51–60 of 129 posts
Does anyone else play the 'infinite board' tic-tac-toe which requires you to get five in a row? It's what I used to play as a student, and it's pretty well-known at least where I live. Nobody bothers with the 3x3 version, but the five in a row version is pretty exciting and requires plenty of strategy and thinking ahead.
I think the Orwin gambit can be extended to win the game every time. - Force opponent to fill center miniboard, as he describes. - Force opponent to fill (e.g.) northeast corner in the same way. Opponent now has taken two miniboards, and you have none, but you are one turn away from taking each of the remaining seven. - Pick SW corner of SW corner. You have taken SW corner miniboard. Opponent is forced to play in sam…
I got confused with the notation so I used paintbrush: http://imgur.com/a/tZPjl The standard strategy (without optimization) seems to work perfectly. You gain control by forcing the oponent to fill out the miniboards. The last move on the second exhausted miniboard will allow you to choose any miniboard, so it's an easy win. EDIT: like 3pt14159 pointed out, O might cause you problems if he immediately picks the cente…
I think the Orwin gambit can be extended to win the game every time. - Force opponent to fill center miniboard, as he describes. - Force opponent to fill (e.g.) northeast corner in the same way. Opponent now has taken two miniboards, and you have none, but you are one turn away from taking each of the remaining seven. - Pick SW corner of SW corner. You have taken SW corner miniboard. Opponent is forced to play in sam…
I got confused with the notation so I used paintbrush: http://imgur.com/a/tZPjl The standard strategy (without optimization) seems to work perfectly. You gain control by forcing the oponent to fill out the miniboards. The last move on the second exhausted miniboard will allow you to choose any miniboard, so it's an easy win. EDIT: like 3pt14159 pointed out, O might cause you problems if he immediately picks the cente…
My daughters play a variant of tic-tac-toe with a physical board and just three stones each. I brute-forced this with a little lunchbreak program and the visualisation output from graphviz was ... 340 MEGAPIXELS! I blogged about it: http://williamedwardscoder.tumblr.com/post/35858593837/tic-t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got confused with the notation so I used paintbrush: http://imgur.com/a/tZPjl The standard strategy (without optimization) seems to work perfectly. You gain control by forcing the oponent to fill out the miniboards. The last move on the second exhausted miniboard will allow you to choose any miniboard, so it's an easy win. EDIT: like 3pt14159 pointed out, O might cause you problems if he immediately picks the cente…
What if o took the centre of the board?
This would be the general strategy, although I am now no longer sure you can force a win through. The options for moves for O starts to grow past what I can work through in Paint right now.
I think the Orwin gambit can be extended to win the game every time. - Force opponent to fill center miniboard, as he describes. - Force opponent to fill (e.g.) northeast corner in the same way. Opponent now has taken two miniboards, and you have none, but you are one turn away from taking each of the remaining seven. - Pick SW corner of SW corner. You have taken SW corner miniboard. Opponent is forced to play in sam…
either I'm wrong TLDR: you're wrong. C/C, C/SW, C/S, [opponent takes C], C/SE, NE/SW, NE/S ... after C/SE, your opponent has control and can go anywhere that is available in the center board they've already won, so you can't assume you're next play will be NE. More importantly after you've sent them to the SW board with NE/SW they can go anywhere except the middle and so they then have the initiative. Hmm, It looks l…
The initial idea (extending Orwin Gambit) should still be leverageable into a much better position. This might fall short of a certain win though, if the opponent plays a proper response strategy -- which we should probably assume if the contestants are peer mathematicians. :)
http://xkcd.com/832/ Randall Munroe could do a "small" update to this based on these rules... although it would take some time.
A "small" update? I think this is more like the difference between checkers and chess. But yes, relevant xkcd
I'm not sure what you mean by this?
BTW are you aware that despite it has only one type of stone and simpler rules, checkers is in fact the more complex game, to write an AI for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. You lost the initiative (the ability to force their next move) when you sent them to an open board.
I don't believe you will ever send them to an open board. O makes all its 8 initial moves in the center, and the 9th move for X will be in the last empty board. I think that it depends on what their last move in the center board is. If they send you to a corner, I believe you can force the win. If they send you to the SW corner, you make the first move in that square to the SW corner. This forces them to reply in the…