## Eraserhead (Games on Circles I)

This is not about the film by David Lynch. Eraserhead is played by two players on finite graph with some vertices occupied by erasers. At each turn, the player chooses one eraser, moves it to an unoccupied adjacent edge, thereby erasing the connecting edge. The player who moves last wins.

Let’s analyze this for cycle graphs.

If played with just one eraser, the first player chooses the direction, and all other moves are forced, until the eraser has erased all edges. So the first player wins if the cycle graph has an odd number of vertices. That was boring.

For two erasers, it gets slightly more interesting, but the outcome is the same: The first player can win if the number of vertices is odd. The two erasers divide the graph into two components whose number of vertices have different parity (3 and 4 in the example below).
Moving an eraser into the even component would be a mistake, as the second player will then move into the same component with the other eraser. This leaves an even number of moves for both players, and the second player will win.

But a winning move for the first player consists of moving one eraser into the odd component. This leaves the second player with two choices: Moving the other eraser either way leaves an odd number of moves for both players, and the first player wins. If the second player moves the first eraser again, the first player can move either way and will win.

So while a little harder, this was still easy. Does this even/odd pattern for winning and losing persist with more erasers? At first, it seems so. For any number of erasers (except the cases of no erasers and erasers everywhere, which leave no moves to begin with), the first (resp. second) player can always win with if the cycle graph has an odd (resp. even) number of vertices — up to cycle graphs with 8 vertices. For the following position with three erasers, the first player has no winning move. There are three essentially different moves, and the diagram give winning responses for the second player.

The first line is interesting. With the first player to move again, there are still 8 edges to delete (possibly). If the first player moves with the topmost eraser right, this will actually happen, and the first player will loose. To prevent this, s(he) must move that eraser to the left. This leaves all erasers in one component with a total of four edges left. This looks like a good thing, but no matter how they play, only three edges will be deleted, and the second player must win.

So the game does get complicated. What helps is to know the nimbers for simple subpositions, like chains with or without erasers at the end. For instance, the line graph with n vertices and one eraser at the end has nimber 1 for odd even n and 0 for odd n. Similarly, the line graph with n vertices and erasers at both end has nimber 0 for odd even n and 1 for odd n. This is quite trivial, of course, as all moves are forced. More surprisingly, for the line graph with two erasers at the end and a third eraser in between, the nimbers are again 1 for n odd, and 0 for n even, except when n=3 or n=4. Then the nimbers are 0 and 2, respectively. So things start off with promising simple patterns, but then deviate. Below I have, for line graphs of length 12 and 13, respectively a unit cube at coordinate (x,y,z) if the position with erasers at x, y, and z is a lost position for the first player.

Finally, below, the corresponding images for cycle graphs, viewed diagonally to emphasize the symmetry. The discrepancy is baffling.

## Magnetism

Magnetism is played by two players on a strip of squares, who take turns placing + and – tokens onto the strip. The only rule is that no two tokens with the same parity can be placed next to each other. For instance, there are three legal moves in the following position:

The player who moves last, wins. This makes Magnetism an impartial game, so that each position is equivalent to a Nim-pile. It turns out that Magnetism is very simple.
First we notice that any position is the sum of simpler positions that have tokens just at the end of a strip. (A sum of games is played by first choosing a game summand, and then making a move in that summand).

Therefore we will know everything about Magentism if we can determine the size of the Nim-piles (the “nimbers”) of the 9 elementary positions:

Things get even simpler. Because of the symmetry of things, there are only four truly different boards to consider.

Let’s denote the nimbers of a board of n empty squares (thus not counting the tokens at the end when present) by G(n), G+(n), G++(n), and G+-(n).

n 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
G(n) 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
G+(n) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
G++(n) 1 1 1 1 1 1
G+-(n) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Now you can win in a position with a positive nimber by moving to a position with zero nimber. For instance, on a board with a single + at one end, one possible winning move is to put a – at the other end.

## Spring Cleaning II

This is a continuation of my previous post about this game. Because it is impartial and the rules are simple, one can write a computer program that computes for a given position of dirt pieces the size of the equivalent Nim heap (which is also called its Grundy number or its nimber). Because this is computationally prohibitive, one does this for simple shapes, discovers patterns, and proves these. We did this for rectangles the last time. To warm up, we do it for L-shapes today. Here is. (5,3)-L:

The nimber of this position is 1, which means in particular that there is a winning move for the first player. You can for instance do vertical swipe in the second column, leaving the second player with two disconnected row/column of three dirt pieces each. From then on, we play symmetrically and win.

For the general (alb)-L, the nimbers are as follows:

 a\b 2 3 4 5 6 2 0 4 4 0 3 3 4 1 0 1 0 4 3 0 3 0 3 5 0 1 0 1 0 6 3 0 3 0 3

In other words, the nimber of an L with legs at least 3 dirt pieces long behaves quite simple.
This is good, because if a player can easily memorize the nimbers of simple positions, and these nimbers are small, then the player can usually easily win against players who lack this knowledge.

But maybe all this talk about nimbers is just vain traditional mathematics, and there is an alternative way to understand this game and win easily, without any theory, just by being smart and tough?

Let’s look at at another type of Spring Cleaning positions which I call zigzags. Below are the zigzags Z(1) through Z(7),

and here is the table of the first few nimbers:

 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 nimber 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 0 3 4

Any pattern emerging? No? There is a solution: Whenever you have a sequence of integers you are clueless about, you had to the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, the best thing the internet has produced ever, and type it in.

It turns out that the sequence at hand is known as the sequence of nimbers of another impartial game which is called Couples are Forever. The rules are simple: The game is is being played with several piles of tokens. Both players take turns splitting any one pile of size at least three tokens into two piles. The game ends when no piles with more than two tokens are left. This impartial game, beginning with a pile of size n, has (with a shift of two) the same nimbers as the zigzags in Spring Cleaning.

Moreover, for Couples are Forever, the nimbers have been computed into the millions, and no pattern has been found whatsoever. It is not even known whether the nimbers remain bounded.

Above is the graph for the nimbers of Couples are Forever (or zigzags in Spring Cleaning) for pile sizes up to 25,000. At first (up to 10,000 or so), it looks like the nimbers are growing linearly, but then they appear to even out. Nobody knows. This is one of the famous open problems in combinatorial game theory.

It tells us also that there won’t be a tough&smart solution for this game, or for Spring Cleaning, or for reality. Which is a good thing.

## Spring Cleaning I

Spring Cleaning is played on a rectangular array of randomly placed dirt pieces. A sweep consists of removing a single row or column of consecutive dirt pieces.

Above are some example of legal sweeps, and below are illegal sweeps.

This is a game for two players, who take turns by doing exactly one sweep. The player who sweeps the last time is the winner. This is an impartial game which means that each position is equivalent to a single game of Nim. This is usually bad news, because playing Nim well requires us to perform exclusive or additions of binary numbers in our head, for which our brains are not (yet) well equipped.

The good news here is that many simple positions are equivalent to very small Nim piles, meaning that computations are easy. I will explain this using an example. No proofs (even though they are easy, too).

It’s your turn to find a winning move in the position above. You know (because I promise) that rectangles completely filled with dirt pieces are easy positions, so you will look for moves that separate the dirt pieces into such rectangles. Here is such a move:

After that, we are left with four separate rectangles, all completely dirty. This means that this game is equivalent to a game of Nim with four Nim piles. The question is what the pile sizes are. The answer is simple: Any rectangle both of whose dimensions are odd corresponds to a Nim pile of size 1, if both dimensions are even, the Nim pile is empty (size 0), and otherwise, the Nim pile has size 2. In our example, we have a 1×1 rectangle, a 1×3 rectangle, and two 1×2 rectangles. They correspond to Nim piles of sizes 1, 1, 2, and 2. The exclusive or sum of these numbers is 0. This is what we want, because it means that after this move, the game is equivalent to an empty Nim pile. From now on it’s easy. Suppose that our opponent performs a vertical swipe on the 1×3 rectangle. What do we do to return the game to Nim-value 0?

We can sweep away any of the isolated dirt pieces: From then on, the game is symmetrical and we can win easily without any Nim-theory. And we better leave the two 1×2 rectangles untouched. Suppose we remove one of them completely. Then we are left with three 1×1 rectangles and a single 1×2 rectangle, which exclusive or sums up to a Nim pile of size 3, in which case our opponent can win.

The winning move would be to reduce the remaining 1×2 rectangle to a 1×1 rectangle with a horizontal sweep.

So, if we know how to deal with Nim positions that consist of Nim piles of sizes 1 and 2, we will be able to win Spring Cleaning by dissecting a given position eventually into rectangles.