Combinatorial Game Theory
who wins, and by how much
Theme

The thread: The value is computable

A position's worth is not estimated. It is a symbolic object obtained by recursion, reduced to a canonical form, and comparable exactly with any other.
301151017111nim-sum001= 1some column does notthe player to move winstake 1 from the heap of 3outcome N 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.

 2+-1+1/4+∗={5/4 | 5/4}outcome Leach sprig is a separate game; a move is a move in one of themthe total was computed by adding the games, not the labels Sums and comparison

The sum is the object

Real positions come apart into independent regions, and a move happens in exactly one of them. That operation — the disjunctive sum — is what the whole theory is built to survive, and it is the reason values exist at all.

 012345601234valuetemperaturetemperature 2mean 3Left's wallRight's wall{5 | 1} — mean 3, temperature 2 Temperature

What is at stake

Some positions both players are desperate to move in, and some neither player wants to touch. The difference is a number — how much the move is worth — and it turns out to be the most useful single quantity for deciding where to play.

 1blue2blue blue1/2blue red3/4blue red blue1/4blue red red3/8blue red red blueeach string is worth a number, and the string spells itblue is Left · red is Right · the ground is what holds it up 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.

 a heap of 10, taking 1, 3, 4options lead to heaps of 9, 7, 6whose values are 0, 0, 2mex of those is 1plays exactly likea Nim heap of 1= ∗the value is the heap size — nothing else about the position survives Impartial games

Every impartial game is a Nim heap

Sprague and Grundy proved, independently and four years apart, that any position in any impartial game is equivalent to a single heap of counters. Not similar to one — equal to one, interchangeable with it inside any larger game.

 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 Values

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.

 ↑ − 0= ↑outcome L↑ > 0∗ − 0= ∗outcome N∗ ‖ 0⇑ − ↑= ↑outcome L⇑ > ↑1/2 − 1/4= 1/4outcome L1/2 > 1/4↑∗ − ∗= ↑outcome L↑∗ > ∗the differencethe verdict‖ means confused: neither greater, nor smaller, nor equal — and no amount of care removes it Sums and comparison

Comparing positions

One position is worth at least another when the second player wins their difference. That is the only definition there is, it is a computation rather than a judgement, and it produces an order in which some pairs are simply not comparable.

 012345601234valuetemperaturetemperature 2mean 3Left's wallRight's wall{5 | 1} — mean 3, temperature 2 Temperature

Reading a thermograph

A thermograph is two walls rising from a number line, closing in as the tax on moving increases, and meeting where the position stops being worth fighting over. Everything about a position's hotness is in the shape.

 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 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.

 001230412308123012123016123020123024heap size, and the value of a heap that bigperiod 4, from heap 0a heap of size n is worth ∗g(n) — and the whole game is the nim-sum of its heaps Impartial games

Grundy sequences, and where they stop being predictable

Computing one Grundy value is a mex. Computing all of them produces a sequence, and the sequences do something nobody has fully explained — most of them eventually repeat, some of them take thousands of terms to start, and for a few nobody knows whether they ever do.

 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 Values

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.

 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 Where it stops

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.

All themes