Combinatorial Game Theory A Special Collection in Honor of Elwyn Berlekamp John H Conway and Richard K Guy Richard J Nowakowski Full Chapter

Combinatorial Game Theory: A Special
Collection in Honor of Elwyn

Berlekamp, John H. Conway and
Richard K. Guy Richard J. Nowakowski
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/combinatorial-game-theory-a-special-collection-in-ho
nor-of-elwyn-berlekamp-john-h-conway-and-richard-k-guy-richard-j-nowakowski/
Richard J. Nowakowski, Bruce M. Landman, Florian Luca, Melvyn B. Nathanson,
Jaroslav Nešetřil, and Aaron Robertson (Eds.)
Combinatorial Game Theory
De Gruyter Proceedings in
Mathematics
|
Combinatorial
Game Theory
|
A Special Collection in Honor of Elwyn Berlekamp, John
H. Conway and Richard K. Guy
Edited by
Richard J. Nowakowski, Bruce M. Landman, Florian Luca,
Melvyn B. Nathanson, Jaroslav Nešetřil, and Aaron
Robertson
Mathematics Subject Classification 2010
05A, 05C55, 05C65, 05D, 11A, 11B, 11D, 11K, 11N, 11P, 11Y, 91A46
Editors
Richard J. Nowakowski Melvyn B. Nathanson
Dalhousie University Lehman College (CUNY)
Dept. of Mathematics & Statistics Department of Mathematics
Chase Building 250 Bedford Park Boulevard West
Halifax NS B3H 3J5 Bronx NY 10468
Canada USA
r.nowakowski@dal.ca Melvyn.Nathanson@lehman.cuny.edu
Bruce M. Landman Jaroslav Nešetřil

University of Georgia Charles University
Department of Mathematics Computer Science Institute (IUUK)
Athens, GA 30602 Malostranske nam. 25
USA 118 00 Praha
Bruce.Landman@uga.edu Czech Republic
Nesetril@iuuk.mff.cuni.cz
Florian Luca
University of Witwatersrand Aaron Robertson
School of Mathematics Colgate University
1 Jan Smuts Avenue Department of Mathematics
Johannesburg 2000 219 McGregory Hall
Republic of South Africa Hamilton NY 13346
Florian.Luca@wits.ac.za USA
arobertson@colgate.edu
ISBN 978-3-11-075534-3
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-075541-1
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-075549-7
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022934372
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Typesetting: VTeX UAB, Lithuania
Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck
www.degruyter.com
Preface
What is 1 + 1 + 1?
John H. Conway, 1973
Individually, each of Elwyn R. Berlekamp, John H. Conway, and Richard K. Guy have
received much, rightly deserved, praise. Each made lasting contributions to many ar-
eas of mathematics. This volume is dedicated to their work in combinatorial game
theory. It is due to their efforts that combinatorial game theory exists as a subject.
Brief History of how Winning Ways came to be

Bouton first analyzed nim [67], little realizing how central nim was to be. In the next
two decades, other researchers contributed the analysis of a few other, specific games.
The chess champion Emanuel Lasker came close to a complete theory of impartial
games. It was in the 1930s that Grundy [68] and Sprague [72] gave a complete analy-
sis, now known as the Sprague–Grundy theory. Despite being an elegant theory and
easy to apply, the subject languished because there was no clear direction in which
to develop the theory. In the late 1940s, Richard K. Guy rediscovered the theory and
defined the octal games. In 1956, Guy and C. A. B. Smith published The G-values of var-
ious games [42]. This gave the world an infinite number of impartial games and led to
many interesting, easy to state, and yet still unsolved conjectures.
The analysis of partizan games looked out of reach. The Fields’ medalist John Mil-
nor [70] in 1953 published Sums of positional games. This only covered games in which
players gained when they played and was not easy to apply. In 1960, John Conway
met Michael Guy, Richard’s son. Through this friendship, John met Richard and asked
about partizan games. This turned out to be a recurring theme in their work in the
next two decades. Also in 1960, Elwyn Berlekamp got roped into playing 3 × 3 dots-
&-boxes game against a computer. He lost, but knowing about the Sprague–Grundy
theory, he analyzed the game. (Recently, Elwyn claimed that he had never lost a game
since.) Elwyn met Richard at the 1967 Chapel Hill conference and suggested that they
write a book. Richard agreed, got John and Elwyn together in 1969, and work began.
The analysis of each nonimpartial game was well thought out but ad hoc. John, with
his training in set theory, started to see a structure emerging when games were de-
composed into components. He gave the names of 1 and 1/2 to two abstract games and
was delighted (giggled like a baby was the phrase he used) when he discovered that,
as games, 1/2 + 1/2 = 1. He wrote On Numbers and Games [28] in a week. This caused
some friction among the three, but, eventually, work restarted on Winning Ways [3, 4].
R. Austin, S. Devitt, D. Duffus, and myself, as graduate students at Calgary,
scoured the early page-proofs. We suggested numerous jokes and puns. Fortunately,
the authors rejected all of them.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110755411-201
VI | Preface
One other person deserves to be mentioned, Louise Guy, Richard’s wife. A gra-
cious lady made every visitor to their house feel welcome. Some people have asked
why the combinatorial game players, Left and Right, are female and male, respectively.
The original reasons have been forgotten, but after Winning Ways appeared, it became
a mark of respect to remember them as Louise and Richard.
Why Elwyn, John, and Richard are important

Many books are written, enjoy a little success, and then are forgotten by all but a
few. On Numbers and Games but especially Winning Ways [3, 4] are still popular to-
day. This popularity is due to the personalities and their approach to mathematics.
All were great ambassadors for mathematics, writing explanatory articles and giving
many public lectures. More than that, they understood that mathematics needs a hu-
man touch. These days, it is easy to get a computer to play a game well, but how do you
get a person to play well? This was one of their aims. Winning Ways is 800+ pages of
puns, humor, easy-to-remember sayings, and verses. These provide great and memo-
rable insights into the games and their structures, and the book is still a rich source of
material for researchers. Mathscinet reports that Winning Ways is cited by over 300 ar-
ticles, Google Scholar reports over 3000 citations. Yet, any reader will be hard pressed
to find a single mathematical proof in the book. Elwyn, John, and Richard wrote it to
entertain, draw in a reader, and give them an intuitive feeling for the games.
After the publication of Winning Ways, even though all were well known for their
research outside of combinatorial game theory, they remained active in the subject.
Each was interested in many parts of the subject, but, very loosely, their main interests
were:
– Elwyn Berlekamp considered the problem of how to define and quantify the no-
tion of the “urgency” of a move. He made great strides with his concept of an
enriched environment [11, 24, 25]. He was also fascinated by go [7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 11]
and dots-&-boxes [13, 18, 23].
– John Conway remained interested in pushing the theory of surreal numbers, par-
ticularly infinite games [30, 37, 41], games from groups and codes [32, 39], and
misère games [35].
– Richard K. Guy retained an interest in subtraction and octal games, writing a book
for inquisitive youngsters [52]. He continued to present the theory as it was [54, 57,
58, 59, 61] and also summarized the important problems [56, 60, 62, 64].
Standing on their shoulders

Most of the papers in this volume can be traced directly back to Winning Ways and
On Numbers and Games, or to the continuing interests of the three. Several though,
Preface | VII
illustrate how far the subject has developed. A general approach of impartial misère
games was only started by Plambeck [71]. A. Siegel (a student of Berlekamp), a major
figure developing this theory, pushes this further in Chapter 20. The theory of parti-
zan misère games was only started in 2007 [69]. Whilst playing in the context of all
misère games, Chapter 10 analyzes a specific game. Chapter 16 contains important re-
sults for analyzing misère dead-ending games. In Winning Ways, dots-&-boxes and
top-entails do not fit into the theory, each in a separate way. They are only partially
analyzed and that via ad hoc methods. Chapter 17 finds a normal play extension that
covers both types of games. (The authors think this would have intrigued them but are
not sure if they would have fully approved.)
Chapters 1, 5–9, 12, 15, 18, and 19 either directly extend the theory or consider a
related game to ones given in Winning Ways. As is evidenced by Richard K. Guy’s early
contributions, it is also important to have new sources of games. These are presented
in Chapters 2, 3, 11, 13, and 14.
Serendipity gave Chapter 4. This paper is the foundation of Chapters 1 and 5. It
gives a simple, effect-for-humans, test for when games are numbers. The authors are
sure that Elwyn, John, and Richard would have started it with a rhyming couplet that
everyone would then remember.
Elwyn, John, and Richard gave freely of their time. Many people will remember the
coffee-time and evenings at the MSRI and BIRS Workshops. Each would be at a large
table fully occupied by anyone who wished to be there, discussing and sometimes
solving problems. Students were especially welcome. All combinatorial games work-
shops now follow this inclusive model. A large number of papers originate at these
workshops, have several coauthors, and include students. They shared their time out-
side of conferences and workshops. Many students will remember those offhand mo-
ments, with one or more of them, that often stretched to hours. I was a second-year
undergraduate student when on meeting John, he immediately asked me what was
1 + 1 + 1? Even after I answered “3”, he still took the time to explain the intricacies of
3-player games. (The question is still unanswered.)
Their wit, wisdom, and willingness to play provided people with pleasure. They
will be sorely missed, but their legacy lives on.
Richard J. Nowakowski
VIII | Preface
Books and Papers in Combinatorial Game Theory

authored by Elwyn R. Berlekamp, John H. Conway,
and Richard K. Guy, plus six other seminal papers
[1] Elwyn R. Berlekamp. Some recent results on the combinatorial game called Welter’s Nim. In
Proc. 6th Ann. Princeton Conf. Information Science and Systems, pages 203–204, 1972.
[2] Elwyn R. Berlekamp. The hackenbush number system for compression of numerical data.
Inform. and Control, 26:134–140, 1974.
[3] Elwyn R. Berlekamp, John H. Conway, and Richard K. Guy. Winning Ways for Your Mathematical
Plays. Vol. 1. Academic Press Inc. [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers], London, 1982. Games
in general.
Plays. Vol. 2. Academic Press Inc. [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers], London, 1982.
Games in particular.
[5] Elwyn R. Berlekamp. Blockbusting and domineering. J. Combin. Theory (Ser. A), 49:67–116,
1988. An earlier version, entitled Introduction to blockbusting and domineering, appeared in:
The Lighter Side of Mathematics, Proc. E. Strens Memorial Conf. on Recr. Math. and its History,
Calgary, 1986, Spectrum Series (R. K. Guy and R. E. Woodrow, eds.), Math. Assoc. of America,
Washington, DC, 1994, pp. 137–148.
[6] Elwyn R. Berlekamp. Two-person, perfect-information games. In The Legacy of John von
Neumann (Hempstead NY, 1988), Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., volume 50, pages 275–287. Amer.
Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1990.
[7] Elwyn R. Berlekamp. Introductory overview of mathematical Go endgames. In Proceedings of
Symposia in Applied Mathematics, Combinatorial Games, volume 43, pages 73–100. American
Mathematical Society, 1991.
[8] Elwyn R. Berlekamp. Introductory overview of mathematical go endgames. In R. K. Guy, editor,
Proc. Symp. Appl. Math., Combinatorial Games, volume 43, pages 73–100. Amer. Math. Soc.,
Providence, RI, 1991.
[9] Elwyn R. Berlekamp and David Wolfe. Mathematical Go: Chilling Gets the Last Point. A K Peters,
Ltd., Wellesley, Massachusetts, 1994.
[10] Elwyn R. Berlekamp and David Wolfe. Mathematical Go Endgames: Nightmares for the
Professional Go Player. Ishi Press International, San Jose, London, Tokyo, 1994.
[11] Elwyn R. Berlekamp and Y. Kim. Where is the “thousand-dollar ko?”. In R. J. Nowakowski,
editor, Games of No Chance, Proc. MSRI Workshop on Combinatorial Games, July, 1994,
Berkeley, CA, MSRI Publ., volume 29, pages 203–226. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1996.
[12] Elwyn R. Berlekamp. The economist’s view of combinatorial games. In Richard J. Nowakowski,
editor, Games of No Chance, MSRI, volume 29, pages 365–405. Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge, 1996.
[13] Elwyn R. Berlekamp. The Dots and Boxes Game: Sophisticated Child’s Play. A K Peters, Ltd.,
Natick, MA, 2000.
[14] Elwyn R. Berlekamp. Sums of N × 2 amazons. In F. T. Bruss and L. M. Le Cam, editors, Lecture
Notes – Monograph Series, volume 35, pages 1–34. Institute of Mathematical Statistics,
Beechwood, Ohio, 2000. Papers in honor of Thomas S. Ferguson.
Plays. Vol. 1, second edition. A K Peters, Ltd., 2001.
Preface | IX
[16] Elwyn R. Berlekamp. The 4g4g4g4g4 problems and solutions. In Richard J. Nowakowski,
editor, More Games of No Chance, MSRI Publications, volume 42, pages 231–241. Cambridge
University Press, 2002.
[17] Elwyn R. Berlekamp. Four games for Gardner. In D. Wolfe and T. Rodgers, editors, Puzzler’s
Tribute: A Feast for the Mind, pages 383–386. A K Peters, Ltd., Natick, MA, 2002. Honoring
Martin Gardner.
[18] Elwyn R. Berlekamp and K. Scott. Forcing your opponent to stay in control of a loony
dots-and-boxes endgame. In Richard J. Nowakowski, editor, More Games of No Chance, MSRI
Publications, volume 42, pages 317–330. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
[19] Elwyn R. Berlekamp. Idempotents among partisan games. In Richard J. Nowakowski, editor,
More Games of No Chance, MSRI Publications, volume 42, pages 3–23. Cambridge University
Press, 2002.
[23] Elwyn R. Berlekamp. Yellow-brown hackenbush. In Michael H. Albert and Richard J.
Nowakowski, editors, Games of No Chance 3, MSRI, volume 56, pages 413–418. Cambridge
Univ. Press, 2009.
[24] Elwyn R. Berlekamp and Richard M. Low. Entrepreneurial chess. Internat. J. Game Theory,
47(2):379–415, 2018.
[25] Elwyn R. Berlekamp. Temperatures of games and coupons. In Urban Larsson, editor, Games of
No Chance 5, Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Publications, volume 70, pages 21–33.
Cambridge University Press, 2019.
[26] John H. Conway. All numbers great and small. Res. Paper No. 149, Univ. of Calgary Math. Dept.,
1972.
[27] John H. Conway and H. S. M. Coxeter. Triangulated polygons and frieze patterns. Math. Gaz.,
57:87–94; 175–183, 1973.
[28] John H. Conway. On Numbers and Games. Academic Press, 1976.
[29] John H. Conway. All games bright and beautiful. Amer. Math. Monthly, 84(6):417–434, 1977.
[30] John H. Conway. Loopy games. Ann. Discrete Math., 3:55–74, 1978. Advances in graph theory
(Cambridge Combinatorial Conf., Trinity College, Cambridge, 1977).
[31] John H. Conway. A gamut of game theories. Math. Mag., 51(1):5–12, 1978.
[32] John H. Conway and N. J. A. Sloane. Lexicographic codes: error-correcting codes from game
theory. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 32(3):337–348, 1986.
[33] John H. Conway. More ways of combining games. In R. K. Guy, editor, Proc. Symp. Appl. Math.,
Combinatorial Games, volume 43, pages 57–71. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1991.
[34] John H. Conway. Numbers and games. In R. K. Guy, editor, Proc. Symp. Appl. Math.,
Combinatorial Games, volume 43, pages 23–34. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1991.
[35] W. L. Sibert and J. H. Conway. Mathematical Kayles. Internat. J. Game Theory, 20(3):237–246,
1992.
[36] John H. Conway. On numbers and games. In Summer Course 1993: The Real Numbers (Dutch),
CWI Syllabi, volume 35, pages 101–124. Math. Centrum Centrum Wisk. Inform., Amsterdam,
1993.
[37] John H. Conway. The surreals and the reals. Real numbers, generalizations of the reals,
and theories of continua. In Synthese Lib., volume 242, pages 93–103. Kluwer Acad. Publ.,
Dordrecht, 1994.
X | Preface
[38] John H. Conway. The angel problem. In R. J. Nowakowski, editor, Games of No Chance, Proc.
MSRI Workshop on Combinatorial Games, July, 1994, Berkeley, CA, MSRI Publ., volume 29,
pages 3–12. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
[39] John H. Conway. m13 . In Surveys in Combinatorics, London Math. Soc., Lecture Note Ser.,
volume 241, pages 1–11. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1997.
[40] John H. Conway. On Numbers and Games, 2nd edition. A K Peters, Ltd., 2001. First edition
published in 1976 by Academic Press.
[41] John H. Conway. More infinite games. In Richard J. Nowakowski, editor, More Games of No
Chance, MSRI Publications, volume 42, pages 31–36. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
[42] Richard K. Guy and Cedric A. B. Smith. The G-values of various games. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc.,
52:514–526, 1956.
[43] Richard K. Guy. Twenty questions concerning Conway’s sylver coinage. Amer. Math. Monthly,
83:634–637, 1976.
[44] Richard K. Guy. Games are graphs, indeed they are trees. In Proc. 2nd Carib. Conf. Combin. and
Comput., pages 6–18. Letchworth Press, Barbados, 1977.
[45] Richard K. Guy. Partisan and impartial combinatorial games. In Combinatorics (Proc. Fifth
Hungarian Colloq., Keszthely, 1976), Vol. I, Colloq. Math. Soc. János Bolyai, volume 18, pages
437–461. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978.
[46] Richard K. Guy. Partizan and impartial combinatorial games. Colloq. Math. Soc. János Bolyai,
18:437–461, 1978. Proc. 5th Hungar. Conf. Combin. Vol. I (A. Hajnal and V. T. Sós, eds.),
Keszthely, Hungary, 1976, North-Holland.
[47] Richard K. Guy. Partizan games. In Colloques Internationaux C. N. R. No. 260 — Problèmes
Combinatoires et Théorie des Graphes, pages 199–205, 1979.
[48] Richard K. Guy. Anyone for twopins? In D. A. Klarner, editor, The Mathematical Gardner, pages
2–15. Wadsworth Internat., Belmont, CA, 1981.
[49] Richard K. Guy. Graphs and games. In L. W. Beineke and R. J. Wilson, editors, Selected Topics in
Graph Theory, volume 2, pages 269–295. Academic Press, London, 1983.
[50] Richard K. Guy. John isbell’s game of beanstalk and John Conway’s game of beans-don’t-talk.
Math. Mag., 59:259–269, 1986.
[51] Richard K. Guy. Fair Game, COMAP Math. Exploration Series. Arlington, MA, 1989.
[52] Richard K. Guy. Fair Game: How to play impartial combinatorial games. COMAP, Inc., 60 Lowell
Street, Arlington, MA 02174, 1989.
[53] Richard K. Guy, editor. Combinatorial Games, Proceedings of Symposia in Applied
Mathematics, volume 43. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1991. Lecture notes
prepared for the American Mathematical Society Short Course held in Columbus, Ohio, August
6–7, 1990, AMS Short Course Lecture Notes.
[54] Richard K. Guy. Impartial games. In Combinatorial Games (Columbus, OH, 1990), Proc.
Sympos. Appl. Math., volume 43, pages 35–55. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1991.
[55] Richard K. Guy. Mathematics from fun & fun from mathematics; an informal autobiographical
history of combinatorial games. In J. H. Ewing and F. W. Gehring, editors, Paul Halmos:
Celebrating 50 Years of Mathematics, pages 287–295. Springer Verlag, New York, NY, 1991.
[56] Richard K. Guy. Unsolved problems in combinatorial games. In American Mathematical Society
Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied Mathematics, volume 43, 1991. Check my homepage
for a copy, http://www.gustavus.edu/~wolfe.
[57] Richard K. Guy. What is a Game? In Combinatorial Games, Proceedings of Symposia in Applied
Mathematics, volume 43, 1991.
[58] Richard K. Guy. Combinatorial games. In R. L. Graham, M. Grötschel, and L. Lovász, editors,
Handbook of Combinatorics, volume II, pages 2117–2162. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1995.
Preface | XI
[59] Richard K. Guy. Impartial games. In R. J. Nowakowski, editor, Games of No Chance, Proc.
MSRI Workshop on Combinatorial Games, July, 1994, Berkeley, CA, MSRI Publ., volume 29,
pages 61–78. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996. Earlier version in: Combinatorial
Games, Proc. Symp. Appl. Math. (R. K. Guy, ed.), Vol. 43, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI,
1991, pp. 35–55.
[60] Richard K. Guy. Unsolved problems in combinatorial games. In R. J. Nowakowski, editor, Games
of No Chance, MSRI Publ., volume 29, pages 475–491. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
[61] Richard K. Guy. What is a Game? In Richard Nowakowski, editor, Games of No Chance, MSRI
Publ., volume 29, pages 43–60. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
[62] Ian Caines, Carrie Gates, Richard K. Guy, and Richard J. Nowakowski. Unsolved problems:
periods in taking and splitting games. Amer. Math. Monthly, 106:359–361, 1999.
[63] Richard K. Guy. Aviezri Fraenkel and combinatorial games. Elect. J. Combin, 8:#I2, 2001.
[64] Richard K. Guy and Richard J. Nowakowski. Unsolved problems in combinatorial games. In
Richard J. Nowakowski, editor, More Games of No Chance, MSRI Publications, volume 42,
pages 457–473. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
[65] Richard K. Guy and Richard J. Nowakowski. Unsolved problems in combinatorial game theory.
In M. H. Albert and R. J. Nowakowski, editors, Games of No Chance 3, MSRI, pages 465–489.
Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009.
[66] Alex Fink and Richard K. Guy. The number-pad game College Math. J., 38:260–264, 2007.
[67] Charles L. Bouton. Nim, a game with a complete mathematical theory. Annals of Mathematics,
3(2):35–39, 1902.
[68] Patrick M. Grundy. Mathematics and games. Eureka, 2:6–8, 1939.
[69] G. A. Mesdal and Paul Ottaway. Simplification of Partizan Games in misère play. INTEGERS,
7:#G06, 2007.
[70] John Milnor. Sums of positional games. In: H. W. Kuhn and A. W. Tucker, eds. Contributions to
the Theory of Games, Vol. 2, Ann. of Math. Stud., volume 28, pages 291–301. Princeton, 1953.
[71] T. E. Plambeck. Taming the wild in impartial combinatorial games. INTEGERS, 5:#G05, 2005.
[72] Roland P Sprague. Über mathematische Kampfspiele. Tôhoku Math. J., 41:438–444, 1935–36.
Contents
Preface | V
Anthony Bonato, Melissa A. Huggan, and Richard J. Nowakowski

The game of flipping coins | 1
Kyle Burke, Matthew Ferland, Michael Fisher, Valentin Gledel, and Craig
Tennenhouse
The game of blocking pebbles | 17
Kyle Burke, Matthew Ferland, and Shang-Hua Teng

Transverse Wave: an impartial color-propagation game inspired by social influence
and Quantum Nim | 39
Alda Carvalho, Melissa A. Huggan, Richard J. Nowakowski, and Carlos Pereira dos
Santos
A note on numbers | 67
Alda Carvalho, Melissa A. Huggan, Richard J. Nowakowski, and Carlos Pereira dos
Santos
Ordinal sums, clockwise hackenbush, and domino shave | 77
Alexander Clow and Stephen Finbow

Advances in finding ideal play on poset games | 99
Erik D. Demaine and Yevhenii Diomidov

Strings-and-Coins and Nimstring are PSPACE-complete | 109
Eric Duchêne, Marc Heinrich, Richard Nowakowski, and Aline Parreau

Partizan subtraction games | 121
Matthieu Dufour, Silvia Heubach, and Anh Vo

Circular Nim games CN(7, 4) | 139
Aaron Dwyer, Rebecca Milley, and Michael Willette

Misère domineering on 2 × n boards | 157
Zachary Gates and Robert Kelvey

Relator games on groups | 171
XIV | Contents
L. R. Haff
Playing Bynum’s game cautiously | 201
Melissa A. Huggan and Craig Tennenhouse

Genetically modified games | 229
Douglas E. Iannucci and Urban Larsson

Game values of arithmetic functions | 245
Yuki Irie
A base-p Sprague–Grundy-type theorem for p-calm subtraction games: Welter’s
game and representations of generalized symmetric groups | 281
Urban Larsson, Rebecca Milley, Richard Nowakowski, Gabriel Renault, and Carlos
Santos
Recursive comparison tests for dicot and dead-ending games under misère
play | 309
Urban Larsson, Richard J. Nowakowski, and Carlos P. Santos

Impartial games with entailing moves | 323
James B. Martin
Extended Sprague–Grundy theory for locally finite games, and applications to
random game-trees | 343
Ryohei Miyadera and Yushi Nakaya

Grundy numbers of impartial three-dimensional chocolate-bar games | 367
Aaron N. Siegel
On the structure of misère impartial games | 389
Anthony Bonato, Melissa A. Huggan, and Richard J. Nowakowski
The game of flipping coins
Abstract: We consider flipping coins, a partizan version of the impartial game turn-
ing turtles, played on lines of coins. We show that the values of this game are num-
bers, and these are found by first applying a reduction, then decomposing the position
into an iterated ordinal sum. This is unusual since moves in the middle of the line do
not eliminate the rest of the line. Moreover, if G is decomposed into lines H and K,
then G = (H : K R ). This is in contrast to hackenbush strings, where G = (H : K).
1 Introduction
In Winning Ways, Volume 3 [3], Berlekamp, Conway, and Guy introduced turning
turtles and considered many variants. Each game involves a finite row of turtles,
either on feet or backs, and a move is to turn one turtle over onto its back, with the
option of flipping a number of other turtles, to the left, each to the opposite of its cur-
rent state (feet or back). The number depends on the rules of the specific game. The
authors moved to playing with coins as playing with turtles is cruel.
These games can be solved using the Sprague–Grundy theory for impartial games
[2], but the structure and strategies of some variants are interesting. The strategy for
moebius (flip up to five coins) played with 18 coins, involves Möbius transformations;
for mogul (flip up to seven coins) on 24 coins, it involves the miracle octad generator
developed by R. Curtis in his work on the Mathieu group M24 and the Leech lattice
[6, 7]; ternups [3] (flip three equally spaced coins) requires ternary expansions; and
turning corners [3], a two-dimensional version where the corners of a rectangle are
flipped, needs nim-multiplication.
We consider a simple partizan version of turning turtles, also played with
coins. We give a complete solution and show that it involves ordinal sums. This is
somewhat surprising since moves in the middle of the line do not eliminate moves at
the end. Compare this with hackenbush strings [2] and domino shave [5].
Acknowledgement: Anthony Bonato was supported by an NSERC Discovery grant. Melissa A. Hug-
gan was supported by an NSERC Postdoctoral Fellowship. The author also thanks the Department of
Mathematics at Ryerson University, which hosted the author while the research took place. Richard J.
Nowakowski was supported by an NSERC Discovery grant.
Anthony Bonato, Department of Mathematics, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, e-mail:
abonato@ryerson.ca
Melissa A. Huggan, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Mount Allison University,
Sackville, New Brunswick, Canada, e-mail: mhuggan@mta.ca
Richard J. Nowakowski, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Dalhousie University, Halifax,
Nova Scotia, Canada, e-mail: r.nowakowski@dal.ca
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110755411-001
2 | A. Bonato et al.
We will denote heads by 0 and tails by 1. Our partizan version will be played with
a line of coins, represented by a 0–1 sequence d1 d2 . . . dn , where di ∈ {0, 1}. With this
position, we associate the binary number ∑ni=1 di 2i−1 . Left moves by choosing some pair
of coins di , dj , i < j, where di = dj = 1, and flips them over so that both coins are 0s.
Right also chooses a pair dk , dℓ , k < ℓ, with dk = 0 and dℓ = 1, and flips them over. If j
is the greatest index such that dj = 1, then dk , k > j, will be deleted. For example,
1011 = {0001, 001, 1 | 1101, 111}.
The game eventually ends since the associated binary number decreases with every
move. We call this game flipping coins.
Another way to model flipping coins is to consider tokens on a strip of loca-
tions. Left can remove a pair of tokens, and Right is able to move a token to an open
space to its left. We use the coin flipping model for this game to be consistent with the
literature.
The game is biased to Left. If there are a nonzero even number of 1s in a position,
then Left always has a move; that is, she will win. Left also wins any nontrivial posi-
tion starting with 1. However, there are positions that Right wins. The two-part method
to find the outcomes and values of the remaining positions can be applied to all po-
sitions. First, apply a modification to the position (unless it is all 1s), which reduces
the number of consecutive 1s to at most three. After this reduction, build an iterated
ordinal sum, by successively deleting everything after the third last 1, this deleted po-
sition determines the value of the next term in the ordinal sum. As a consequence,
the original position is a Right win if the position remaining at the end is of the form
0 . . . 01, and the value is given by the ordinal sum.
The necessary background for numbers is in Section 2. Section 3 contains results
about outcomes and also includes our main results. First, we show that the values are
numbers in Theorem 3.2. Next, an algorithm to find the value of a position is presented,
and Theorem 3.3 states that the value given by the algorithm is correct.
The actual analysis is in Section 4. It starts by identifying the best moves for both
players in Theorem 4.2. This leads directly to the core result Lemma 4.5, which shows
that the value of a position is an ordinal sum. The ordinal sum decomposition of G
is found as follows. Let GL be the position after the Left move that removes the right-
most 1s. Let H be the string G \ GL ; that is, the substring eliminated by Left’s move. Let
H R be the result of Right’s best move in H. Now we have that G = GL : H R . In contrast,
the ordinal sums for hackenbush strings and domino shave [5] involve the value of
H not H R .
The proof of Theorem 3.3 is given in Section 4.1. The final section includes a brief
discussion of open problems.
Finally, we pose a question for the reader, which we answer at the end of Sec-
tion 4.1: Who wins 0101011111 + 1101100111 + 0110110110111 and how?
2 Numbers
All the values in this paper are numbers, and this section contains all the necessary
background to make the paper self-contained. For further details, consult [1, 8]. Posi-
tions are written in terms of their options; that is, G = {Gℒ | Gℛ }.
Definition 2.1 ([1, 2, 8]). Let G be a number whose options are numbers, and let GL ,
GR be the Left and Right options of the canonical form of G.
1. If there is an integer k, GL < k < GR , or if either GL or GR does not exist, then G is
the integer, say n, closest to zero that satisfies GL < n < GR .
2. If both GL and GR exist and the previous case does not apply, then G = 2pq , where
q is the least positive integer such that there is an odd integer p satisfying GL <
p
2q
< GR .
The properties of numbers required for this paper are contained in the next three
theorems.
Theorem 2.2 ([1, 2, 8]). Let G be a number whose options are numbers, and let GL and
GR be the Left and Right options of the canonical form of G. If G′ and G′′ are any Left
and Right options, respectively, then
G′ ⩽ GL < G < GR ⩽ G′′ .
Theorem 2.2 shows that if we know that the string of inequalities holds, then we
need to only consider the unique best move for both players in a number.
We include the following examples to further illustrate these ideas:
(a) 0 = { | } = {−9 | } = {− 21 | 47 };
(b) −2 = { | −1} = {− 52 | − 16 31
};
(c) 1 = {0 | } = {0 | 100};
(d) 21 = {0 | 1} = { 83 | 32
17
}.
For games G and H, to show that G ⩾ H, we need to show that G − H ⩾ 0, meaning

that we need to show that G − H is a Left win moving second. For more information,
see Sections 5.1, 5.8, and 6.3 of [1].
Let G and H be games. The ordinal sum of G, the base, and H, the exponent, is
G : H = {Gℒ , G : H ℒ | Gℛ , G : H ℛ }.
Intuitively, playing in G eliminates H, but playing in H does not affect G. For ease of
reading, if an ordinal sum is a term in an expression, then we enclose it in brackets.
Note that x : 0 = x = 0 : x since neither player has a move in 0. We demonstrate
how to calculate the values of other positions with the following examples:
(a) 1 : 1 = {1 | } = 2;
(b) 1 : −1 = {0 | 1} = 21 ;
(c) 1 : 21 = {0, (1 : 0) | (1 : 1)} = {0, 1 | {1 | }} = {1 | 2} = 32 ;
(d) 21 : 1 = {0, ( 21 : 0) | 1} = {0, 21 | 1} = { 21 | 1} = 43 ;
(e) (1 : −1) : 21 = ( 21 : 21 ) = {0, ( 21 : 0) | 1, ( 21 : 1)} = {0, 21 | 1, 43 } = { 21 | 43 } = 85 .
Note that in all cases, when base and exponent are numbers, the players prefer to play
in the exponent. In the remainder of this paper, all the exponents will be positive.
One of the most important results about ordinal sums was first reported in Winning
Ways.
Theorem 2.3 (Colon Principle [2]). If K ⩾ K ′ , then G : K ⩾ G : K ′ .
The Colon Principle helps prove inequalities that will be useful in this paper.
Theorem 2.4. Let G and H be numbers all of whose options are also numbers, and let
H ⩾ 0.
1. If H = 0, then G : H = G. If H > 0, then (G : H) > G.
2. GL < (G : H L ) < (G : H) < (G : H R ) < GR .
Proof. For item (1), the result follows immediately by Theorem 2.3.
For item (2), if H ⩾ 0 and all the options of G and H are numbers, then GL < G =
(G : 0) ⩽ (G : H L ) < (G : H) < (G : H R ). The second, third, and fourth inequalities hold
since H is a number and thus 0 ⩽ H L < H < H R and by applying the Colon Principle.
To complete the proof, we need to show that (G : H R ) < GR . To do so, we check that
GR − (G : H R ) > 0; in words, we check that Left can always win. Left moving first can
move in the second summand to GR − GR = 0 and win. Right moving first has several
options:
1. Moving to GR − GL > 0, since G and its options are numbers. Hence Left wins.
2. Moving to GR − (G : H RL ) > 0 by induction.
3. Moving to GRR − G : H R , but Left can respond to GRR − GR > 0 since G and its
options are numbers.
In all cases, Left wins moving second. The result follows.
To prove that all the positions are numbers, we use results from [4]. A set of po-
sitions from a ruleset is called a hereditarily closed set of positions of a ruleset if it is
closed under taking options. This game satisfies ruleset properties introduced in [4].
In particular, the properties are called the F1 property and the F2 property, which both
highlight the notion of First-move-disadvantage in numbers and are defined formally
as follows.
Definition 2.5 ([4]). Let S be a hereditarily closed ruleset. Given a position G ∈ S, the
pair (GL , GR ) ∈ Gℒ ×Gℛ satisfies the F1 property if there is GRL ∈ GRℒ such that GRL ⩾ GL
or there is GLR ∈ GLℛ such that GLR ⩽ GR .
Definition 2.6 ([4]). Let S be a hereditarily closed ruleset. Given a position G ∈ S, the
pair (GL , GR ) ∈ Gℒ × Gℛ satisfies the F2 property if there are GLR ∈ GLℛ and GRL ∈ GRℒ
such that GRL ⩾ GLR .
As proven in [4], if given any position G ∈ S, all pairs (GL , GR ) ∈ Gℒ × Gℛ satisfy

one of these properties, then the values of all positions are numbers. Furthermore,
satisfying the F2 property implies satisfying the F1 property, and it was shown that all
positions G ∈ S are numbers if and only if for any G ∈ S, all pairs (GL , GR ) ∈ Gℒ × Gℛ
satisfy the F1 property. Combining these results gives the following theorem.
Theorem 2.7 ([4]). Let S be a hereditarily closed ruleset. All positions G ∈ S are numbers
if and only if for any position G ∈ S, all pairs (GL , GR ) ∈ Gℒ × Gℛ satisfy either the F1 or
the F2 property.
3 Main results
Before considering the values and associated strategies, we consider the outcomes,
that is, we partially answer the question “Who wins the game?” The full answer re-
quires an analogous analysis to finding the values.
Theorem 3.1. Let G = d1 d2 . . . dn . If d1 d2 . . . dn contains an even number of 1s, or if d1 = 1

and there are least two 1s, then Left wins G.
Proof. A Right move does not decrease the number of 1s in the position. Thus, if in G,
Left has a move, then she still has a move after any Right move in G. Consequently,
regardless of d1 , if there are an even number of 1s in G, then it will be Left who reduces
the game to all 0s. Similarly, if d1 = 1 and there are an odd number of 1s, then Left will
eventually reduce G to a position with a single 1, that is, to d1 = 1 and di = 0 for i > 1.
In this case, Right has no move and loses.
The remaining case, d1 = 0 and an odd number of 1s, is more involved. The analy-
sis of this case is the subject of the remainder of the paper. We first prove the following:
Theorem 3.2. All flipping coins positions are numbers.
Proof. Let G be a flipping coins position. If only one player has a move, then the game
is an integer. Otherwise, let L be the Left move to change (di , dj ) from (1, 1) to (0, 0). Let
R be the Right move to change (dk , dℓ ) from (0, 1) to (1, 0). No other digits are changed.
If all four indices are distinct, then both L and R can be played in either order. In this
case, GLR = GRL . Thus the F2 property holds. If there are only three distinct indices,
then two of the bits are ones. If Left moves first, then di = dj = dk = 0. If Right moves
first, then there are still two ones remaining after his move. After Left moves, we have
di = dj = dk = 0, and hence GL = GRL . The F1 property holds.
There are no more cases since there must be at least three distinct indices. Since
every position satisfies either the F1 or the F2 property, by Theorem 2.7 it follows that
every position is a number.
Given a position G, the following algorithm returns a value.
Algorithm Let G be a flipping coins position. Let G0 = G.
1. Set i = 0.
2. Reductions: Let α and β be binary strings, and either can be empty.
(a) If G0 = α013+j β, j ⩾ 1, then set G0 = α101j β.
(b) If G0 = α013 β with β containing an even number of 1s, then set G0 = α10β.
(c) Repeat until neither case applies; then go to Step 3.
3. If Gi is 0r 1, r ⩾ 0, or 1a 0pi 10qi 1, a ⩾ 0, and pi + qi ⩾ 0, then go to Step 5.
Otherwise, Gi = α01a 0pi 10qi 1, pi + qi ⩾ 1, a > 0, and some α. Set
Qi = 0pi 10qi 1,
Gi+1 = α01a .
Go to Step 4.
4. Set i = i + 1. Go to Step 3.
5. If Gi = 0r 1, then set vi = −r. If Gi = 1a 0pi 10qi 1, then set vi = ⌊ a2 ⌋ + 22p1i +qi . Go to Step 6.
1
6. For j from i − 1 down to 0, set vj = vj+1 : 2pj +q j −1
.
2
7. Return the number v0 .
The algorithm implicitly returns two different results:

1. For Step 3, the substrings Q0 , Q1 , . . . , Qi−1 , Gi partition the reduced version of G;
2. The value v0 .
First, we illustrate the algorithm with the following example. Consider the position
G = 10011110110110111011110011. We highlight at each step which reduction is being
applied to the underlined digits; 2(a) is denoted by †, whereas 2(b) is denoted by ‡.
The algorithm gives that
10011110110110111011110011 = 10011110110110111011110011(†)
= 100111101101101111010011(†)
= 1001111011011101010011(‡)
= 10011110111001010011(‡)
= 100111110001010011(†)
= 1010110001010011.
Step 3 partitions the last expression into 101(011)(000101)(0011) so that the ordinal
sum is given by
1 1 1 1
v0 = (( : ) : ):
2 2 64 8
10257
= .
16348
Now let H = 01001110110111011101. The reductions give that
01001110110111011101 = 01001110110111011101
= 010011101110011101
= 0100111100011101
= 01010100011101.
The last expression partitions into 01(0101)(00011)(101) so that
1 1
v0 = ((−1 : ): ):1
4 32
893
=− .
1024
The next theorem is the main result of the paper.
Theorem 3.3 (Value theorem). Let G be a flipping coins position. If v0 is the value
obtained by the algorithm applied to G, then G = v0 .
In the next section, we derive several results that will be used to prove Theo-
rem 3.3. The proof of Theorem 3.3 will appear in Section 4.1.
4 Best moves and reductions

The proofs in this section use induction on the options. An alternate but equivalent
approach is to regard the techniques as induction on the associated binary number of
the positions. The proofs require detailed examination of the positions, and we will
use notation suitable to the case being considered. Often, a typical position will be
written as a combination of generic strings and the substring under consideration.
For example, 111011000110101 might be parsed as (11101)(100011)(0101) and written
as α100011β or more compactly as α103 12 β.
We require several results before being able to prove Theorem 3.3. We begin by
proving a simplifying reduction, followed by the best moves for each player, and then
the remaining reductions used in the algorithm.
As an immediate consequence of Theorems 3.2 and 2.2, we have the following:
Corollary 4.1. Let α, β, and γ be arbitrary binary strings. We then have that α1β0γ >
α0β1γ. Moreover, for an integer r ⩾ 0, we have that β10r 1 > β.
Proof. Recall that by Theorem 3.2 all flipping coins positions are numbers. Thus The-
orem 2.2 applies.
A Right option of α0β1γ is α1β0γ, and so we have that α1β0γ > α0β1γ. Similarly, a
Left option of β10r 1 is β, and so we have that β10r 1 > β.
Next, we prove the best moves for each player. Right wants to play the zero furthest
to the right and the 1 adjacent to it. Left wants to play the two ones furthest to the right.
Theorem 4.2. Let G be a flipping coins position, where in G, r and n, r ≠ n, are the
greatest indices such that dr = dn = 1. Let s be the greatest index such that ds = 0. Left’s
best move is to play (dr , dn ), and Right’s best move is to play (ds , ds+1 ).
Proof. We prove this theorem by induction on the options. Note that we use the equiv-
alent binary representation of the game position. If there are three or fewer bits, then,
by exhaustive analysis, the theorem is true.
Let G be d1 d2 . . . dn . We begin by proving Left’s best moves. Let r and n be the two
largest indices, where dr = dn = 1, and thus dk = 0 for r < k < n. Let i and j, i < j, be two
indices with di = dj = 1. We use the notation G(di , dj , dr , dn ) to highlight the salient bits.
The claimed best Left move is from G(1, 1, 1, 1) to G(1, 1, 0, 0). This must be compared to
any other Left move, represented by moving from G(1, 1, 1, 1) to G(0, 0, 1, 1). That is, we
need to show that G(1, 1, 0, 0) − G(0, 0, 1, 1) ⩾ 0.
For the moves to be different, at least three of i, j, r, n are distinct. We first assume
that the four indices are distinct. In this case, we have that i < j < r < n. By applying
Corollary 4.1 twice we have that
G(1, 1, 0, 0) > G(1, 0, 0, 1) > G(0, 0, 1, 1).
We may assume then, without loss of generality, that j = r or j = n. If j = n, then

i < r, since there are two distinct moves. Now consider G(di , dr , dn ) = G(1, 1, 1). By
Corollary 4.1 we have that if j = r, then G(1, 0, 0) > G(0, 0, 1), and if j = n, then
G(1, 0, 0) > G(0, 1, 0).
We now prove Right’s best move. There are more cases to consider. Let s be the
largest index such that ds = 0 and therefore ds+1 = 1. Let i, j, i < j be indices with
di = 0 and dj = 1. The claimed best move is ds , ds+1 , and this must be compared to the
arbitrary Right move di , dj . For the moves to be different, there must be at least three
distinct indices.
The original position is either
G(di , dj , ds , ds+1 ) = G(0, 1, 0, 1), i < s,

or
G(ds , ds+1 , dj ) = G(0, 1, 1), i = s, j > s + 1.
We need to show either D = G(1, 0, 0, 1) − G(0, 1, 1, 0) ⩾ 0 or D = G(1, 1, 0) − G(1, 0, 1) ⩾ 0,

respectively. Suppose Right plays in the first summand of D. Note that, by induction,
the best moves of Left and Right are known.
1. First, suppose j < s. By induction Right’s best move in the first summand of D is
to D′ = G(1, 0, 1, 0) − G(0, 1, 1, 0). Since i < j, it follows that G(1, 0, 1, 0) is a Right
option of G(0, 1, 1, 0), and thus D′ is positive by Corollary 4.1.
2. If j = s + 1, then there are only three distinct indices. The original game is
G(di , ds , ds+1 ) = G(0, 0, 1) and D = G(1, 0, 0) − G(0, 1, 0). Since G(1, 0, 0) is a Right
option of G(0, 1, 0), it follows that D is positive by Corollary 4.1.
3. Suppose j > s + 1.
If i < s, then the original game is of the form
G = αdi βds ds+1 1a dj 1b = α0β011a 11b , a ⩾ 0, b ⩾ 0,
and
D = α1β011a 01b − α0β101a 11b .
Two applications of Corollary 4.1 (applied to the highlighted terms) give
α1β011a 01b ⩾ α0β111a 01b ⩾ α0β101a 11b .
If i = s, then
G = αds ds+1 1a dj 1b = α011a 11b , a ⩾ 0, b ⩾ 0,
and
D = α111a 01b − α101a 11b .
One application of Corollary 4.1 (relevant terms again highlighted) gives
α111a 01b ⩾ α101a 11b .
Thus D ⩾ 0.
Next, we consider Right moving in the second summand of D = G(1, 0, 0, 1)−G(0, 1, 1, 0).
Note that by the choices of the subscripts, dℓ = 1 if n ⩾ ℓ ⩾ s + 1.
1. If n > s + 2, then Right’s best move in the second summand is to change dn−1 , dn
from (1, 1) to (0, 0). Left copies this move in the first summand, and the resulting
difference game is nonnegative by induction.
2. Suppose n = s + 2.
i. If j < s + 1, then G(di , dj , ds , ds+1 , ds+2 ) = G(0, 1, 0, 1, 1) and D = G(1, 0, 0, 1, 1) −
G(0, 1, 1, 0, 1). Right’s best move is to G(1, 0, 0, 1, 1) − G(0, 1, 0, 0, 0). Left moves
to G(1, 0, 0, 0, 0)−G(0, 1, 0, 0, 0). This is positive by Corollary 4.1, and Left wins.
For the next two subcases, exactly two 1s will occupy two of the four indexed
positions. Since Right is moving in the second summand, he is changing two
1s to two 0s. Thus Left’s best response for each case is to move in the first
summand, bringing the game to G(0, 0, 0, 0) − G(0, 0, 0, 0) = 0, and she wins.
For these cases, we only list the original position. The strategy for both cases
is as just described.
ii. If j = s + 1, then G(di , ds , ds+1 , ds+2 ) = G(0, 0, 1, 1) and D = G(1, 0, 0, 1) −
G(0, 1, 0, 1).
iii. If j = s + 2, then G(di , ds , ds+1 , ds+2 ) = G(0, 0, 1, 1) and D = G(1, 0, 1, 0) −
G(0, 1, 0, 1).
3. Now suppose n = s + 1.
i. If j < s + 1, then let ℓ < s + 1 be the largest index such that dℓ = 1.
If j < ℓ, then we have G(di , dj , dℓ , ds , ds+1 ) = G(0, 1, 1, 0, 1) and D = G(1, 0, 1, 0, 1) −
G(0, 1, 1, 1, 0). Right’s best move is to G(1, 0, 1, 0, 1) − G(0, 1, 0, 0, 0). Left moves
to G(1, 0, 0, 0, 0)−G(0, 1, 0, 0, 0), which is positive since G(1, 0, 0, 0, 0) is a Right
option of G(0, 1, 0, 0, 0).
If j = ℓ, then G(di , dj , ds , ds+1 ) = G(0, 1, 0, 1) and D = G(1, 0, 0, 1) − G(0, 1, 1, 0).
Right’s best move is to G(1, 0, 0, 1) − G(0, 0, 0, 0). Left moves to G(0, 0, 0, 0) −
G(0, 0, 0, 0) = 0, and Left wins.
ii. If j = s + 1, then G(di , ds , ds+1 ) = G(0, 0, 1) and D = G(1, 0, 0) − G(0, 1, 0). This is
positive by Corollary 4.1.
In all cases, Left wins D moving second, proving the result.
Suppose in a position that the bits of the best Right move are different from those
of the best Left move. The next lemma essentially says that the positions before and af-
ter one move by each player are equal. It is phrased in a way that is useful for reducing
the length of the position. Recall that a nontrivial position looks like G = α01a 0p 10q 1β,
where a, p, and q are nonnegative integers, and α and β are arbitrary binary strings.
For the algorithm, it suffices to prove the result for β being empty. However, it is useful,
certainly for a human, to reduce the length of the position as much as possible.
Lemma 4.3. Let α be an arbitrary binary string. If a ⩾ 0, then we have that α01111a =
α101a .
Proof. Let H = α01111a − α101a . We need to show that H = 0. To simplify the proof,
in some cases the second player will play suboptimal moves. We have several cases to
consider.
1. If a ⩾ 2, then playing the same move in the other summand is a good response.
After two such moves, we have either
α01111a−2 − α101a−2 = 0 by induction
or
α10111a − α1101a−1 = α1101a−1 − α1101a−1 = 0 by induction.
2. If a = 1, then H = α01111 − α101. The cases are:

i. Left plays in the first summand to α011 − α101; then Right moves to α101 −
α101 = 0.
ii. Right plays in the second summand to α01111 − α; then Left moves to α011 − α.
Since (α011)L = α, we have α011 > α.
iii. Right plays in the first summand to α10111 − α101; then Left responds to α101 −
α101 = 0.
iv. Left plays in the second summand to α01111−α11; then Right moves to α10111−
α11 = α11 − α11 = 0 by induction.
3. If a = 0, then H = α0111 − α1. There are several cases to consider.
i. If Left or Right plays in the first summand, then the response is in the first
summand giving α1 − α1 = 0.
ii. If Left plays in the second summand, then since there is a Left move, we have
α = β01b , b ⩾ 0. If b > 0, then we have that β01b 0111 − β01b 1, and Left
moves to β01b 013 − β101b . Here Right responds to β101b−1 013 − β101b , which
by induction is equal to β101b−1 1 − β101b = 0. If b = 0, then we have that
β01b 0111−β01b 1 = β00111−β01, and we want to show that Right can win mov-
ing second. Left plays to β00111 − β10, and Right can respond to β01110 − β1,
which, by induction, is equal to β1 − β1 = 0.
iii. Right plays in the second summand. Then for a Right move to exist, α = β10a ,
a ⩾ 0. Thus H = β10a 0111 − β10a 1, and Right moves to β10a 0111 − β. Left
responds by moving to β00a 011 − β. We then have that (β00a 011)L = β, and
thus β00a 011 > β. Hence we find that β00a 011 − β > 0.
In all cases the second player wins H thereby proving the result.
There are reductions that can be applied to the middle of the position, but extra
conditions are needed.
Lemma 4.4. Let α and β be arbitrary binary strings where either (a) β starts with a 1, or
(b) β starts with 0 and has an even number of 1s. We then have that
α0111β = α10β.
Proof. Let H = α0111β − α10β. We need to show that H = 0. We have several cases to
consider.
1. If β is empty or β = 1a , then H = 0 by Lemma 4.3. Therefore we may assume that β
has at least one 1 and one 0.
2. If β = 1γ1 (β must end in a 1), then in both summands the best moves are pairs of
bits in β and −β. If each player copies the opponent’s move in the other summand,
then this leads to
α0111β − α10β → α0111β′ − α10β′ ,
and the latter expression is equal to 0 by induction.

3. If β ≠ 1γ1, then β = 0γ1, and γ1 has at least two 1s. The best moves are in β and −β
and are the best responses to each other. We then derive that
α0111β − α10β → α0111β′ − α10β′ = 0 by induction.
In all cases, H = 0, and this concludes the proof.

In Lemma 4.4 the conditions are necessary. An example is
3/8 = 011101 ≠ 1001 = 1/4.
Here β starts with a 0 and has an odd number of 1s.

These reduction lemmas are important in evaluating a position. The reduced po-
sitions will end in 011 or 01. By considering the exact end of the string, specifically, if
there are at least two 0s (in one special case, three 0s), then we can find an ordinal
sum decomposition. The decomposition is determined by where the third rightmost 1
is situated.
The next result is the start of the ordinal sum decomposition of a position. The
exponent is the value of the Right option of the substring being removed.
Lemma 4.5. Let α be an arbitrary binary string. If a ⩾ 1 and p and q are nonnegative
integers such that p + q ⩾ 1, then
1
α01a 0p 10q 1 = α01a : .
22p+q−1
Proof. We prove that
1
α01a 0p 10q 1 − (α01a : ) = 0.
22p+q−1
1
Note that in Theorem 2.4 we have that playing in the base of α01a : 22p+q−1 is worse than
playing in the exponent. We have two cases to consider.
1. Left plays first in the first summand, and Right responds in the second summand,
or Right plays first in the second summand, and Left responds in the first sum-
mand. In either case, Right has a move in the exponent (moves to 0) since 2p + q −
1 ⩾ 0. In either order the final position is given by
α01a − (α01a : 0) = α01a − α01a = 0.
2. Right plays first in the first summand, and Left responds in the second summand,
or Left plays first in the second summand, and Right responds in the first sum-
mand. In either case, we consider
1
α01a 0p 10q 1 − (α01a : ).
22p+q−1
We have two subcases.

i. Assume that 2p + q − 1 ≠ 0. After the two moves, we have the position
1
α01a 0r 10s 1 − (α01a : ),
22p+q−2
where 2r + s = 2p + q − 1. By induction we have that
1
α01a 0r 10s 1 = α01a :
22r+s−1
1
= α01a : 2p+q−2 .
2
1
Thus α01a 0r 10s 1 − (α01a : 22p+q−2 ) = 0.
ii. Assume that 2p + q − 1 = 0, that is, q = 1 and p = 0. The original position is
α01a 101 − (α01a : 1).
After the two moves, we have the position α01a 11 − α101a−1 (note that Left has
no move in the exponent). By Lemma 4.3, α01a 11 = α101a−1 . Hence we have
that α01a 11 − α101a−1 = 0, and the result follows.
The values of the positions not covered by Lemma 4.5 are given next.
Lemma 4.6. Let a, p, and q be nonnegative integers. We then have that
a 1
0p 1 = −p, and 1a 0p 10q 1 = ⌊ ⌋ + 2p+q .
2 2
Proof. Let G = 0p 1. Left has no moves, and Right has p. Note that in 1a , Left has ⌊ a2 ⌋
moves, and Right has none.
Now let G = 1a 0p 10q 1. We proceed by induction on p + q. In all cases, Left’s move
is to 1a , that is, to ⌊ a2 ⌋. If p = 0 and q = 0, then G = 1a 11, which has the value ⌊ a2 ⌋ + 210 =
⌊ a2 ⌋ + 1. Assume that p + q = k, k > 0. If q > 0, then G = {⌊ a2 ⌋ | 1a 0p 10q−1 1}. By induction
we have that
a 󵄨󵄨 a 1 a 1
G = {⌊ ⌋ 󵄨󵄨󵄨 ⌊ ⌋ + 2p+q−1 } = ⌊ ⌋ + 2p+q .
2 󵄨 2 2 2 2
If q = 0, then G = {⌊ a2 ⌋ | 1a 0p−1 101 1}. By induction we have that
a 󵄨󵄨 a 1 a 1
G = {⌊ ⌋ 󵄨󵄨󵄨 ⌊ ⌋ + 2(p−1)+1 } = ⌊ ⌋ + 2p ,
2 󵄨 2 2 2 2
and the result follows.
4.1 Proof of the value theorem

We now have all tools to prove Theorem 3.3.
Proof of Theorem 3.3. Let G be a flipping coins position. Step 2 reduces the binary
string. The reductions in Step 2(a) are those of Lemma 4.3 and Lemma 4.4(a). The re-
ductions in Step 2(b) are those of Lemma 4.4(b). In all cases, these lemmas show that
each new reduced position is equal to G.
In Step 3, we claim Gi ≠ β13 for any β. This is true for i = 0 by Lemma 4.3. If i > 0,
then at each iteration of Step 3, the last two 1s are removed from Gi−1 . Now the original
reduced position would be G0 = β13 γ, where γ has an even number of 1s. Lemma 4.4(b)
would apply eliminating the three consecutive 1s. Now either Gi is one of 0r 1, r ⩾ 0, or
1a 0pi 10qi 1, a ⩾ 0, pi + qi ⩾ 0, or Gi = α01a 0pi 10qi 1, pi + qi ⩾ 1, a > 0. In the latter case
the index is incremented, and the algorithm goes back to Step 3.
Step 5 applies when Step 3 no longer applies, i. e., Gi is one of 0r 1, r ⩾ 0, or
1a 0pi 10qi 1, a ⩾ 0, pi + qi ⩾ 0. Now vi is the value of Gi as given in Lemma 4.6.
Lemma 4.5 shows that for each j < i, Gj = Gj+1 : 2p1j +qj , the evaluation in Step 6.
2
Thus the value of G is v0 , and the theorem follows.
The question “Who wins 0101011111 + 1101100111 + 0110110110111 and how?” from
Section 1 can now be answered.
First, we have that
1 1 1
0101011111 = 01011011 = (01011 : ) = ((01 : ) : )
2 2 2
1 1 11
= ((−1 : ) : ) = − ,
2 2 16
1 3
1101100111 = 1101101 = (1101 : 1) = ( : 1) = ,
2 4
0110110110111 = 0110110111 = 0110111 = 0111 = 0.
Thus we have that

11 3 1
0101011111 + 1101100111 + 0110110110111 = − + +0= .
16 4 16
Left’s only winning move is to
3 3
01010111 + 1101100111 + 0110110110111 = − + + 0 = 0.
4 4
11 5
Her best move in the second summand gives a sum of − 16 + 8
+ 0 = − 161 , and in the
11 3 1 1
third, it gives − 16 + 4 − 8 = − 16 . Left loses both times.
5 Future directions
Natural variants of flipping coins involve increasing the number of coins that can
be flipped from two to three or more. A brief computer search suggests that the only
version where the values are numbers is the game in which Left flips a subsequence
of all 1s and Right flips a subsequence of 0s ended by a 1. We conjecture that a simi-
lar ordinal sum structure will arise in these variants. Other variants have values that
include switches, tinies, minies, and other three-stop games. However, some variants,
when the reduced canonical values are considered, only seem to consist of numbers
and switches. A more thorough investigation should shed light on their structures.
Bibliography
[1] M. H. Albert, R. J. Nowakowski, and D. Wolfe, Lessons in Play: An Introduction to Combinatorial
Game Theory, second edition, A K Peters/CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2019.
[2] E. R. Berlekamp, J. H. Conway, and R. K. Guy, Winning Ways for Your Mathematical Plays, Volume
1, second edition, A K Peters, Ltd., Natick, MA, 2001.
[3] E. R. Berlekamp, J. H. Conway, and R. K. Guy, Winning Ways for Your Mathematical Plays,
Volume 3, second edition, A K Peters, Ltd., Natick, MA, 2003.
[4] A. Carvalho, M. A. Huggan, R. J. Nowakowski, and C. P. dos Santos, A note on numbers, Integers,
to appear.
[5] A. Carvalho, M. A. Huggan, R. J. Nowakowski, and C. P. dos Santos, Ordinal Sums, clockwise
hackenbush, and domino shave, Integers, to appear.
[6] J. H. Conway, The Golay Codes and The Mathieu Groups, in Sphere Packings, Lattices and
Groups. Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften (A Series of Comprehensive Studies
in Mathematics), vol 290. Springer, New York, NY, 1983.
[7] R. T. Curtis, Eight octads suffice, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 36 (1984), 116–123.
[8] A. N. Siegel, Combinatorial Game Theory, American Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2013.
Kyle Burke, Matthew Ferland, Michael Fisher, Valentin Gledel, and
Craig Tennenhouse
The game of blocking pebbles
Abstract: Graph pebbling is a well-studied single-player game on graphs. We intro-
duce the game of blocking pebbles, which adapts Graph Pebbling into a two-player
strategy game to examine it within the context of combinatorial game theory. Positions
with game values matching all integers, all nimbers, and many infinitesimals and
switches are found. This game joins the ranks of other combinatorial games on graphs,
games with discovered moves, and partisan games with impartial movement options.
The computational complexity of the general case is shown to be PSPACE-hard.
1 Introduction
Graph pebbling is an area of current interest in graph theory. In an undirected graph
G, a root vertex r is designated. Heaps of pebbles are placed on the vertices of G, with
a legal move consisting of choosing a vertex v with at least two pebbles, removing two
pebbles, and placing a single pebble on a neighbor of v. The goal is to pebble or place a
pebble on the vertex r. The pebbling number of G, denoted π(G), is the fewest number
of pebbles necessary so that any initial distribution of π(G) pebbles among the vertices
of G, and any vertex of G chosen as the root has a sequence of moves resulting in the
root being pebbled.
Introduced by Chung [5] in 1989, a number of results on pebbling of different fami-
lies of graphs have been found. Of note are pebbling numbers of paths, cycles [13], and
continuing work on a conjecture of Graham’s on the Cartesian products of graphs [5].
Time complexity is also known, both for determination of π(G) and for the minimum
number of moves in a successful pebbling solution, for general graphs. See [9] for a
survey of results in graph pebbling.
The results and language here are in reference to combinatorial game theory
(CGT). The nim sum, also called the digital sum, of nonnegative integers is the result of
Kyle Burke, Dept. of Computer Science, Plymouth State University, Plymouth, New Hampshire, USA,
e-mail: kwburke@plymouth.edu
Matthew Ferland, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
California, USA, e-mail: mferland@usc.edu
Michael Fisher, Dept. of Mathematics, West Chester University, West Chester, Pennsylvania, USA,
e-mail: mfisher@wcupa.edu
Valentin Gledel, Dept. of Computer Science, University Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France, e-mail:
valentin.gledel@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr
Craig Tennenhouse, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, University of New England, Biddeford, Maine,
USA, e-mail: ctennenhouse@une.edu
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110755411-002
18 | K. Burke et al.
Figure 2.1: A BRG-hackenbush position with blue, red, and green represented by thin, thick black,
and grey lines, respectively.
their sum in binary without carry. This is denoted x1 ⊕x2 if there are only two numbers,
and in the case of more, we use the notation ∑ ⊕xi . For more notation and background
on the computation of CGT game values, we refer the reader to [3, 1].
In Section 2, we introduce a two-player combinatorial ruleset based on graph peb-
bling, with subsequent sections addressing results on both impartial and partisan po-
sitions. This game involves strategic play that results in blocking the moves of one’s
opponent. Amazons is another well-known game, which also involves a notion of
blocking. However, in Amazons the blocking is always permanent (burnt square) or
temporary (queen occupies square). Due to the standard pebbling toll in Blocking
Pebbles, each pebble only has mobility for a finite time.
There are several pebbling games that appear in the literature [10, 14, 11]. The one
which is most similar to the game introduced here was originated by Lagarias and Saks
in 1989 to solve a problem of Erdős. These games do not include the nontoll moves
across an edge in the “wrong direction.” This type of move is unique to Blocking
Pebbles (as far as we are aware). There are also other pebbling games older than that
introduced by Lagarias and Saks [10]. These games bear no resemblance to Blocking
Pebbles and are used to study graph algorithm complexity.
2 Ruleset and play

A game of blocking pebbles consists of a directed acyclic graph G and a 3-tuple
(b, r, g) at each vertex of G, representing the numbers of blue, red, and green pebbles.
Left may move blue and green pebbles, whereas Right may move red and green. This
follows one convention of BRG-hackenbush (see Fig. 2.1) wherein players may remove
an edge of their own color or the neutral color green. In BRG-hackenbush all dyadic
(2,0,0)
A
B C D
(0,1,1) (0,0,0) (0,1,1)
(0,0,0) (2,0,0)
(0,1,1) (1,0,0) (0,1,1) (0,1,1) (0,0,1) (0,1,0)
Figure 2.2: A position in blocking pebbles and two of Left’s options.
rationals and nimbers are achievable game values. In addition, when allowing for in-
finite positions, all real numbers and ordinals are achievable values, but switches are
not. By contrast, in blocking pebbles players may move any number of pebbles at a
single vertex within certain constraints on the graph and pebble distribution. In this
way, blocking pebbles is similar to graph nim [8, 4].
Ruleset 1. Given a tuple of the form (b, r, g) at each vertex of a directed acyclic graph
G, Left can make one of the following two moves from the vertex v.
1. Move a positive number of blue and/or green pebbles from v to an in-neighbor
of v.
2. Remove two blue and/or green pebbles from v and place one on an out-neighbor
of v and discard the other.
No blue pebbles can be moved to a vertex with a nonzero number of red pebbles. Right
has the obvious symmetric moves.
Play proceeds following the normal play convention, where the last player to make
a legal move wins.
Note that if Left removes one blue and one green pebble from v, then she may
add the green to v’s out-neighbor. However, it is always preferable to instead add the
blue as this results in a position with more blue pebbles and increases the number of
vertices blocked by Left.
As an example, consider the position in Figure 2.2. At the top is a position in block-
ing pebbles. Note that Left cannot move any blue pebbles from vertex A to B since B
already contains a red pebble. However, Left can move a single blue pebble from A to
C at a cost of one blue pebble. She can also move the one green pebble from D to C.
An interesting property of this ruleset is the existence of discovered moves, similar

to discovered attacks in chess. A player may be unable to move at one point in the
game, but after their opponent moves, the game is once again playable by the first
player. As an example, consider a simple out-star with two red pebbles on the source
and a single blue pebble on a sink node. Left has no moves, but once Right moves, Left
can move their pebble to the source. The presence of discovered moves precludes this
being a strong placement game. For more on these types of games, see [7] and [12].
3 Blue-red-green blocking pebbles

In this section, we will address some families of game values that are achievable in
blocking pebbles. We will only address finite graphs, and hence we will not en-
counter nondyadic rationals. This is similar to BRG-hackenbush, described in Sec-
tion 1. Due to the complexity of analysis, we will also restrict our graphs to orientations
of stars, paths, and small graphs.
We begin with a simple result.
Theorem 3.1. For every k ∈ ℤ, there is a position in blocking pebbles with value k.
Proof. Let G be a single arc directed from u to v. If k > 0, then place 2k blue pebbles
and a single red pebble on u, and no pebbles on v. Switch red and blue pebbles if
k < 0. This allows for k-many moves for Left by moving blue pebbles from u to v, but
the presence of a red pebble on u prevents moving any blue pebbles in the reverse
direction. Zero is trivially achieved by a graph with no pebbles or by any number of
other pebble distributions.
Regarding infinitesimals, ↓ is realized by an out-star with two leaves; that is, a ver-
tex u with out-neighbors v1 , v2 . Vertex v1 has a blue pebble, and v2 has one red and one
green pebble. Left can move the blue or green pebble to u, which is simple to identify
as ∗. Right, however, can move the green to the source vertex u resulting in ∗, the red
to u resulting in zero, or both red and green pebbles to u, which is also a zero position.
The initial position is {∗ | 0, ∗} = ↓.
Due to the blocking rule, blocking pebbles is relatively unique among partisan
combinatorial games. In BRG-hackenbush the presence of a move for one player does
not inhibit moves for the other. In clobber, another two-player partisan combinato-
rial game (see [2]), the presence of a red piece actually encourages movement for Left,
and vice versa. This is a property common to all dicot games. However, in blocking
pebbles a single well-placed blue pebble, for example, can cut off many of Right’s
moves. The only other well-known ruleset with this property appears to be Amazons,
which does not allow for discovered moves. It is natural, then, that many positions
result in game values that are switches.
Parts (1) and (4) of the next result show that every integer switch is achievable
with a specified pebbling configuration on the out-star K1,2 .
In the following lemma, we use the following notation for a bLue/Red pebbling
configuration of the out-star K1,2 : [(a, b), [c, d], [e, f ]] is the configuration with a blue
pebbles and b red pebbles on the central vertex, c blue pebbles and d red pebbles on
one of the pendant vertices, and e blue pebbles and f red pebbles on the other pendant
vertex.
Lemma 3.2. The following results pertain to a given blocking pebbles configuration
on the out-star K1,2 .
1. For c ≥ 1, the position [(a, b), [0, c], [0, 0]] has value −⌊ b2 ⌋ if a = 1 and value {⌊ a2 ⌋ −
1 | ⌊ a−b
2
⌋ + 1} if a ≥ 2,
2. for a, b, c, d ≥ 1, the position [(a, b), [c, 0], [0, d]] has value ⌊ a−b
2
⌋,
a−1
3. for a, b, c, d, e ≥ 1, the position [(a, b), [c, 0], [d, e]] has value ⌊ 2 ⌋,
4. for a, b, c, d ≥ 1, the position [(0, 0), [a, b], [c, d]] has value {a + c − 1 | − (b + d − 1)},
5. for a, b, c ≥ 1, the position [(0, 0), [a, b], [0, c]] has value {a − 1 | − (3(b + c) − 5)},
6. for a, b ≥ 1, the position [(0, 0), [a, b], [0, 0]] has value {3a − 5 | − (3b − 5)},
7. for b ≥ 1, [(1, 0), [0, b], [0, 0]] and [(2, 0), [0, b], [0, 0]] are both zero positions.
Proof. For Case (1), the position [(1, 1), [c, 0], [0, 0]] is the zero position. It is also read-
ily checked that the position [(1, 2), [c, 0], [0, 0]] has value 0.
If b > 2, then Left has no move from [(1, b), [c, 0], [0, 0]]. From [(1, b), [c, 0], [0, 0]]
Right may move to the position [(1, b−2), [c, 0], [0, 1]], which has value ⌊ −b+1 2
⌋ = −⌊ b2 ⌋+1
by induction. Hence [(1, b), [c, 0], [0, 0]] has value −⌊ b2 ⌋ as required.
If a ≥ 2, then Left’s best move from [(a, b), [c, 0], [0, 0]] is to [(a − 2, b), [c, 0], [1, 0]],
which has value ⌊ a−2 2
⌋ (Right has no move from this position, and Left has ⌊ a−2 2
⌋
moves). Right’s only move is to [(a, b − 2), [c, 0], [0, 1]], which has value ⌊ a−b+2 2
⌋, also
by induction. Hence [(a, b), [c, 0], [0, 0]] has value {⌊ a2 ⌋ − 1|⌊ a−b
2
⌋ + 1} when a ≥ 2.
For Case (2), it is clear that the position [(1, 1), [c, 0], [0, d]] is a zero position. If
a ≥ 2, then from [(a, 1), [c, 0], [0, d]] Left has a move to [(a − 2, 1), [c + 1, 0], [0, d]], and
Right has no move. Thus [(a, 1), [c, 0], [0, d]] has value ⌊ a−1 2
⌋ by induction.
A similar argument establishes the claim that [(1, b), [c, 0], [0, d]] has value ⌊ 1−b 2
⌋.
Now if a, b ≥ 2, then from [(a, b), [c, 0], [0, d]] Left has the move to [(a − 2, b), [c +
1, 0], [0, d]], and Right has the move to [(a, b − 2), [c, 0], [0, d + 1]]. By induction we see
that [(a, b), [c, 0], [0, d]] has value
a − 2 − b 󵄨󵄨󵄨 a − b + 2 a−b 󵄨󵄨 a − b a−b

{⌊ ⌋ 󵄨󵄨 ⌊ ⌋} = {⌊ ⌋ − 1 󵄨󵄨󵄨 ⌊ ⌋ + 1} = ⌊ ⌋.
2 󵄨 2 2 󵄨 2 2
For Case (3), note that if a = 1, then there are no moves for either player; the
formula given correctly yields the game value 0. If a = 2, then from the position
[(2, b), [c, 0], [d, e]] Left has the move to [(0, b), [c + 1, 0], [d, e]]. From here Left has no
a c
Figure 2.3: A transitive triple graph.
move, and Right has e moves. Thus the position [(0, b), [c + 1, 0], [d, e]] has value −e.
Hence [(2, b), [c, 0], [d, e]] has value 0, as required.
If a > 2, then from [(a, b), [c, 0], [d, e]] Left can move to [(a − 2, b), [c + 1, 0], [d, e]],
which has value ⌊ a−3 2
⌋ = ⌊ a−1
2
⌋ − 1 by induction. Right has no moves from [(a, b), [c, 0],
[d, e]]. Hence [(a, b), [c, 0], [d, e]] has value
a−1 󵄨󵄨 a−1
{⌊ ⌋ − 1 󵄨󵄨󵄨} = ⌊ ⌋,
2 󵄨 2
as desired.
For Case (4), note that Left’s only move from [(0, 0), [a, b], [c, d]] is to [(1, 0), [a −
1, b], [c, d]]. This last position has value a + c − 1 by induction. Similarly, Right’s only
move from [(0, 0), [a, b], [c, d]] is to [(0, 1), [a, b−1], [c, d]]. This position has value −(b+
d − 1) by induction. It now follows that [(0, 0), [a, b], [c, d]] has value
{a + c − 1 | −(b + d − 1)}.
Cases (5) and (6) follow from the previous result, and Case (7) is trivial.
We now consider a transitive 3-cycle graph (Fig. 2.3) with vertices a, b, c and arcs
ab, ac, and bc. The pebbling configurations considered below are written so that the
first array entry corresponds to the source vertex a, the second corresponds to b, and
the third to the sink vertex c.
An interesting result concerning the transitive 3-cycle crops up from the somewhat
unnatural starting position where 1 blue pebble and k red pebbles occupy the same
starting vertex. Specifically, we prove the following:
Theorem 3.3. For k > 1, the pebbling configuration on the transitive 3-cycle given by
[[0, 0], [0, 0], [1, k]] has game value (3 − 3k)+k−4 .
We see the game tree of the base case in Figure 2.4.

To prove this result, we consider several positions, which arise as subpositions of
the above pebbling configuration.
Lemma 3.4. Consider the following pebbling configurations of the transitive 3-cycle T.
Then the position
[[0, 0], [0, 0], [1, 1]]
[[1, 0], [0, 0], [0, 1]] [[0, 1], [0, 0], [1, 0]]
[[0, 0], [1, 0], [0, 1]] [[0, 0], [0, 1], [1, 0]]
[[0, 1], [1, 0], [0, 0]] [[0, 1], [1, 0], [0, 0]] [[0, 1], [0, 0], [1, 0]]
[[1, 0], [0, 0], [0, 1]] [[1, 0], [0, 1], [0, 0]] [[1, 0], [0, 1], [0, 0]]
[[1, 0], [0, 1], [0, 0]] [[0, 1], [1, 0], [0, 0]]
Figure 2.4: Game tree of the position [[0, 0], [0, 0], [1, 1]] on the transitive 3-cycle.
1. [[1, 0], [0, j], [0, k]] has value −3k − 2j + 2 if at least one of j or k is ≥ 1;
2. [[0, j], [1, 0], [0, k]] has value −3k − 2j + 3 if j, k ≥ 1;
3. [[0, 0], [1, 0], [0, k]] has value −3k + 3 if k ≥ 2 and value − 21 if k = 1;
4. [[0, j], [1, 0], [0, 0]] has value −2j + 3 if j ≥ 2 and value 0 if j = 1;
5. [[0, j], [0, k], [1, 0]] has value −3k − 2j + 4 if j, k ≥ 1;
6. [[0, j], [0, 0], [1, 0]] has value −2j + 4 if j ≥ 2 and value 1 if j = 1;
7. [[0, 0], [0, k], [1, 0]] has value {−2k + 2 | −3k + 5} if k ≥ 2 and value 21 if k = 1;
8. [[0, 0], [0, j], [1, k]] has value {−3k − 2j + 2 | −4k − 3j + 5} if j ≥ 2 and k ≥ 1 and value
{−3k | −4k + 3} if j = 1 and k ≥ 1;
9. [[0, j], [0, 0], [1, k]] has value {−3k − 2j + 3 | −4k − 2j + 5} if j, k ≥ 1; and
10. [[0, ℓ], [0, j], [1, k]] has value −4k − 3j − 2ℓ + 4 if j, k, ℓ ≥ 1.
Proof. All claims will be proven simultaneously using induction (on the height of the
game tree). Base cases are easily checked and left to the interested reader.
Case (1): From [[1, 0], [0, j], [0, k]] Left has no move; Right’s best move is to [[1, 0],
[0, j + 1], [0, k − 1]]. By induction this position has value −3k − 2j + 3 by (1). Hence
[[1, 0], [0, j], [0, k]] has value
{ | −3k − 2j + 3} = −3k − 2j + 2,
as desired.
Case (2): Left again has no move from the starting position. Right’s best move is to
[[0, j + 1], [1, 0], [0, k − 1]]. If k = 1, then this position has value −2j + 1 by (4); if k ≥ 2,
then this position has value −3k − 2j + 4 by (2). In either case, [[0, j], [1, 0], [0, k]] has
value −3k − 2j + 3.
Case (3): First, suppose that k ≥ 2. Left can move to [[1, 0], [0, 0], [0, k]] from
[[0, 0], [1, 0], [0, k]]. From (1), this position has value −3k + 2. Right’s best move is
to [[0, 1], [1, 0], [0, k − 1]] with value −3k + 4. Hence [[0, 0], [1, 0], [0, k]] has value
{−3k + 2 | −3k + 4} = −3k + 3.
If k = 1, then Left’s only move becomes [[1, 0], [0, 0], [0, 1]], which has value
−1 by (1), and Right’s only move is to [[0, 1], [1, 0], [0, 0]] with value 0 by (4). Thus
[[0, 0], [1, 0], [0, 1]] has value − 21 .
Case (4): For j ≥ 3, Left has no move from [[0, j], [1, 0], [0, 0]], and Right can move
to [[0, j − 2], [1, 0], [0, 1]] with value −2j + 4, by (2), giving [[0, j], [1, 0], [0, 0]] the game
value of −2j + 3.
If j = 2, then Right’s move is to [[0, 0], [1, 0], [0, 1]] with value − 21 . Thus [[0, 2], [1, 0],
[0, 0]] has a value of −1(= −2 ⋅ 2 + 3).
Finally, if j = 1, then neither Left nor Right has a move from [[0, 1], [1, 0], [0, 0]],
and so its value is 0.
Case (5): Let k ≥ 2. Left has no move, and Right can move to [[0, j + 1], [0, k −
1], [1, 0]] (Right’s best move). By induction this position has value −3k − 2j + 5 giving
[[0, j], [0, k], [1, 0]] the value −3k − 2j + 4.
If k = 1, then, again, Left has no move. However, Right can move to [[0, j +
1], [0, 0], [1, 0]]. By (6) this position has value −2j + 2, thus giving [[0, j], [0, 1], [1, 0]] the
value −2j + 1.
Case (6): First, we consider the case j > 2. Left’s only move is to [[0, j], [1, 0], [0, 0]].
By (4) this position has value −2j + 3. Right’s only move is to [[0, j − 2], [0, 1], [1, 0]]. By
(5) this position has value −2j + 5. Hence, if j > 2, then [[0, j], [0, 0], [1, 0]] has value
−2j + 4.
If j = 2, [[0, 2], [1, 0], [0, 0]] has value −1 by (4). Right’s move to [[0, 0], [0, 1], [1, 0]]
has value 21 by (7). Thus [[0, 2], [0, 0], [1, 0]] has value 0.
Finally, if j = 1, then Left’s move [[0, 1], [1, 0], [0, 0]] has value 0, and Right has no
moves. Thus [[0, 1], [0, 0], [1, 0]] has value 1.
Case (7): If k ≥ 2, Left’s move to [[1, 0], [0, k], [0, 0]] has value −2k + 2 by (1). In
this case, Right’s move to [[0, 1], [0, k − 1], [1, 0]] has value −3k + 5 by (5). Therefore
[[0, 0], [0, k], [1, 0]] has value
{−2k + 2 | −3k + 5}.
If k = 1, then [[1, 0], [0, 1], [0, 0]] has value 0, and [[0, 1], [0, 0], [1, 0]] has value 1.
Hence [[0, 0], [0, 1], [1, 0]] has value 21 .
Case (8): First suppose j ≥ 2 and k ≥ 2. Then Left’s move to [[1, 0], [0, j], [0, k]] has
value −3k − 2j + 2 by (1). Right has two sensible moves: one to [[0, 1], [0, j], [1, k − 1]] and
one to [[0, 1], [0, j − 1], [1, k]]. The former has value −4k − 3j + 6 by (10), and the latter
has value −4k − 3j + 5, also by (10). Thus [[0, 0], [0, j], [1, k]] has value
{−3k − 2j + 2 | −4k − 3j + 5}.
Next, we look at the case where j ≥ 2 and k = 1. Left’s move to [[1, 0], [0, j], [0, 1]]
has value −2j − 1 by (1). Right’s move to [[0, 1], [0, j], [1, 0]] has value −3j + 2 by (5).
Right’s move to [[0, 1], [0, j − 1], [1, 1]] has value −3j + 1 by (10). Hence [[0, 0], [0, j], [1, 1]]
has value
{−2j − 1 | −3j + 1}.
We now consider the case j = 1 and k ≥ 2. Left’s only move is to [[1, 0], [0, 1], [0, k]].
This position has value −3k by (1). Right’s move to [[0, 1], [0, 0], [1, k]] has value {−3k +
1 | −4k + 3} by (9), and his move to [[0, 1], [0, 1], [1, k − 1]] has value −4k + 3 by (10).
Therefore the position [[0, 0], [0, 1], [1, k]] has value
{−3k | {−3k + 1 | −4k + 3}, −4k + 3}.
It can be shown that the option {−3k + 1 | −4k + 3} is reversible. Hence the canonical
form of the position [[0, 0], [0, 1], [1, k]] has value
{−3k | −4k + 3}.
Finally, we consider the case j = 1 and k = 1. Left’s move from [[0, 0], [0, 1], [1, 1]]
to [[1, 0], [0, 1], [0, 1]] has value −3 by (2). Right’s move to [[0, 1], [0, 0], [1, 1]] has value
{−2 | −1} = − 32 . The move to [[0, 1], [0, 1], [1, 0]] has value −1 by (5). Thus the position
[[0, 0], [0, 1], [1, 1]] has value {−3 | − 32 } = −2.
Case (9): First, suppose that k ≥ 2. Then Left’s move from [[0, j], [0, 0], [1, k]] to
[[0, j], [1, 0], [0, k]] has value −3k −2j+3 by (2). Right’s best move is to [[0, j], [0, 1], [1, k −
1]] with value −4k − 2j + 5, thus giving the position [[0, j], [0, 0], [1, k]] the game value
of
{−3k − 2j + 3 | −4k − 2j + 5}.
If k = 1, then Left’s only move has value −2j, again by (2). Right’s move to
[[0, j], [0, 1], [1, 0]] has value −2j + 1 by (5). Hence [[0, j], [0, 0], [1, 1]] has value
{−2j | −2j + 1} = (−4j + 1)/2.
Case (10): Let j = 1 and k ≥ 2. Left has no move from this starting position, and
Right has three sensible moves. Right can move to [[0, ℓ + 1], [0, 0], [1, k]] with value
{−3k − 2ℓ + 1 | −4k − 2ℓ + 3} by (9), or to [[0, ℓ + 1], [0, 1], [1, k − 1]] with value −4k − 2ℓ + 3
by (10), or to [[0, ℓ], [0, 2], [1, k]] with value −4k −2ℓ+2 by (10). The last move is optimal
for Right, and hence the position [[0, ℓ], [0, 1], [1, k]] has game value −4k − 2ℓ + 1, as
required.
If j = 1 and k = 1, then Left has no move from [[0, ℓ], [0, 1], [1, 1]], and Right has
again three sensible moves. Right’s move to [[0, ℓ+1], [0, 0], [1, 1]] has value (−4ℓ−3)/2
by (9), Right’s move to [[0, ℓ], [0, 2], [1, 0]] has value −2ℓ − 2 by (5), and Right’s move to
[[0, ℓ + 1], [0, 1], [1, 0]] has value −2ℓ − 1 by (5). Therefore the position [[0, ℓ], [0, 1], [1, 1]]
has value −2ℓ − 3.
If j ≥ 2 and k = 1, then Left has no move from [[0, ℓ], [0, j], [1, 1]], and Right has
three moves, each not costing a pebble to make: Right can move to [[0, ℓ+1], [0, j], [1, 0]]
with value −3j−2ℓ+2 by (5), Right can move to [[0, ℓ], [0, j+1], [1, 0]] with value −3j−2ℓ+1
by (5), and Right can move to [[0, ℓ + 1], [0, j − 1], [1, 0]] with value −3j − 2ℓ + 1 by (10).
Hence the position [[0, ℓ], [0, j], [1, 1]] has value −3j − 2ℓ.
Finally, if j ≥ 2 and k ≥ 2, then, as in every other subcase, Left has no move.
Right has his usual three moves: Right can move to [[0, ℓ + 1], [0, j], [1, k − 1]] with value
−4k − 3j − 2ℓ + 6 by (10), to [[0, ℓ], [0, j + 1], [1, k − 1]] with value −4k − 3j − 2ℓ + 5, or to
[[0, ℓ + 1], [0, j − 1], [1, k]] with value −4k − 3j − 2ℓ + 5. Thus [[0, ℓ], [0, j], [1, k]] has game
value −4k − 3j − 2ℓ + 4.
With Lemma 3.4 in hand, we can now prove Theorem 3.3.
Proof. Left has two moves from the starting position [[0, 0], [0, 0], [1, k]]: Left can move
to [[1, 0], [0, 0], [0, k]] with value −3k + 2 by Lemma 3.4(1) or to [[0, 0], [1, 0], [0, k]] with
value −3k + 3 by 3.4(3). The latter move is clearly the optimal move for her.
There are two types of moves that Right can make: Right can move to [[0, ℓ], [0, 0],
[1, k − ℓ]], where 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ k, or to [[0, 0], [0, j], [1, k − j]], where 1 ≤ j ≤ k.
First suppose that Right moves to [[0, ℓ], [0, 0], [1, k − ℓ]], where 1 ≤ ℓ < k. This
position has value
{−3k + ℓ + 3 | −4k + 2ℓ + 5} = (−3k + ℓ + 3) + {0 | −k + ℓ + 2}
by Lemma 3.4(9).
Next, suppose that Right moves to [[0, k], [0, 0], [1, 0]]. This position has value
−2k + 4
by Lemma 3.4(6).
We now consider the other type of move for Right. Suppose that Right moves to
[[0, 0], [0, j], [1, k − j]], where 1 < j < k. This position has value
{−3k + j + 2 | −4k + j + 5} = (−3k + j + 2) + {0 | −k + 3}
by Lemma 3.4(8).
Next, suppose that Right moves to [[0, 0], [0, 1], [1, k − 1]]. This position has value
{−3k + 3 | −4k + 7} = (−3k + 3) + {0 | −k + 4}
by Lemma 3.4(8).
Finally, suppose that Right moves to [[0, 0], [0, k], [1, 0]]. This position has value
{−2k + 2 | −3k + 5} = (−2k + 2) + {0 | −k + 3}
by Lemma 3.4(7).
We will now show that the move to [[0, 0], [0, 1], [1, k − 1]] is Right’s optimal move.
First note that since {0 | −k + 4} ≤ 1, it follows that
(−3k + 3) + {0 | −k + 4} ≤ −3k + 4 < −2k + 4.
Next, observe that if k = 2, then
3
(−3 ⋅ 2 + 3) + {0 | −2 + 4} = −2 < − = (−2 ⋅ 2 + 2) + {0 | −2 + 3}.
2
If k ≥ 3, then −k + 2 < {0 | −k + 3}, and so it follows that
−3k + 4 = (−2k + 2) + (−k + 2) < (−2k + 2) + {0 | −k + 3}.
Hence
(−3k + 3) + {0 | −k + 4} < (−2k + 2) + {0 | −k + 3}
for k ≥ 2.
To show that
(−3k + 3) + {0 | −k + 4} < (−3k + ℓ + 3) + {0 | −k + ℓ + 2}, ℓ ≥ 1,
it suffices to show that {ℓ | −k +2ℓ+2}+{k −4 | 0} > 0. To this end, note that Left’s move
to ℓ + {k − 4 | 0} is a winning first move. Right’s move to −k + 2ℓ + 2 + {k − 4 | 0} leads to
(−k + 2ℓ + 2) + (k − 4) = 2ℓ − 2 ≥ 0 after Left’s response. Right’s move to {ℓ | −k + 2ℓ + 2} + 0
is not better, leading to ℓ + 0 = ℓ ≥ 1.
Our last task is showing that
(−3k + 3) + {0 | −k + 4} < (−3k + j + 2) + {0 | −k + 3} for j > 1.
This can be established by showing that {j − 1 | −k + j + 2} + {k − 4 | 0} > 0. The

proof of this fact is virtually identical to that of the similar statement in the preceding
paragraph, and so it will be omitted.
It now follows that the value of the position [[0, 0], [0, 0], [1, k]] is
{−3k + 3 | −3k + 3 + {0 | −k + 4}} = (−3k + 3) + {0 | {0 | −(k − 4)}} = (−3k + 3) +k−4 .
In the table below, we present, without proof, other interesting game values
achievable as bLue/Red Blocking Pebbles positions.
Underlying Digraph Pebbling Configuration Game Value

Transitive 3-Cycle [[1, 0], [2, 4], [0, 0]] 1/4
Transitive 3-Cycle [[4, 4], [0, 0], [0, 0]] ±1/2
Transitive 3-Cycle [[3, 5], [0, 0], [1, 0]] ↑∗
Transitive 3-Cycle [[3, 5], [2, 0], [0, 0]] ↑[2] ∗
Directed P3 [[0, 0], [2, 2], [0, 0]] ∗2
We end this section with a short discussion of the differences between blocking peb-
bles and BRG-hackenbush.
As noted above, the blocking mechanic of blocking pebbles results in a prepon-
derance of switches, whereas BRG-hackenbush has no such positions. Also, while we
would be surprised to find a dyadic that is not the game value for some blocking peb-
bles position, we have found many dyadic rationals difficult to construct, even with
the use of computational methods. BRG-hackenbush positions, on the other hand,
are easily constructed that have rational noninteger game values.
3.1 Green-only games

The game of Blocking Pebbles restricted to green pebbles is an impartial game,
with positions admitting only nimbers as game values. The interested reader will seek
out [3, 1] for more on Sprague–Grundy theory and nimbers. Whereas there is no use for
players to employ a blocking strategy, the game remains mathematically interesting
for its connections to its roots in graph pebbling.
First, we consider in-stars and out-stars, with green pebble distributions denoted
by ⟩g0 , g1 , . . . , gn ⟨ and ⟨g0 , g1 , . . . , gn ⟩, respectively. In each case, gi ≥ 0, and g0 is the
number of pebbles on the center vertex.
Theorem 3.5. The value of an in-star with distribution ⟩g0 , g1 , . . . , gn ⟨ is ∗g0 .
Proof. We will demonstrate this using induction on g0 . First, note that if g0 = 0, then
any move of a green pebble to the center from a leaf, resulting in the loss of a pebble,
can be countered by returning it to the same leaf. Next, we note that any move from
⟩g0 , g1 , . . . , gn ⟨ results in a change to g0 and that there is a move from this position that
results in any number of pebbles on the center node strictly less than g0 . Hence the
in-star is equivalent to a nim heap of size g0 .
The nim dimension of a ruleset is the greatest integer k where a position in the
ruleset has value ∗2k−1 but no position has value ∗2k . A ruleset in which the nim di-
mension is unbounded is said to have infinite nim dimension, as Santos and Silva [6]
showed is true for konane. Theorem 3.5 implies that green blocking pebbles also
has infinite nim dimension, whereas the nim dimension of blue-red blocking peb-
bles is still unknown.
The fact revealed in Theorem 3.5 that an in-star is equivalent to a single nim heap
can be generalized to multiple heaps with an out-star.
Theorem 3.6. The value of an out-star with distribution ⟨g0 , g1 , . . . , gn ⟩ is ∗(∑ni=1 ⊕gi ),
that is, the nim sum of all heaps.
Proof. We note that this game is analogous to nim, except that instead of removing
pebbles from a heap, they are moved to the center at no cost. The player with the ad-
vantage simply plays the winning Nim strategy. Any move of a pebble from the center
vertex to a leaf can immediately be reversed at a net cost of one pebble from the cen-
ter. Thus the number of pebbles at the center does not contribute to the game value,
which equals the nim sum of the leaf heaps.
On a path, we get a similar result.
Theorem 3.7. If (g1 , . . . , gn ) is a distribution of green pebbles along a path directed left
to right, then the game value is ∗(∑ ⊕g2k ).
Proof. An empty path is trivial, so let us assume that the claim is false and consider
the set C of all counterexamples with the fewest total number of pebbles. From C
let (g01 , g02 , . . . , g0n ) be the last when ordered lexicographically. Any move from this
position either decreases the total number of pebbles or increases its lexicographic
position. Therefore all options of (g01 , g02 , . . . , g0n ) are outside C, and hence the claim
holds for them. Since each has a digital sum of even terms that differs from (∑⊕ g2k ),
and all smaller sums are realized through nim moves on the even heaps, we see
that (g01 , g02 , . . . , g0n ) also satisfies the claim. Therefore, C is empty, and the claim is
true.
Note that in Theorems 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 the strategy is equivalent to nim. In fact, in
these particular cases, blocking pebbles is very similar to the game of poker nim,
wherein players make nim moves but retain any removed pebbles, and may add them
to a heap instead of removing. Although poker nim is loopy and blocking pebbles
is not, both games played optimally have the same strategy and the same reciprocal
moves for non-nim moves.
Figure 2.5: An oriented tree T and the resulting graph D(T ) from Construction 3.8.
We now introduce a reduction formula for all trees, which can be applied to the three
previous results.
Construction 3.8. Let T be any oriented tree with a given distribution of green peb-
bles, let S be its set of source vertices, and let O be the set of vertices of T reachable by
an odd length directed path from some vertex in S. Additionally, for a given subset W
of vertices, let p(W) be the combined total number of pebbles on W.
We construct the following digraph D(T) from T as follows (see Figure 2.5):
1. V(D(T)) = {σ} ∪ O, where O has the same pebbling distribution as it does in T, and
σ is an vertex with no pebbles.
2. E(D(T)) = E(O) ∪ {σ → θ | θ ∈ O}.
Proposition 3.9. The game value of blocking pebbles on T is equal to the game value
on D(T).
Proof. The key observation is that the pebbling games on T and D(T) are both equiv-
alent to poker nim on the set O. Since the two games have the same set of nim moves,
their game values are equivalent.
Applying Construction 3.8 to an in-star results in a single arc, and when T is a

directed path as in Theorem 3.7, D(T) is simply an out-star. Thus many tree positions
can be reduced to positions on fewer vertices.
It is worth noting, however, that many trees will not reduce to simple positions.
In particular, the transitive triple graph, a K3 oriented without a cycle (Fig. 2.3),
has proven very difficult to analyze. However, we present here the set of 𝒫 -positions.
Theorem 3.10. A position in blocking pebbles on a transitive triple with g1 green peb-
bles on the source vertex, g3 on the sink, and g2 on the remaining vertex is a 𝒫 -position
if and only if g2 = g3 .
Proof. Note that, as in all other green-only positions, pebbles on the source vertex are
superfluous. Since any move that increases the total g2 + g3 can be undone, we can
consider these heaps as nim heaps and play accordingly.
We close this section with a very simple result, but one that may prove useful in
future investigations into the game.
Theorem 3.11. A single green pebble on the sink node of a transitive tournament on n
vertices is equivalent to a nim heap of size n.
Proof. We simply consider all options of this position. Since the pebble can only move
back and can move to any previous node, this is equivalent to removing any number
of stones from a nim heap.
4 Blue-red-green blocking pebbles is PSPACE-hard

We next show that it is computationally intractable to determine the outcome class of
a general Red-Green Blocking Pebbles position. More specifically, via a reduction
from Positive CNF, we show that Red-Green Blocking Pebbles is PSPACE-hard.
PSPACE is a class of computational problems that can be solved by a Turing ma-
chine with a polynomial amount of writing space. Problems that are PSPACE-hard are
those where the worst-case instances are at least as difficult to compute as the hard-
est things in PSPACE modulo a polynomial amount. This hardness can be proven by
finding a reduction from an already-known-to-be PSPACE-hard problem to the game
in question.
PSPACE-hard problems are widely considered to be intractable because no known
algorithm exists to solve them in polynomial time, despite this being a significant open
problem for over 40 years. (Indeed, the Millenium Problem P vs NP is more heavily
studied, and NP is a subset of PSPACE.) By proving that a ruleset is PSPACE-hard we
are showing that it is not trivial to calculate winning strategies. This means that actual
competition is interesting; humans stand a chance against computer players, as no
efficient perfect player exists unless P = PSPACE.
We reduce from Positive CNF to show hardness. Positive CNF is a game played
with two players, True and False, with alternating turns, on a list of Boolean vari-
ables and a CNF (Conjunctive Normal Form) formula using those variables and with
no negated literals. In the starting positions, all variables begin unassigned. The
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The main building of this latter palace was only one story high, on
purpose, it seems, that the Empress should not be annoyed by
staircases. Here her rooms were larger than in the Winter Palace,
especially the study in which she received the reports. In the first
days of May she always went incognito to Tsárskoe Seló, and from
there she returned, also incognito, in September to the Winter
Palace. Her apartments in Tsárskoe Seló were quite large and
tastefully furnished. All know the magnificent gallery in which the
Empress frequently took a walk, particularly on Sundays when the
park was filled with a large crowd of people that used to come down
from St. Petersburg. She received the reports in the cabinet, or in the
sleeping-room.
The Empress’s time and occupations were arranged in the
following manner: She rose at seven, and was busy writing in her
cabinet until nine (her last work was on the Senate Regulations).
She once remarked in her conversation that she could not live a day
without writing something. During that time she drank one cup of
coffee, without cream. At nine o’clock she passed into the sleeping-
room, where almost in the entrance from the boudoir she seated
herself in a chair near the wall. Before her stood a table that slanted
towards her and also to the opposite direction, where there was also
a chair. She then generally wore a sleeping-gown, or capote, of
white gros de Tours, and on her head a white crêpe bonnet which
was poised a little towards the left. In spite of her sixty-five years, the
Empress’s face was still fresh, her hands beautiful, her teeth all well
preserved, so that she spoke distinctly, without lisping, only a little
masculinely. She read with eyeglasses and a magnifying glass.
Having once been called in with my reports, I found her reading in
this way. She smiled and said to me: “You, no doubt, do not need
this apparatus! How old are you?” And when I said: “Twenty-six,” she
added: “But we have, in our long service to the Empire, dulled our
vision, and now we are of necessity compelled to use glasses.” It
appeared to me that “we” was used by her not as an expression of
majesty, but in the ordinary sense.
Upon another occasion she handed me an autograph note which
contained some references for her Senate Regulations for
verification, and said: “Laugh not at my Russian orthography. I will
tell you why I have not succeeded in mastering it. When I came here,
I applied myself diligently to the study of Russian. When my aunt,
Elizabeth Petróvna, heard of this, she told my Court mistress that I
ought not to be taught any more,—that I was clever enough anyway.
Thus, I could learn Russian only from books, without a teacher, and
that is the cause of my insufficient knowledge of orthography.”
However, the Empress spoke quite correct Russian, and was fond of
using simple native words, of which she knew a great number. “I am
very happy,” she said to me, “that you know the order of the
Chancery. You will be the first executor of my Regulations before the
Senate. But I caution you that the Chancery of the Senate has
overpowered the Senate, and that I wish to free it from the Chancery.
For any unjust decisions, my punishment for the Senate shall be: let
them be ashamed!” I remarked that not only the Senate, but also
other bureaus that are guided by the General Reglement, are
hampered in the transaction of their business by great
inconveniences and difficulties that demand correction. “I should like
very much to see those inconveniences and difficulties of which you
speak to me in such strong terms. The General Reglement is one of
the best institutions of Peter the Great.” Later on, I presented to her
Highness my notes upon the General Reglement, which I read to her
almost every afternoon of her residence in Tsárskoe Seló in 1796,
and which were honoured by her undivided august approval. (These
notes must be deposited with other affairs in the Archives of the
Foreign College.)
After occupying her seat, of which I spoke above, the Empress
rang a bell, and the valet of the day, who uninterruptedly remained
outside the door, entered and, having received his order, called in
the persons. At that time of the day, the Chief Master of Police and
the Secretary of State waited daily in the boudoir; at eleven o’clock
there arrived Count Bezboródko; for the other officers certain days in
the week were set apart: for the Vice-Chancellor, Governor,
Government Procurator of the Government of St. Petersburg,
Saturday; for the Procurator-General, Monday and Thursday;
Wednesday for the Superior Procurator of the Synod and Master
General of Requests; Thursday for the Commander-in-Chief of St.
Petersburg. But in important and urgent cases, all these officers
could come any other time to report.
The first one to be called in to the Empress was the Chief Master
of Police, Brigadier Glázov. He made a verbal report on the safety of
the capital and other occurrences, and presented a note, written at
the office irregularly and badly on a sheet of paper, containing the
names of arrivals and departures on the previous day of people of all
conditions who had taken the trouble to announce their names at the
toll-house, for the sentinels stopped no one at the toll-house, nor
inquired anything of them,—in fact there existed then no toll-gates;
anybody received a passport from the Governor at any time he
asked for it, and without any pay, and could leave the city whenever
he wished: for this reason the list of arrivals and departures never
could be very long. After the Chief Master of Police left, the
Secretaries of State who had any business had themselves
announced by the valet, and were let in one by one. I was one of
them. Upon entering the sleeping-room, I observed the following
ceremony: I made a low obeisance to the Empress, to which she
responded with a nod of her head, and smilingly gave me her hand,
which I took and kissed, and I felt the pressure of my own hand; then
she commanded me to take a seat. Having seated myself on the
chair opposite, I placed my papers on the slanting table, and began
to read. I suppose the other reporting officers acted in the same way,
when they entered the room of the Empress, and that they met with
the same reception.
About eleven o’clock the other officers arrived with their reports, as
mentioned above, and sometimes there came Field-Marshal Count
Suvórov Rýmnikski, who then, after the conquest of Poland, resided
at St. Petersburg. When he entered, he first prostrated himself three
times before the image of the Holy Virgin of Kazán, which stood in
the corner, to the right of the door, and before which there burned an
undying lamp; then he turned to the Empress, prostrated himself
once before her, though she tried to keep him from it, and, taking him
by the hand, lifted him and said: “Mercy! Alexander Vasílevich, are
you not ashamed to act like that?” But the hero worshipped her and
regarded it as his sacred duty to express his devotion to her in that
manner. The Empress gave him her hand, which he kissed as a
relic, and asked him to seat himself on the chair opposite her; two
minutes later she dismissed him. They used to tell that Count
Bezboródko and a few others prostrated themselves in the same
way before her, but not before the Holy Virgin.
At these audiences in the Winter and Tauric Palaces, the military
officers wore uniforms, with their swords and shoes, but boots on
holidays; civil officers wore during week-days simple French coats,
but on holidays gala dresses; but at Tsárskoe Seló, both the military
and civilians wore dress-coats on week-days, and only on holidays
the former put on uniforms, and the latter French coats with their
swords.
The Empress was busy until noon, after which her old hair-
dresser, Kozlóv, dressed her hair in her interior boudoir. She wore
her hair low and very simple; it was done up in the old fashion, with
small locks behind her ears. Then she went into the boudoir, where
we all waited for her; our society was then increased by four
spinsters who came to serve the Empress at her toilet. One of them,
M. S. Aleksyéev, passed some ice to the Empress, who rubbed her
face with it, probably in order to show that she did not like any other
washes; another, A. A. Polokúchi, pinned a crêpe ornament to her
hair, and the two sisters Zvyerév handed her the pins. This toilet
lasted not more than ten minutes, and during that time the Empress
conversed with some one of the persons present, among whom
there was often the Chief Equerry, Lev Sergyéevich Narýshkin, and
sometimes Count Strogonóv, who were her favourite society. Having
bid the company good-bye, the Empress returned with her maids
into the sleeping-room, where she dressed herself for dinner, with
their aid and with the aid of Márya Sávishna, while we all went home.
On week-days the Empress wore simple silk dresses, which were all
made almost according to the same pattern, and which were known
as Moldavian; the upper garment was usually of lilac or greyish
colour, and without her decorations,—her lower garment white; on
holidays she wore a brocade gown, with three decorations—the
crosses of St. Andrew, St. George and St. Vladímir, and sometimes
she put on all the sashes that belong to these decorations, and a
small crown; she wore not very high-heeled shoes.
Her dinner was set for two o’clock. During the week there were
generally invited to dinner, of ladies, the Maid of Honour Protásov
and Countess Branítski; of gentlemen, Adjutant-General P. V.
Pássek, A. A. Narýshkin, Count Strogonóv, the two French
emigrants, the good Count Esterházy and the black Marquis de
Lambert, at times Vice-Admiral Ribas, Governor-General of the
Polish provinces Tutolmín, and finally the Marshal of the Court,
Prince Baryatínski. On holidays there were invited also other military
and civil officers who lived in St. Petersburg, down to the fourth
class, and, on special celebrations, down to the sixth class. The
ordinary dinner of the Empress did not last more than an hour. She
was very abstemious in her food: she never breakfasted, and at
dinner she tasted with moderation of not more than three or four
courses; she drank only a glass of Rhine or Hungarian wine; she
never ate supper. For this reason she was, in spite of her sixty-five
years and industrious habits, quite well and lively. At times, indeed,
her legs swelled and sores were opened up, but that only served to
purify her humours, consequently was advantageous for her health.
It is asserted that her death took place solely through the closing up
of these sores.
After dinner all the guests immediately departed. The Empress
was left alone: in summer she sometimes took a nap, but in winter
never. She sometimes listened, until the evening assembly, to the
foreign mail which arrived twice a week; sometimes she read a book,
or made cameo imprints on paper; this she did also during the
reading of her mail by P. A., or Count Markóv, or Popóv; but the latter
was rarely invited to read, on account of his poor pronunciation of
French, though he was nearly always present in the secretary’s
room. At six o’clock there assembled the aforementioned persons,
and others of the Empress’s acquaintance whom she specially
designated, in order to pass the evening hours. On Hermitage days,
which were generally on Thursdays, there was a performance, to
which many ladies and gentlemen were invited; after the
performance they all went home. On other days the reception was in
the Empress’s apartments. She played rocambole or whist, generally
with P. A., E. V. Chertkóv and Count Strogonóv; there were also
card-tables for the other guests. At ten o’clock the Empress retired to
her inner apartments; at eleven she was in bed, and in all the rooms
reigned a deep silence.
Gavrílo Petróvich Kámenev. (1772-1803.)
Kámenev wrote very few poems, and his reputation rests
on his ballad Gromvál, which is remarkable for its flowing
verse, the first two lines being in dactylic measure, and the
last two lines of each stanza in anapests. Its main importance,
however, lies in the fact that it was the first successful attempt
at Romantic verse in the Russian language. Púshkin said of
him: “Kámenev was the first in Russia who had the courage to
abandon the classic school, and we Russian Romantic poets
must bring a fitting tribute to his memory.”
GROMVÁL
In my mind’s eye I rapidly fly, rapidly piercing the dimness of time; I

lift the veil of hoary antiquity, and I see Gromvál on his good horse.
The plumes wave upon his helmet, the tempered arrows clang in
his quiver; he is borne over the clear field like a whirlwind, in
burnished armour with his sharp spear.
The sun is setting behind the mountains of flint, the evening is
descending from the aërial heights. The hero arrives in the murky
forest, and only through its tops he sees the sky.
The storm, shrouded in sullen night, hastens to the west on sable
pinions; the waters groan, the oak woods rustle, and centennial oaks
creak and crack.
There is no place to protect oneself against the storm and rain;
there is no cave, no house is seen; only through the dense darkness
now glistens, now goes out, through the branches of the trees, a little
fire in the distance.
With hope in his heart, with daring in his soul, slowly travelling
through the forest towards the fire, the hero arrives at the bank of a
brook, and suddenly he sees nearby and in front of him a castle.
A blue flame gleams within and reflects the light in the flowing
stream; shadows pass to and fro in the windows, and howls and
groans issue dully from them.
The knight swiftly dismounts from his horse and goes to the grass-
covered gate; he strikes mightily against it with his steel spear, but
only echoes in the forest respond to the knocking.
Immediately the fire within the castle goes out, and the light dies in
the embrace of darkness; the howls and groans grow silent, too; the
storm increases, the rain is doubled.
At the powerful stroke of his mighty hand the firmness of the iron
gates gives way: the latches are broken, the hinges creak, and
fearless Gromvál goes in.
He unsheathes his sword, ready to strike, and, groping, goes into
the castle. Quiet and gloom lie over all, only through the windows
and chinks the whirlwind whistles.
The knight cries out in anger and in grief: “Ferocious wizard,
greedy Zlomár! You have compelled Gromvál to wander over the
world, you have stolen Rognyéda, his companion!
“Many a kingdom and land have I passed, have struck down
mighty knights and monsters, have vanquished giants with my
mighty hand, but have not yet found my beloved Rognyéda!
“Where do you dwell, evil Zlomár? In wild mountain fastnesses, in
caves, in forests, in murky underground passages, in the depth of
the sea do you hide her from my view?
“If I find your habitation, wicked magician, evil sorcerer, I will drag
Rognyéda out of her captivity, I will pull out your black heart from
your breast.”
The knight grows silent, and sleep comes over him. Fatigue and
night make him a bed. Without taking off his armour, in the
breastplate and helmet, he kneels down and falls into a deep sleep.
The clouds hurry away, and the storm dies down, the stars grow
dim, the east grows light; the morning star awakes, Zimtsérla blooms
like a crimson rose, but Gromvál is still asleep.
The sun rolls over the vault of heaven, at noon glows with its
heated rays, and the pitch of the pines waters through the bark, but
sleep still keeps Gromvál in its embrace.
The forerunner of the night with olive brow glances from the east
upon the forest and fields, and from an urn sprinkles dew upon the
sward; but sleep still keeps Gromvál in its embrace.
Night, with cypress crown upon its head, in a garment woven of
darkness and stars, walks frowning, over stairs, to its throne; but
sleep still keeps Gromvál in its embrace.
Clouds congest in the vault of heaven, darkness grows thick,
midnight comes on; the hero, awakening from his deep sleep,
wonders when he sees not the crimson dawn.
Suddenly peals roar in the castle like thunder; the walls shake, the
windows rattle, and, as lightnings rapidly flash in the darkness, the
hall is made bright with a terrible fire.
All the doors bang loud as they open: in white shrouds, with
candles in their hands, shadows appear; behind them skeletons
carry in their bony hands an iron coffin.
They place the coffin in the vast hall; immediately the lid flies off,
and the wizard Zlomár, O horrible sight! lies breathless within, with
open eyes.
The floor opens wide, and a hellish fire rises up in a howling
whirlwind and thunder, and, embracing the iron coffin, heats it to a
white glow; Zlomár sighs the heavy sigh of Gehenna.
In his wild, fierce, bloodshot eyes terror is painted, despair and
grief; from his mouth black foam boils in a cloud, but the magician
lies motionless, like a corpse.
The ghosts and skeletons, taking each other’s hands, yell, howl,
laugh, whistle; raving in rapturous orgy, they dance a hellish dance
around his coffin.
Midnight passes in a terrible entertainment, and their groans and
howls thunder ever more horrible. But scarcely has the herald of
morning crowed three times, when ghosts, skeletons and coffin
suddenly disappear.
There is darkness as in the grave, and quiet all around; in the
forest nearby is silence and gloom. Gromvál perplexed, marvels at
the appearance, and wondering does not believe himself.
Suddenly a magic flute is heard, and the sound of the harp strikes
his ears: the vault of the hall bursts open, and a rose-coloured beam,
with its soft light, dispels dense night.
In a light cloud of fragrant vapours, as if a fresh breeze were
blowing and a swan gently gliding high up in the air, a sorceress
softly descends into the hall.
Purer than the lily is her garment; her girdle shines on her waist
like hyacinth; like the twinkle of the gold-gleaming eastern star,
merriment beams in her eyes.
With a pleasant voice Dobráda speaks: “Sad knight, submit to your
fate! Zlomár is no longer; fate has for ever cleared the world from
that wrongdoer.
“Into the abyss of hell he has been hurled for ever; the jaws of
Gehenna have swallowed him; with the gurgling of the lava and the
roar of the fire, the abyss alone will hear his howl and groan.
“Death, transgressing the law of nature, has not deprived the
magician’s body of feeling: the shades of persons by him destroyed
nightly torment him here in the castle.
“Knight, hasten to your Rognyéda! To the south of the forest, in a
sandy plain, in a steel prison of Zlomár’s castle, two winged Zilants
watch her.
“Accept this magic horn from me; it has the power to close the
jaws of monsters. But listen! You cannot save Rognyéda without
shedding her blood,—thus the fates have decreed.”
The magic strings sound again; the cloud is wafted upwards with
Dobráda. Struck dumb by this speech, and beside himself, Gromvál,
like a statue of stone, follows her with his glances.
Holding the emerald horn in his hand, in bitter resentment, the
hero exclaims: “Ill-starred gift of the faithless sorceress, you promise
happiness to me by the death of Rognyéda!
“No! I tremble at the very thought, and my heart flies a sacrifice to
her. But, Gromvál, obey the dictum of fate, and hasten to destroy
Zlomár’s sorcery.
“If you cannot save Rognyéda, lay the castle in ruins, vanquish the
Zilants,—shed your heroic blood for her, and crown your love with an
heroic death!”
A beautiful morning with radiant beam gilds the tops of century
oaks. Turning his horse to the midday sun, our knight leaves both
the castle and forest.
Ravines, cliffs, rapids, crags, groan under the heavy beats of the
hoofs; dense dust like a cloud and whirling in a pillar flies upwards
where Gromvál races.
Through the gloomy pass of a rocky mount the knight rides into a
vast steppe: an ocean of sand spreads before his view, and in the
distance, it seems mingled with the sky.
No wind stirs the sandy waves; heat breathes there its pestiferous
breath; no shrubs rustle there, nor brooks babble: all is quiet and still
as in the cemetery at midnight.
Through that wilderness, those terrible fields, no road leads, no
tracks are seen; only in the east one can discern a steep mountain,
and upon it a mighty castle stands out black in the distance.
Struggling three days with thirst and heat, the hero passes the
barrier of death; on his worn-out steed, and in a bloody perspiration,
he slowly reaches the foot of the mountain.
Over slippery paths on overhanging cliffs that threaten to crash
down into the valley, slowly ascending the narrow footpath above an
abyss, Gromvál reaches the top and castle.
Zlomár has built this castle with the power of Gehenna and the
spirits of Hell. The turrets that tower above black cliffs announce
destruction and evil death.
With Rognyéda in his heart, with bravery in his soul, Gromvál, like
a fierce storm, breaks the hinges of the cast-iron doors, and with his
tempered spear enters the terrible castle.
Furious he advances,—under his mighty heel dead bones and
skulls crack; ravens, birds of the night and bats are awakened in the
mossy crevices of the walls.
They hover like a cloud above the castle, and their terrible cries
shake the air; the Zilants, hearing Gromvál’s arrival, begin to howl
and whistle, and flap their wings.
Opening their jaws, they fly against him; their stings issue from
their mouths like spears; they rattle their scales, bending their tails,
and stretch out their destructive claws from their feet.
The hero blows his emerald horn,—the sound deafens them, and
they fall like rocks; their wings are clipt, their jaws are closed; falling
into a sleep of death, they lie in mounds.
In rapture the knight flies to the dungeon to embrace Rognyéda
with flaming heart; but instead, an enormous door is opened, and a
giant, mailed in armour, comes to meet him.
His furious glances are comets in the dark; brass is his corselet,
lead his warclub; grey moss of the bog is his beard, a black forest
after the storm the hair on his head.
Swinging his club with a terrible might, the giant lets it fall on
Gromvál and strikes his valiant head: the echo shakes, reverberating
through the castle.
The helmet clangs and is shattered to pieces; sparks issue from
his dark eyes. From the stroke the club is bent as a bow, but
Gromvál, like a rock, does not move from the spot.
The sword flashes in his heroic hand, and strikes the wretch like a
thunderbolt; his strong brass would have broken to splinters, but the
blade glides down his magic coat of mail.
The giant roars in evil madness, breathes flames, trembles with
anger; he swells the muscles of his powerful shoulders, and
threatens to crush Gromvál in his claws.
Death is unavoidable, destruction near; his terrible hands touch his
corselet; but Gromvál, seizing his leg like an oak, makes him totter,
and brings him to his fall.
The giant falls like a crumbling tower, and shakes all the castle
with his terrible cry; the walls recede, the battlements fall; he is
prostrate on the ground, and has dug a grave in the damp earth.
Grasping his throat with his mighty hand, Gromvál thrusts his
sword into his jaws; the giant’s teeth gnash against the steel; he
roars and groans, and writhes in convulsions.
Black foam and crimson blood lash and gush from his mouth;
furious with suffering, battling with death, he digs the earth with his
feet, trembles, lies in the agony of death.
Mingling in a boiling stream the giant’s blood wells up; a gentle
vapour, rising from it in a cloud, forms the outline of fair Rognyéda.
The roses in her cheeks, the charm in her eyes, the crimson lips
beckon for a kiss; her hair, falling like velvet over her shoulders, veils
her swan’s breast.
Gromvál marvels at this miracle: does he see a vision or a real
being? Approaching her with hope and hesitation, he presses not a
dream, but Rognyéda to his breast.
Filled with passionate rapture, Gromvál addresses his love with
tender words: “Long, oh, long have I sought you, Rognyéda, and
have, like a shadow, wandered over the wide world!”
Drawing a deep breath, she says: “The evil magician, the cunning
Zlomár, impelled by his despicable passion, brought me to this
enchanted castle.
“Here he touched me with his magic wand, and deprived me of
memory and feelings. Falling immediately into a mysterious trance, I
have ever since been shrouded in deepest darkness.”
Taking Rognyéda by her hand, Gromvál softly descends to the foot
of the mountain. He seats her behind him on his steed, and like an
arrow flies back on the road.
Deep darkness covers the castle; thunders roar furiously in the
night; stormy whirlwinds, tearing themselves away from their chains,
howl, and the flinty ribs of the rock tremble.
With a terrible roar the earth bursts open, and the towers fall into
the bottomless abyss; the Zilants, dungeon, giants are overthrown:
Gromvál has vanquished the magic of Zlomár.
Vladisláv Aleksándrovich Ózerov. (1770-1816.)
Ózerov entered the military school when a child, left it as a
lieutenant in 1788, and then was made adjutant to the director
of the school, Count Anhalt, who died in 1794. His first literary
venture was an In Memoriam to the director, written in French.
He then tried himself in odes and shorter songs, of which only
the Hymn to the God of Love rises above mediocrity. He
scored his first great success in his tragedy Œdipus at
Athens, which produced a stirring effect upon the audience.
This was followed by Fingal, the subject being from Ossian.
But the drama that most affected his generation was Dimítri
Donskóy, which appeared opportunely on the eve of
Napoleon’s invasion, in 1807. The element of tearfulness, or
“sentimentality,” as Karamzín called it, which Ózerov was the
first to introduce into the Russian tragedy, and the patriotic
subject which he developed in his Dimítri Donskóy combined
to make his plays very popular, though his verse is rather
heavy and artificial.
DIMÍTRI DONSKÓY
ACT I., SCENE I. DIMÍTRI AND THE OTHER PRINCES, BOYÁRS AND
GENERALS
Dimítri. Russian princes, boyárs, generals, you who have crossed

the Don to find liberty and, at last, to cast off the yokes that have
been forced upon us! How long were we to endure the dominion of
the Tartars in our land, and, content with an humble fate, sit as
slaves on our princely throne? Two centuries had nearly passed
when Heaven in its anger sent that scourge against us; for almost
two centuries the foes, now openly, now hidden, like hungry ravens,
like insatiable wolves, have been destroying, burning, plundering us.
I have called you here to avenge us: the time has now come to repay
the foe for our calamities. The Kipchák horde has, like a gigantic
burden, been lying on Russian shoulders, spreading desolation and
terror all around, but now, heavy by its own weight, it has fallen to
pieces. Civil strife, dissension and all the ills which heretofore had
brought the Russian land to utter weakness, have now penetrated
the horde. New khans have arisen who have torn themselves loose
from it; but the insatiable tyrants, having barely risen, threaten our
land. The most insatiable of them and most cunning, Mamáy, the
accursed ruler of the Trans-Don horde, has risen against us in an
unjust war. He is hurrying against us, and perhaps with to-morrow’s
dawn will appear before our camp. But seeing the sudden union of
the Russian forces, his heart was disturbed, and his mind misgave
him, so he decided to send first an embassy to us. Friends of Dimítri,
do you advise to receive them? Or, remaining firm in our heroic
intention, shall we answer Mamáy in front of our army, when the first
bold onslaught of the Russians would resound upon the earth and
would frighten the Tartars?
Tverskóy. Let us give the answer before the army in the field of
battle! None of us, O princes, can be more anxious than I to avenge
ourselves on the inhuman foe. Whose family can compare with the
Tverskóys in misfortunes they have borne? My grandfather and his
sire, after endless tortures, lay their heads in the graves through the
treachery of the infidel, and their ashes groan under the power of the
horde. Grand Prince of Russia, you have called us hither not to enter
into parley with Mamáy, but to decide in battle and end all discord
with him....
Byelózerski. Oh, how happy am I to have lived to see this day, to
contemplate here the concord and love among the princes, and the
unanimous zeal in your hearts against the enemy! I, about to bear
my age into the yawning grave, will be able to bring hope to the
departed fathers, that the honour of the Russian land is to be
reinstated, that her power and glory is to return. O shades of
Vladímir, and you, shades of Yarosláv, ancestral heads of princely
houses! In the lap of the angels you will rejoice, as you foresee the
blessed time when the disunited nation of Russian tribes, uniting with
one soul into one whole, will triumphantly appear a threatening giant,
and united Russia will give laws to the world! Dimítri, your victory is
certain! No, never before has such an army been gathered in so far-
reaching a camp, either by your grandfather Iván, or Simeón the
Terrible, or your meek father! I, the old leader of the forces of
Byelózersk, have never seen Russia lead out such numbers of bold
warriors. Of all the Russian princes, Olég alone has remained in
idleness at Ryazán, and without interest in the expedition; his ear
alone is deaf to the common groan. May the memory of those perish
whose spirit can with quiet eye see the country’s woes, or rather, let
their name with disgrace and endless shame pass to late posterity!
Yet, my lord, however flattering your success may be, my advice is to
receive the Tartar embassy, and if we can establish peace by paying
a tribute to Mamáy.... (All the princes express dissatisfaction.)
Dimítri. O Prince of Byelózersk, what do you propose? Fearing
strife, to acknowledge the Tartar’s power by paying a shameful
tribute?
Byelózerski. To spare the priceless Christian blood. If we conquer
Mamáy, look out, the hordes will once more unite for our common
woe; beware, this temporarily successful exploit will again rouse their
ambitious spirit, and they will perceive at last how injurious for their
ambition their strife is, which separates their khans. The murders,
fire, slaughter of wives and children which the Tartars have
perpetrated against us, in their opinion, give the hordes a right over
us. They deem Russia to be their patrimony. Seeing our bravery,
they will stop their disorders, and will soon, united, bring misery on
the Russians. Rather give them a chance to weaken in their
destructive discord; let us gather strength in the peaceful quiet and,
warding off the chances of war, choose peace instead of useless
victory.
Dimítri. Oh, better death in battle than dishonourable peace! Thus
our ancestors thought, thus we, too, will think. Those times are past
when timid minds saw in the Tartars a tool of Heaven, which it is
senseless and improper to oppose. In our days honour and the very
voice of faith arm us against the tormentors. That voice, that
prophetic voice of faith, proclaims to us that an immortal crown
awaits the fallen in battle, that through the grave they pass to eternal
joy. O Sérgi, pastor of souls, whom the groans of fellow-citizens have
so often disturbed in your hermit prayers, and whose tears have so
abundantly flowed lamenting the fate of the innocent, O you who with
sacred hand blessed us for the impending battle! In your hermit cell,
where you pass your humble days, listen to my words: inspired by
you, they will inflame the Russian hearts to seek here liberty or the
heavenly crown! ’Tis better to cease living, or not to be born at all,
than to submit to the yoke of a foreign tribe, than with the name of
payers of tribute to flatter their greed. Can we with such slavery avert
our misfortunes? He who pays a tribute is weak; he who evinces a
weak spirit invites arrogant lust to insult. But I am ready to receive
the Khan’s messenger and to bring him before the assembly of the
princes, not to listen to the shameless propositions of Tartar
arrogance, but to announce to him the resolve for war, that he may
read valour in our brows, and, shuddering, bear terror into Mamáy’s
camp.
Smolénski. The whole assembly announces assent to your advice.
Dimítri. The messenger awaits the decision near the tent. You,
Brénski, bring in the Tartars that have come to us!
Prince Iván Mikháylovich Dolgorúki. (1764-1823.)
Iván Mikháylovich Dolgorúki was the grandson of Prince
Iván Aleksyéevich, the favourite of Peter II. (see p. 233). In
1791 he left the army with the rank of brigadier. He was then
made Vice-Governor of Pénza, where he sought relief from
the humdrum life of a provincial town in reading and in writing
poetry. One of the first of his poems to attract attention was
the envoi To my Lackey; he became universally known
through his My Penza Fireplace. In 1802 he was appointed
Governor of Vladímir. Not long after his return to Moscow he
was forced to retire before the advancing Frenchmen. During
his retreat he wrote his Lament of Moscow. His best poem is
probably his Legacy. While not a poet of the first order,
Dolgorúki displayed great originality and much depth of
feeling. This is what he himself said of his poems: “In my
poems I wished to preserve all the shades of my feelings, to
see in them, as in a picture, the whole history of my heart, its
agitation, the change in my manner of thinking, the progress
of my thoughts in the different ages of my life, and the gradual
development of my small talents. Every verse reminds me of
some occurrence, or thought, or mood that influenced me at
such and such a moment.... That is the key to the originality
which many are so kind as to ascribe to my productions.” The
Legacy was translated by Sir John Bowring.
THE LEGACY
When time’s vicissitudes are ended,

Be this, be this my place of rest;
Here let my bones with earth be blended,
Till sounds the trumpet of the blest.
For here, in common home, are mingled
Their dust, whom fame or fortune singled;
And those whom fortune, fame passed by,
All mingled, and all mouldering;—folly
And wisdom, mirth and melancholy,
Slaves, tyrants,—all mixt carelessly.
List! ’Tis the voice of time,—Creation’s

Unmeasured arch repeats the tone;
Look! E’en like shadows, mighty nations
Are born, flit by us, and are gone!
See! Children of a common father,
See stranger-crowds, like vapours gather;
Sires, sons, descendants, come and go.
Sad history! Yet e’en there the spirit
Some joys may build, some hopes inherit,
And wisdom gather flowers from woe.
There, like a bee-swarm, round the token

Of unveiled truth shall sects appear,
And evil’s poisonous sting be broken
In the bright glance of virtue’s spear.
And none shall ask, what dormitory
Was this man’s doom, what robes of glory
Wore he, what garlands crowned his brow,—
Was pomp his slave?—Come now, discover
The heart, the soul,—Delusion’s over,—
What was his conduct?—Answer now!
Where stands yon hill-supported tower,

By Fili, shall I wake again,
Summoned to meet Almighty Power
In judgment, like my fellow-men.
I shall be there, and friends and brothers,
Sisters and children, fathers, mothers,—
With joy that never shall decay;
The soul, substantial blessing beaming
(All here is shadowy and seeming),
Drinks bliss no time can sweep away.

Combinatorial Game Theory A Special Collection in Honor of Elwyn Berlekamp John H Conway and Richard K Guy Richard J Nowakowski Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Combinatorial Game Theory A Special Collection in Honor of Elwyn Berlekamp John H Conway and Richard K Guy Richard J Nowakowski Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Combinatorial Game Theory: A Special

Collection in Honor of Elwyn

Bruce M. Landman Jaroslav Nešetřil

Library of Congress Control Number: 2022934372

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Brief History of how Winning Ways came to be

Why Elwyn, John, and Richard are important

Standing on their shoulders

Books and Papers in Combinatorial Game Theory

Anthony Bonato, Melissa A. Huggan, and Richard J. Nowakowski

Kyle Burke, Matthew Ferland, and Shang-Hua Teng

Alexander Clow and Stephen Finbow

Erik D. Demaine and Yevhenii Diomidov

Eric Duchêne, Marc Heinrich, Richard Nowakowski, and Aline Parreau

Matthieu Dufour, Silvia Heubach, and Anh Vo

Aaron Dwyer, Rebecca Milley, and Michael Willette

Zachary Gates and Robert Kelvey

Melissa A. Huggan and Craig Tennenhouse

Douglas E. Iannucci and Urban Larsson

Urban Larsson, Richard J. Nowakowski, and Carlos P. Santos

Ryohei Miyadera and Yushi Nakaya

1011 = {0001, 001, 1 | 1101, 111}.

G′ ⩽ GL < G < GR ⩽ G′′ .

For games G and H, to show that G ⩾ H, we need to show that G − H ⩾ 0, meaning

Theorem 2.3 (Colon Principle [2]). If K ⩾ K ′ , then G : K ⩾ G : K ′ .

In all cases, Left wins moving second. The result follows.

As proven in [4], if given any position G ∈ S, all pairs (GL , GR ) ∈ Gℒ × Gℛ satisfy

Theorem 3.1. Let G = d1 d2 . . . dn . If d1 d2 . . . dn contains an even number of 1s, or if d1 = 1

Theorem 3.2. All flipping coins positions are numbers.

Given a position G, the following algorithm returns a value.

Algorithm Let G be a flipping coins position. Let G0 = G.

The algorithm implicitly returns two different results:

Now let H = 01001110110111011101. The reductions give that

The last expression partitions into 01(0101)(00011)(101) so that

The next theorem is the main result of the paper.

4 Best moves and reductions

As an immediate consequence of Theorems 3.2 and 2.2, we have the following:

G(1, 1, 0, 0) > G(1, 0, 0, 1) > G(0, 0, 1, 1).

We may assume then, without loss of generality, that j = r or j = n. If j = n, then

G(di , dj , ds , ds+1 ) = G(0, 1, 0, 1), i < s,

G(ds , ds+1 , dj ) = G(0, 1, 1), i = s, j > s + 1.

We need to show either D = G(1, 0, 0, 1) − G(0, 1, 1, 0) ⩾ 0 or D = G(1, 1, 0) − G(1, 0, 1) ⩾ 0,

G = αdi βds ds+1 1a dj 1b = α0β011a 11b , a ⩾ 0, b ⩾ 0,

D = α1β011a 01b − α0β101a 11b .

Two applications of Corollary 4.1 (applied to the highlighted terms) give

α1β011a 01b ⩾ α0β111a 01b ⩾ α0β101a 11b .

G = αds ds+1 1a dj 1b = α011a 11b , a ⩾ 0, b ⩾ 0,

D = α111a 01b − α101a 11b .

One application of Corollary 4.1 (relevant terms again highlighted) gives

α111a 01b ⩾ α101a 11b .

In all cases, Left wins D moving second, proving the result.

α01111a−2 − α101a−2 = 0 by induction

α10111a − α1101a−1 = α1101a−1 − α1101a−1 = 0 by induction.

2. If a = 1, then H = α01111 − α101. The cases are:

α0111β − α10β → α0111β′ − α10β′ ,

and the latter expression is equal to 0 by induction.

α0111β − α10β → α0111β′ − α10β′ = 0 by induction.

In all cases, H = 0, and this concludes the proof.

3/8 = 011101 ≠ 1001 = 1/4.

Here β starts with a 0 and has an odd number of 1s.

α01a − (α01a : 0) = α01a − α01a = 0.

We have two subcases.