30
$\begingroup$

Rand and Rubio are playing a game in which they each take turns to pick a digit between 1 and 9, without replacement (i.e. all digits chosen are distinct). If one of them manages to get three digits which sum to 15, then he wins. If neither player achieves this, they both lose.

Rand goes first. Does he have a winning strategy? If so, what is it? If not, prove it.

Source: Peter Winkler's Mathematical Puzzles: A Connoisseur's Collection.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yes, he said "you take 2, 6 and 7, and I'll take 1, 5, and 9. No one said first to 15 wins so we'll both win this way" $\endgroup$
    – Sandy Chapman
    Commented Jan 18, 2017 at 2:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Of course Rand wins - he wouldn't be stupid enough to play against Rubio if he didn't already have a winning strategy worked out! $\endgroup$
    – YowE3K
    Commented Jan 18, 2017 at 3:40
  • $\begingroup$ Does the game end as soon as one of the players get 15? Apparently it doesn't, but still. $\endgroup$
    – Nautilus
    Commented Jan 19, 2017 at 19:25

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
16
$\begingroup$

Answer:

No.

Explanation:

This game is equivalent to playing noughts and crosses on a 3 x 3 magic square. With perfect play, noughts and crosses is a draw, so the first player does not have a winning strategy.

Proof:

Exactly eight triplets of different digits between 1 and 9 sum to 15:

1 5 9
1 6 8
2 4 9
2 5 8
2 6 7
3 4 8
3 5 7
4 5 6

And...

Exactly eight lines of three numbers - horizontal, vertical, or diagonal - appear on any 3 x 3 magic square. No two are the same.

Therefore...

If the magic square contains all of the digits between 1 and 9, each line contains a different one of the above triplets and all triplets appear. This proves equivalence.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
31
$\begingroup$

The solution:

No.

The reason:

They're really playing tic-tac-toe on this grid! (All possible combinations with a sum of 15 are contained in it.)
492
357
816

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Are "not losing" and "winning" the same thing? There are plenty of games where neither wins; is it required that Rand have a strategy that can always beat me, or does never losing to me suffice? $\endgroup$
    – Rubio ♦
    Commented Jan 18, 2017 at 1:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Rubio Winning means actually winning. Edited to clarify. $\endgroup$
    – Rand al'Thor
    Commented Jan 18, 2017 at 1:17
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Hmmm... If this is the case, the only way to win is not to play.... $\endgroup$
    – user30599
    Commented Jan 18, 2017 at 8:04
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure if this answer came before @TheEarth's one, but this one is way simpler to understand. Nice! $\endgroup$
    – Xenocacia
    Commented Jan 18, 2017 at 9:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Xenocacia This answer was first, but both are good answers and deserve upvotes. $\endgroup$
    – Rand al'Thor
    Commented Jan 18, 2017 at 12:18
5
$\begingroup$

Simple answer.

No
The only way to win for sure would be to have a combination of numbers than can withstand 2 blocks from the opponent. Which would require a number which can branch off into at least 2 winning combinations which themselves can also branch off into 2 winning combinations.
Example : 1-2-6, 1-2-7, 1-3-8, 1-3-9
But it is impossible to have a combination of 2 numbers to branch of into 2 possibilities that equals 15.
No matter what, the second player can block you on his second move.
Therefore it is impossible to win for sure.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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