Tic-Tac-Toe on a Torus: Move First or Second?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter maze
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

In tic-tac-toe played on a toroidal board, the first player can always force a win, negating the possibility of a tie. This conclusion is supported by a theorem stating that the first player possesses a non-losing strategy. The proof involves the first player making an initial random move, which allows them to adopt the second player's winning strategy in a hypothetical scenario. This contradiction demonstrates that a winning strategy exists for the first player, ensuring that the second player cannot win.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of game theory principles
  • Familiarity with tic-tac-toe mechanics
  • Knowledge of toroidal geometry
  • Basic logical reasoning skills
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore advanced game theory concepts, particularly non-losing strategies
  • Research variations of tic-tac-toe on different geometries
  • Study the implications of player strategies in combinatorial games
  • Learn about the mathematical proofs behind game strategies
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for game theorists, mathematicians, and enthusiasts interested in strategic gameplay and the complexities of non-standard game formats.

maze
Messages
661
Reaction score
4
If you play tic-tac-toe on a torus (the board wraps around), would you prefer to move first or second, or does it matter?

EG,
x wins:
X O ..
.. O X
.. X ..

o wins:
X .. X
O O O
X .. ..
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
maze said:
If you play tic-tac-toe on a torus (the board wraps around), would you prefer to move first or second, or does it matter?

It seems that if you go first, you can always force a win. You could lose if you tried to (while going 1st), but you can always win if you go first. And actually, I think you're destined never to have a tie game, either.

DaveE
 
It's a theorem that for all games of this type, the first player has a non-losing strategy.


The proof goes as follows: suppose player 2 has a winning strategy. Then player one has a winning strategy as follows:

1. Place his first piece randomly (this will now be called the 'extra' piece)

2. Pretend the extra piece doesn't exist
Note that, when pretending this, he becomes player 2 in his pretend game​

3. Use player 2's winning strategy to win
Note that if the winning strategy ever asks him to play a piece where he's already put his extra piece, then he just stops pretending it's extra, and makes a random play, now considering that piece the extra piece


Since both players cannot win, we have a contradiction. Therefore, there exists a player 1 strategy that guarantees player 2 cannot win.



Of course, there are variations you can make to defeat this technique... but you didn't make one.​
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
15K
  • · Replies 195 ·
7
Replies
195
Views
24K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K