Timeline for Generalized tic-tac-toe
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 3, 2012 at 19:57 | vote | accept | Timothy Chow | ||
| Aug 3, 2012 at 10:33 | comment | added | user9072 | Thanks for the clarification/addition. And +1 for even making it an optimal strategy (regarding numer of moves). | |
| Aug 3, 2012 at 2:05 | comment | added | Will Sawin | I fixed my answer. | |
| Aug 3, 2012 at 2:01 | history | edited | Will Sawin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 495 characters in body; edited body; added 9 characters in body
|
| Aug 3, 2012 at 1:52 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | Nice catch, quid. I have "unaccepted" the answer. | |
| Aug 3, 2012 at 1:44 | comment | added | Will Sawin | You are correct. This is incomplete or wrong. | |
| Aug 2, 2012 at 23:47 | comment | added | user9072 | Either I do not understand this description or it is incomplete/wrong. Let me illustrate my problem with an example. Say let n=5, so we choose 0 (according to startegy) and they choose say -4. Now (according to strategy) we choose b=1 and c=2 so neither 1, 2, nor 1+2 is 4. Then we name b=1 so they need to name -1. And now we name c=2. Yet now we lost if they choose 5 (instead of -2)! [We could still win if instead of 2 we defend at 5, forcing them to take -5 and then choose 2, but this is not the point.] | |
| Aug 2, 2012 at 21:48 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | Clever! Wish I'd seen it. | |
| Aug 2, 2012 at 21:48 | vote | accept | Timothy Chow | ||
| Aug 3, 2012 at 1:52 | |||||
| Aug 2, 2012 at 15:38 | history | edited | Will Sawin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 100 characters in body
|
| Aug 2, 2012 at 15:24 | history | answered | Will Sawin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |