arXiv++ Combinatorics

We investigate {\sc Full Support (FS)}, a {\sc Partizan Subtraction} game in which the players can remove any number of pebbles from the heap up to certain bounds that are typically different for Left and Right. The player with the richer move set always wins for all but finitely many heap sizes. We confirm this advantage by finding the general canonical form and the atomic weights of this game. To restore fairness (and peace), we introduce {\sc Truncated Support (TS)}, which essentially trims the larger subtraction set from below. If the truncation is shallow, the unfairness persists above a certain heap size, and one player continues ruling. If the truncation is deep, another player starts ruling. Interestingly, there is one more balanced truncation level in the middle, for which a non-trivial periodicity emerges, and where it has infinitely many $\mathcal P$ and $\mathcal N$-positions. We also explore the atomic weights for the lightly trimmed scenarios.

We consider a subtraction Nim with subtraction set {s_1,s_2,s_3={2,4n,4n+2}, where n is a positive integer such that n >= 3. We do not treat the case that n=1 or n=2 in this article. We show that this game satisfies the reverse-mex property of Grundy numbers, i.e., G(x)=mex{G(x+s_1), G(x+s_2), G(x+s_3)}, where the mex is taken over successors rather than predecessors. We modify the rule of this subtraction Nim to allow a one-time pass, that is, a passing move usable at most once during the game, unavailable from terminal positions; once used by either player, it becomes unavailable. In classical Nim, the introduction of a pass move complicates the game, and finding a formula that describes the set of P-positions in traditional three-pile Nim with a pass remains an important open question. In the case of subtraction Nim with a pass, however, the introduction of a pass move does not complicate the game. We prove that this game still satisfies the reverse-mex property of Grundy numbers when a pass move is available.

We determine the full nim-value structure of additive subtraction games in the {\em primitive quadratic} regime. The problem appears in Winning Ways by Berlekamp et al. in 1982; it includes a closed formula, involving Beatty-type {\em bracket expressions} on rational moduli, for determining the P-positions, but to the best of our knowledge, a complete proof of this claim has not yet appeared in the literature; Miklós and Post (2024) established outcome-periodicity, but without reference to that closed formula. The primitive quadratic case captures the source of the quadratic complexity of the problem, a claim supported by recent research in the dual setting of sink subtraction with Bhagat et al. This study focuses on a number theoretic solution involving the classical closed formula, and we establish that each nim-value sequence resides on a linear shift of the classical P-positions.

Subtraction games are a classical topic in Combinatorial Game Theory. A result of Golomb~(1966) shows that every subtraction game with a finite move set has an eventually periodic nim-sequence, but the known proof yields only an exponential upper bound on the period length. Flammenkamp (1997) conjectures a striking classification for three-move subtraction games: non-additive rulesets exhibit linear period lengths of the form ``the sum of two moves'', where the choice of which two moves displays fractal-like behavior, while additive sets $S=\{a,b,a+b\}$ have purely periodic outcomes with linear or quadratic period lengths. Despite early attention in \emph{Winning Ways} (1982), the general additive case remains open. We introduce and analyze a dual winning convention, which we call {\sc sink subtraction}. Unlike the standard wall convention, where moves to negative positions are forbidden, the sink convention declares a player the winner upon moving to a non-positive position. We show that {\sc additive sink subtraction} admits a complete solution: the nim-sequence is purely periodic with an explicit linear or quadratic period formula, and we conjecture a duality between additive sink subtraction and classical wall subtraction. Keywords: Additive Subtraction Game, Nimber, Periodicity, Sink Convention.

In an impartial combinatorial game, both players have the same options in the game and all its subpositions. The classical Sprague-Grundy Theory was developed for short impartial games, where players have a finite number of options, there are no special moves, and an infinite run is not possible. Subsequently, many generalizations have been proposed, particularly the Smith-Frankel-Perl Theory devised for games where the infinite run is possible, and the Larsson-Nowakowski-Santos Theory able to deal with entailing moves that disrupt the logic of the disjunctive sum. This work presents a generalization that combines these two theories, suitable for analyzing cyclic impartial games with carry-on moves, which are particular cases of entailing moves where the entailed player has no freedom of choice in their response. This generalization is illustrated with sc green-lime hackenbush, a game inspired by the classic green hackenbush.

Subtraction games have a rich literature as normal-play combinatorial games (e.g., Berlekamp, Conway, and Guy, 1982). Recently, the theory has been extended to zero-sum scoring play (Cohensius et al. 2019). Here, we take the approach of cumulative self-interest games, as introduced in a recent framework preprint by Larsson, Meir, and Zick. By adapting standard Pure Subgame Perfect Equilibria (PSPE) from classical game theory, players must declare and commit to acting either ``friendly'' or ``antagonistic'' in case of indifference. Whenever the subtraction set has size two, we establish a tie-breaking rule monotonicity: a friendly player can never benefit by a deterministic deviation to antagonistic play. This type of terminology is new to both ``economic'' and ``combinatorial'' games, but it becomes essential in the self-interest cumulative setting. The main result is an immediate consequence of the tie-breaking rule's monotonicity; in the case of two-action subtraction sets, two antagonistic players are never better off than two friendly players, i.e., their PSPE utilities are never greater. For larger subtraction sets, we conjecture that the main result continues to hold, while tie-breaking monotonicity may fail, and we provide empirical evidence in support of both statements.

We study optimal configurations of Queens on a square chessboard, defined as those covering the maximum number of squares. For a fixed number of Queens, $q$, we prove the existence of two thresholds in board size: a non-attacking threshold beyond which all optimal configurations are pairwise non-attacking, and a stabilizing threshold beyond which the set of optimal configurations becomes constant. Related studies on Queen domination, such as Tarnai and Gáspár (2007), focus on minimizing the number of Queens needed for full board coverage. Our approach, by contrast, fixes the number of Queens and analyzes optimal cover via a certain loss-function due to {\em internal loss} and {\em decentralization}. We demonstrate how the internal loss can be decomposed in terms of defined concepts, {\em balance} and {\em overlap concentration}. Moreover, by using our results, for sufficiently large board sizes, we find all optimal Queen configurations for all $2\le q\le 9$. And, whenever possible, we relate those solutions in terms of the classical problem of placing $q$ non-attacking Queens on a $q\times q$ board. For example, in case $q=8$, out of the twelve classical fundamental solutions, only three apply here as centralized patterns on large boards. On the other hand, the single classical fundamental solution for $q=6$ is never cover optimal on large boards, even if centralized, but another pattern that fits inside a $q\times (q+1)$ board applies.

Cumulative Games were introduced by Larsson, Meir, and Zick (2020) to bridge some conceptual and technical gaps between Combinatorial Game Theory (CGT) and Economic Game Theory. The partizan ruleset {\sc Robin Hood} is an instance of a Cumulative Game, viz., {\sc Wealth Nim}. It is played on multiple heaps, each associated with a pair of cumulations, interpreted here as wealth. Each player chooses one of the heaps, removes tokens from that heap not exceeding their own wealth, while simultaneously diminishing the other player's wealth by the same amount. In CGT, the {\em temperature} of a {\em disjunctive sum} game component is an estimate of the urgency of moving first in that component. It turns out that most of the positions of {\sc Robin Hood} are {\em hot}. The temperature of {\sc Robin Hood} on a single large heap shows a dichotomy in behavior depending on the ratio of the wealths of the players. Interestingly, this bifurcation is related to Pingala (Fibonacci) sequences and the Golden Ratio $φ$: when the ratio of the wealths lies in the interval $(φ^{-1},φ)$, the temperature increases linearly with the heap size, and otherwise it remains constant, and the mean values has a reciprocal property. It turns out that despite {\sc Robin Hood} displaying high temperatures, playing in the hottest component might be a sub-optimal strategy.

In this survey we revisit {\sc finite subtraction}, one-heap subtraction games on finite rulesets. The main purpose is to give a general overview of the development, and specifically to draw attention to Flammenkamp's thesis (1997), where he, contrary to other studies, experimentally observes exponential eventual period length of the outcomes, for a carefully selected subclass of games. In addition, we contribute an appendix on {\sc finite excluded subtraction} by Suetsugu.

There are many combinatorial games in which a move can terminate the game, such as a checkmate in chess. These moves give rise to diverse situations that fall outside the scope of the classical normal play structure. To analyze these games, an algebraic extension is necessary, including infinities as elements. In this work, affine normal play, the algebraic structure resulting from that extension, is analyzed. We prove that it is possible to compare two affine games using only their forms. Furthermore, affine games can still be reduced, although the reduced forms are not unique. We establish that the classical normal play is order-embedded in the extended structure, constituting its substructure of invertible elements. Additionally, as in classical theory, affine games born by day n form a lattice with respect to the partial order of games.

We consider an {\em enforce operator} on impartial rulesets similar to the Muller Twist and the comply/constrain operator of Smith and St\u anic\u a, 2002. Applied to the rulesets A and B, on each turn the opponent enforces one of the rulesets and the current player complies, by playing a move in that ruleset. If the outcome table of the enforce variation of A and B is the same as the outcome table of A, then we say that A dominates B. We find necessary and sufficient conditions for this relation. Additionally, we define a {\em selective operator} and explore a distributive-lattice-like structure within applicable rulesets. Lastly, we define nim-values under enforce-rulesets, and establish that the Sprague-Grundy theory continues to hold, along with illustrative examples.

This paper concerns two-player alternating play combinatorial games (Conway 1976) in the normal-play convention, i.e. last move wins. Specifically, we study impartial vector subtraction games on tuples of nonnegative integers (Golomb 1966), with finite subtraction sets. In case of two move rulesets we find a complete solution, via a certain $\mathcal{P}$-to-$\mathcal{P}$ principle (where $\mathcal{P}$ means that the previous player wins). Namely $x \in \mathcal{P}$ if and only if $x +a +b \in \mathcal{P}$, where $a$ and $b$ are the two move options. Flammenkamp 1997 observed that, already in one dimension, rulesets with three moves can be hard to analyze, and still today his related conjecture remains open. Here, we solve instances of rulesets with three moves in two dimensions, and conjecture that they all have regular outcomes. Through several computer visualizations of outcomes of multi-move two-dimensional rulesets, we observe that they tend to partition the game board into periodic mosaics on very few regions/segments, which can depend on the number of moves in a ruleset. For example, we have found a five-move ruleset with an outcome segmentation into six semi-infinite slices. In this spirit, we develop a coloring automaton that generalizes the $\mathcal{P}$-to-$\mathcal{P}$ principle. Given an initial set of colored positions, it quickly paints the $\mathcal{P}$-positions in segments of the game board. Moreover, we prove that two-dimensional rulesets have row/column eventually periodic outcomes. We pose open problems on the generic hardness of two-dimensional rulesets; several regularity conjectures are provided, but we also conjecture that not all rulesets have regular outcomes.

Combinatorial Game Theory typically studies sequential rulesets with perfect information where two players alternate moves. There are rulesets with {\em entailing moves} that break the alternating play axiom and/or restrict the other player's options within the disjunctive sum components. Although some examples have been analyzed in the classical work Winning Ways, such rulesets usually fall outside the scope of the established normal play mathematical theory. At the first Combinatorial Games Workshop at MSRI, John H. Conway proposed that an effort should be made to devise some nontrivial ruleset with entailing moves that had a complete analysis. Recently, Larsson, Nowakowski, and Santos proposed a more general theory, {\em affine impartial}, which facilitates the mathematical analysis of impartial rulesets with entailing moves. Here, by using this theory, we present a complete solution for a nontrivial ruleset with entailing moves.

A class of discrete Bidding Combinatorial Games that generalize alternating normal play was introduced by Kant, Larsson, Rai, and Upasany (2022). The major questions concerning optimal outcomes were resolved. By generalizing standard game comparison techniques from alternating normal play, we propose an algorithmic play-solution to the problem of game comparison for bidding games. We demonstrate some consequences of this result that generalize classical results in alternating play (from Winning Ways 1982 and On Numbers and Games 1976). In particular, integers, dyadics and numbers have many nice properties, such as group structures, but on the other hand the game * is non-invertible. We state a couple of thrilling conjectures and open problems for readers to dive into this promising path of bidding combinatorial games.

Combinatorial Game Theory is a branch of mathematics and theoretical computer science that studies sequential 2-player games with perfect information. Normal play is the convention where a player who cannot move loses. Here, we generalize the classical alternating normal play to infinitely many game families, by means of discrete Richman auctions (Develin et al. 2010, Larsson et al. 2021, Lazarus et al. 1996). We generalize the notion of a perfect play outcome, and find an exact characterization of outcome feasibility. As a main result, we prove existence of a game form for each such outcome class; then we describe their lattice structures. By imposing restrictions to the general families, such as impartial and {\em symmetric termination}, we find surprising analogies with alternating play.

Combinatorial Game Theory has also been called `additive game theory', whenever the analysis involves sums of independent game components. Such {\em disjunctive sums} invoke comparison between games, which allows abstract values to be assigned to them. However, there are rulesets with {\em entailing moves} that break the alternating play axiom and/or restrict the other player's options within the disjunctive sum components. These situations are exemplified in the literature by a ruleset such as {\sc nimstring}, a normal play variation of the classical children's game {\sc dots \& boxes}, and {\sc top~entails}, an elegant ruleset introduced in the classical work Winning Ways, by Berlekamp Conway and Guy. Such rulesets fall outside the scope of the established normal play theory. Here, we axiomatize normal play via two new terminating games, $\infty$ (Left wins) and $\overline\infty$ (Right wins), and a more general theory is achieved. We define {\em affine impartial}, which extends classical impartial games, and we analyze their algebra by extending the established Sprague-Grundy theory, with an accompanying minimum excluded rule. Solutions of {\sc nimstring} and {\sc top~entails} are given to illustrate the theory.

Arithmetic functions in Number Theory meet the Sprague-Grundy function from Combinatorial Game Theory. We study a variety of 2-player games induced by standard arithmetic functions, such as Euclidian division, divisors, remainders and relatively prime numbers, and their negations.

We define an all-small ruleset, Bipass, within the framework of normal-play combinatorial games. A game is played on finite strips of black and white stones. Stones of different colors are swapped provided they do not bypass one of their own kind. We find a surjective function from the strips to integer atomic weights (Berlekamp, Conway and Guy 1982) that measures the number of units in all-small games. This result provides explicit winning strategies for many games, and in cases where it does not, it gives narrow bounds for the canonical form game values. We prove that the game value *2 does not appear as a disjunctive sum of Bipass. Moreover, we find game values for some parametrized families of games, including an infinite number of strips of value *.

Combinatorial Game Theory(CGT)is a branch of Game Theory that has developed largely independently of Economic Game Theory (EGT), and is concerned with deep mathematical properties of two-player zero-sum games recursively defined over various combinatorial structures. The aim of this work is to lay the foundations for bridging the conceptual and technical gaps between CGT and EGT, here interpreted as multiplayer Extensive Form Games, so that they can be treated within a unified framework. More specifically, we introduce a class of $n$-player, general-sum games, called {\sc Cumulative Games}, which can be analyzed using tools from both CGT and EGT. We show how two of the most fundamental definitions of CGT, the outcome function and the disjunctive sum operator, naturally extend to the class of {\sc Cumulative Games}. The outcome function allows for efficient equilibrium computation under certain restrictions, while the disjunctive sum operator lets us define a partial order over games according to the advantage that a given player has. Finally, we show that any Extensive Form Game can be written as a {\sc Cumulative Game}.

We study zero-sum (combinatorial) games, within the framework of so-called Richman auctions (Lazarus et al. 1996) namely, we modify the alternating play scoring ruleset Cumulative Subtraction (CS) (Cohensius et al. 2019), to a discrete bidding scheme (similar to Develin and Payne 2010). Players bid to move and the player with the highest bid wins the move, and hands over the winning bidding amount to the other player. The new game is dubbed Bidding Cumulative Subtraction (BCS). In so-called unitary games, players remove exactly one item out of a single heap of identical items, until the heap is empty, and their actions contribute to a common score, which increases or decreases by one unit depending on whether the maximizing player won the turn or not. We show that there is a unique bidding equilibrium for a much larger class of games, that generalize standard scoring play in the literature. We prove that for all sufficiently large heap sizes, the equilibrium outcomes of unitary BCS are eventually periodic, with period 2, and we show that the periodicity appears at the latest for heaps of sizes quadratic in the total budget.