3
$\begingroup$

Context: I played this game at one point (and lost) and now I'm wondering whether it was possible to win or not.

We have a hexagonal board like this: enter image description here I'm defining the following terms:

  1. Each hexagon is called a piece.
  2. A wall is a border of the board. There are four walls- left, right, top and bottom.
    The entire top border is a wall, i.e. the border shaped /¯\_/¯\_/¯\ is the top wall.
    Similarly for the other walls.

The rules are as follows:

  1. Player A starts from the piece marked A, and Player B starts from the piece marked B.
  2. In a turn, a player can "claim" any one piece for himself and colour it (blue for A, pink for B).
  3. A piece once claimed cannot be claimed by the opposing player.
  4. To win, a player must create a continuous sequence of pieces from his starting hexagon to a non-adjacent wall (thus A must create a continuous sequence to the bottom or right wall, and B to the top or left wall).

If player A starts the game, can B have a winning strategy? Please explain in detail.

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

If player A starts then player B

cannot

have a winning strategy because

if they did, then player A could follow the same strategy and win sooner. That is: player A could pick a cell, pretend that player B has claimed it as B's first move, and then follow that winning strategy rotated through 180 degrees. If at some point B actually does pick the cell A pretended they started with, A should pick another yet-unclaimed cell and pretend B claimed that one. If B's winning strategy worked, then A would end up winning in this way -- which means that B can't have had a winning strategy after all.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The classic strategy-stealing argument! $\endgroup$ – Jaap Scherphuis Apr 6 at 15:54
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, man! I need to contact the maths teacher that made us play this game :) $\endgroup$ – Righter Apr 6 at 15:57
  • $\begingroup$ But is there a winning strategy for A? $\endgroup$ – justhalf Apr 6 at 19:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ That question wasn't asked :-). Often the answer is "yes, because if there's no B-path from B's starting place to another side then necessarily there is an A-path from A's starting place to another side". But I don't think that's true here, because you can draw parallel (SW-to-NE-ish) lines of A-cells and B-cells that block both A's and B's starting place from the non-adjacent sides. A might still have a win, but it's not so obvious. $\endgroup$ – Gareth McCaughan Apr 6 at 21:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Righter Comment because I haven't checked all the lines, but if pieces are labelled like a chessboard (so A is on A5, B is on E1), as far as I can tell, B4 wins. It threatens D4, so B must play in C5,C4,D4,E5,or E4. If C4, then B3 threatens A2 and C2, so B must play B2, but then A wins with C3. If B plays anything else, A plays B2 and I think is just too fast. $\endgroup$ – alphacapture Apr 7 at 3:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.