values, and every one of them is infinitesimal. A third of the rows are worth exactly zero. Six alternating stones are worth zero and eight are worth a form that takes four lines to print, so the values do not simplify as the row grows: they explode, while the row stays trivial to describe.

 Every strip, without the hop. Toads and Frogs with the jump deleted, over every strip up to eight squares. The fourth column is the argument: whenever the value is a number it is a whole number, without exception, so the fractions the ordinary game produces are made by the hop and by nothing else. Particular games

The strip where every number is a whole one

Delete the hop from Toads and Frogs and the halves, quarters and ups vanish completely: over 9,801 strips, every value that is a number is an integer, without a single exception. The guess that the hopless game therefore has a formula reading the gaps is half right and exactly wrong — 1,460 strips of eight squares are switches, and three strips with the same counts of toads, frogs and empty squares are worth 1, {2 | 1} and 2.

All themes