113

I consider a game to be mathematical if there is interesting mathematics (to a mathematician) involved in

  • the game's structure,
  • optimal strategies,
  • practical strategies,
  • analysis of the game results/performance.

Which popular games are particularly mathematical by this definition?


Motivation: I got into backgammon a bit over 10 years ago after overhearing Rob Kirby say to another mathematician at MSRI that he thought backgammon was a game worth studying. Since then, I have written over 100 articles on the mathematics of backgammon as a columnist for a backgammon magazine. My target audience is backgammon players, not mathematicians, so much of the material I cover is not mathematically interesting to a mathematician. However, I have been able to include topics such as martingale decomposition, deconvolution, divergent series, first passage times, stable distributions, stochastic differential equations, the reflection principle in combinatorics, asymptotic behavior of recurrences, $\chi^2$ statistical analysis, variance reduction in Monte Carlo simulations, etc. I have also made a few videos for a poker instruction site, and I am collaborating on a book on practical applications of mathematics to poker aimed at poker players. I would like to know which other games can be used similarly as a way to popularize mathematics, and which games I am likely to appreciate more as a mathematician than the general population will.

Other examples:

  • go
  • bridge
  • Set.

Non-example: I do not believe chess is mathematical, despite the popular conception that chess and mathematics are related. Game theory says almost nothing about chess. The rules seem mathematically arbitrary. Most of the analysis in chess is mathematically meaningless, since positions are won, drawn, or tied (some minor complications can occur with the 50 move rule), and yet chess players distinguish strong moves from even stronger moves, and usually can't determine the true value of a position.

To me, the most mathematical aspect of chess is that the linear evaluation of piece strength is highly correlated which side can win in the end game. Second, there is a logarithmic rating system in which all chess players say they are underrated by 150 points. (Not all games have good rating systems.) However, these are not enough for me to consider chess to be mathematical. I can't imagine writing many columns on the mathematics of chess aimed at chess players.

Non-example: I would exclude Nim. Nim has a highly mathematical structure and optimal strategy, but I do not consider it a popular game since I don't know people who actually play Nim for fun.


To clarify, I want the games as played to be mathematical. It does not count if there are mathematical puzzles you can describe on the same board. Does being a mathematician help you to learn the game faster, to play the game better, or to analyze the game more accurately? (As opposed to a smart philosopher or engineer...) If mathematics helps significantly in a game people actually play, particularly if interesting mathematics is involved in a surprising way, then it qualifies to be in this collection.

If my criteria seem horribly arbitrary as some have commented, so be it, but this seems in line with questions like Real world applications of math, by arxive subject area? or Cocktail party math. I'm asking for applications of real mathematics to games people actually play. If someone is unconvinced that mathematics says anything they care about, and you find out he plays go, then you can describe something he might appreciate if you understand combinatorial game theory and how this arises naturally in go endgames.

Douglas Zare
  • 27,806
  • 70
    Yeah, well the rules of mathematics are chessly arbitrary. – Harry Gindi Feb 01 '10 at 11:19
  • 43
    I think it's a mischaracterization to say chess is nonmathematical; it's just that chess, like so many things one encounters in the real world, is neither elegant nor simple from the point of view of mathematics. That game theory can't tell us much about chess tells us more about the limitations of game theory than about the mathematical nature of chess. That said, your suggested examples are definitely better. – Mark Meckes Feb 01 '10 at 14:29
  • 8
    This borders on subjective, argumentative, and discussion-y. I hope I'm wrong. – Theo Johnson-Freyd Feb 01 '10 at 16:23
  • 7
    -1 this is a terrible question. i do not understand why the asker is interested in answers this question, which is essentially 'give a list of games' – Peter McNamara Feb 01 '10 at 16:44
  • 11
    This is very far from 'give a list of all games.' One hope is to find other popular games whose play involves mathematics. Another is to learn more real mathematics about games I already know. A third idea is to see what resonates with other mathematicians. I'm sorry if you don't find these interesting, or if you find my criteria arbitrary--I don't see a huge difference between this and questions like, "What are neat applications of mathematics/this field?" – Douglas Zare Feb 01 '10 at 17:56
  • 8
    -1 for arbitrariness. You're welcome to your beliefs about chess and nim, but they're far from universal, and make for a less useful question. – Scott Morrison Feb 01 '10 at 18:36
  • 13
    You disagree with my statement that Nim is not actually played for fun? I can show you go clubs, bridge clubs, backgammon clubs, even a "world championship of rock-paper-scissors," etc. I've never seen a Nim club or heard someone describe himself or herself as a Nim player. There are many theoretical games people don't actually play, and I don't think it's arbitrary to exclude those. I'll clarify my reasons for excluding chess later. – Douglas Zare Feb 01 '10 at 23:17
  • 1
    mathematics also helps to understand some basic prinicples of chess like opposition and other stuff like this. – HenrikRüping Apr 07 '10 at 07:16
  • 1
    The question is somewhat imprecise, because the answers below show there is no clear, agreed-upon notion of what a game is, exactly. – Todd Trimble Oct 07 '11 at 18:50
  • 22
    In "l'année dernière à Marienbad" ("last year in Marienbad"), a movie by Alain Resnais, you can see people playing Nim for fun. Now this just moves the problem, because I don't know anyone watching that movie for fun. (I just mean that peculiar movie. Resnais made a lot of very good movies. But that one is a serious contender for the prize of the most boring movie ever). – Joël Oct 07 '11 at 19:31
  • I've been meaning to watch that movie for fun for quite a while now... might have to reconsider! – ndkrempel Oct 07 '11 at 23:53
  • 3
    Max Euwe showed using the Thue-Morse sequence that the rules of chess in his time did not exclude the possibility of an infinite game. I'd say that's interesting mathematically. – Dejan Govc Oct 08 '11 at 16:28
  • 1
    The rules of chess evolved so as to produce an interesting game. Nonetheless, rigorous theorems and proofs are possible in endgame theory, and anything with proofs of important facts would seem to be mathematical by definition. I think the OP should have said, mathematical but where the mathematics is not well-motivated from a pure math point of view. – Gene Ward Smith Jan 13 '13 at 15:34
  • @Gene Ward Smith: I didn't intend that restriction. If it takes mathematical sophistication to establish results which are important in chess, that would make chess mathematical by my definition. The results I have seen either do not require mathematics or are not important in chess, but if you know of others please share them. – Douglas Zare Jan 14 '13 at 20:02
  • @Joël: Certainly your opinion is well founded, but just for the record, I find Marienbad one of the most interesting and compelling movies I have ever watched. As for "fun", it was as much fun for me as was learning about p-adic Lie groups. Quite a lot -- in a way. – Torsten Schoeneberg Feb 19 '14 at 10:35
  • 2
    @Torsten: You're opinion is certainly well-founded too. And today, Resnais is dead, and he was one of my favorite filmmaker, so I like all his movies. – Joël Mar 02 '14 at 18:03
  • Just in case you haven't... I suggest you search in Martin Gardner's formidable books and/or his articles in the "Scientific American" magazine. You'll find a great deal of "mathematical games",mathematical properties of games, mathematical studies of games, etc. –  Apr 29 '14 at 22:14
  • 4
    The dual question is also intriguing: which proofs of mathematical theorems have a structure that resemble the most a strategy of a game? – Pietro Majer Apr 29 '15 at 13:12
  • While I agree with the statement that the game itself is far from matching any mathematical model well enough, I'd like to mention a very interesing book by Bonsdorff/Fabel/Riihimaa: "Schach und Zahl" (Chess and Numbers). It discusses a number of problems such as enumerations, longest and shortest sequences of moves, placements, where combinatorics and other branches of mathematics need to be applied. Apparently there's no English translation. – laune Sep 10 '15 at 12:06
  • Related to this question: https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.2884 – Sabrina Gemsa Jan 23 '17 at 11:10
  • @MarkMeckes I would like to point out that Combinatorial Game Theory(CGT) has tools to study games such as chess (though chess is not a combinatorial game). They got better results than people expected; it did not get much attention due to AlephChess's performance. As as sidenote, CGT is very successful in studying the game dots and boxes. – Cyriac Antony Jun 24 '20 at 06:59

54 Answers54

94

Set is a card game that is very mathematical.

12 Set cards

Set is played with a deck with $81$ cards. Each card corresponds to a point in affine $4$-space over $\mathbb Z/3$, with $3$ possible colors, shadings, shapes, and counts. The players must identify Sets, sets of $3$ cards corresponding to collinear points. Sets are also triples of cards which add up to the $0$-vector. The three cards pictured form a Set.

A natural question which arises during play is how many cards you can deal out without producing a Set. There can be $9$ cards in a codimension-$1$ subspace which do not contain a Set, corresponding to a nondegenerate conic in affine $3$-space such as $z=x^2+y^2$. There can be at most $20$ cards not containing a Set, corresponding to a nondegenerate conic in the projective $3$-space containing $10$ points.

Lest anyone think it is "just a game", this has led to quite a bit of research, including applications to computational complexity of matrix multiplication.

aorq
  • 4,934
  • 7
    Here's an online version for people wanting to see what it's like: http://setgame.ath.cx/ – Zev Chonoles Feb 01 '10 at 13:19
  • 2
    Does this satisfy the "popular" criterion? I haven't exactly seen many Set clubs around. – Douglas S. Stones Feb 02 '10 at 05:58
  • 15
    It is at least popular enough that Set decks can be found in big-box bookstores like Borders or Barnes & Noble. – Matt Noonan Feb 02 '10 at 06:31
  • 2
    I've seen people playing Set in public places a few times. – Douglas Zare Feb 02 '10 at 10:31
  • 9
    Set is very popular with certain types of student clubs (e.g. math clubs), although I don't think it's really the kind of game that warrants its own clubs. – Qiaochu Yuan Jun 07 '11 at 16:14
  • 1
    Set is usually a hit at parties (coming from an undergraduate at a school that ranks in the top party schools in the US.) – Benjamin Braun Jan 29 '13 at 13:49
  • 2
    It's worth noting that the $n$-dimensional extension of the "natural question" described at the end of the post here (i.e. how large can a subset of $\mathbb{Z}_3^n$ not containing a line be) is a major open question in additive combinatorics, sometimes referred to as the "cap set problem". – Kevin P. Costello Nov 23 '15 at 05:49
  • The previous link setgame.ath.cx is gone, though this http://www.setgame.com/set/puzzle seems to be working – xji Apr 17 '16 at 02:57
  • I like to play Set, but I usually lose against my children, because of my coulour-blindness. For people like me, the three colours should be something like Blue, Red (or Green, equivalently) and Yellow. The problem is even worse with the Dwarves and Dice game. – Denis Serre Sep 19 '17 at 08:57
  • You pictures nine cards. – Christopher King Feb 16 '18 at 17:08
  • This was the first game that first came to my mind, when I read the title. However, it looks like that the OP was thinking in a slightly different direction. – p6majo Feb 02 '23 at 19:13
71

Hex is a popular game with some interesting mathematical properties. John Nash gave an easy proof that the first player can force a win, his famous "stealing strategies" argument. His proof gives no indication as to what the optimal strategy actually looks like.

There is also a nice AMM paper by David Gale in which he shows that the fact that Hex can not end in a draw is equivalent to the Brouwer fixed point theorem (for higher dimensions, one needs a higher dimensional version of Hex).

11x11 Hex board

One variant is called Y. Both players attempt to create a group connecting all sides of a triangular board. As with Hex, there are no ties possible. A commercial version adds 3 points of positive curvature, with 5 neighbors instead of 6.

Commercial version of Y

  • 1
    I wonder: would it be possible to define a Hex analogue on the heptagonal or octagonal tiling of the hyperbolic plane? – Eriek Feb 13 '17 at 15:55
  • 1
    @Eriek Any progress on that thought? ‎ – Tobias Kienzler Sep 19 '17 at 11:46
  • 2
    @Tobias Kienzler Yes, not hard to do. You can just play it on an embedding of the hyperbolic plane, like a Poincare disk. I found a way to play it on graph paper that (seems to) preserve the mechanics of the hyperbolic version: http://hexandoct.net16.net. Turns out Bill Taylor discovered an equivalent game he called "Quickway" prior to me. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.abstract/dhDKiR1edBk/JqIAz9wZaakJ – Eriek Sep 22 '17 at 20:22
  • @Eriek Making diagonal connections on a square grid is very different from octagonal tiling of the hyperbolic plane. – Christopher King Mar 12 '18 at 07:23
56

Dots and boxes is a pencil-and-paper game with a reasonably deep mathematical theory. The game is often played by schoolchildren.

aorq
  • 4,934
  • 2
    One thing interesting about Dots and Boxes is that it can often be well approximated by Nimstring which itsef can be mapped onto Nim. So the theory of Nim is important even if Nim itself isn't that interesting. – Dan Piponi Feb 01 '10 at 17:38
  • 6
    FWIW, at a very high level of play on a small board, nim theory is surprisingly irrelevant. Dots and boxes is a very mathematical game, but nim is only one component of it, and there are plenty of expert-level players on a 5x5 board who know nothing at all about nim but who will still wipe the floor with anyone who has read Winning Ways and assumes that they are now an expert. See for example http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/forum/topic2.jsp?forum=110&topic=69 , a discussion which is visibly (a) mathematics and (b) relevant to dots and boxes, but (c) has nothing to do with Nim. – Kevin Buzzard Feb 02 '10 at 11:34
  • 7
    It's mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but it may as well be mentioned again: Elwyn Berlekamp wrote a book on the mathematical theory of dots and boxes. – Todd Trimble Oct 07 '11 at 12:27
  • There's also http://wccanard.wetpaint.com/ . – Kevin Buzzard Oct 07 '11 at 18:16
55

This was a favorite pass time on my mobile. Its pushing blocks also known as Sokoban:

enter image description here

Some years ago it came as a little surprise to me that it is NP complete. Here is one paper saying that:

Demain, E.D. and Hoffmann, M.
Pushing Blocks is NP-Complete for Noncrossing Solution Paths, 2001
https://people.inf.ethz.ch/hoffmann/pub/dh-pbnns-01.pdf

Best Regards

  • 20
    Actually, Sokoban has been proved to be PSPACE-complete by J. Culberson: http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~joe/Preprints/Sokoban/index.html. The paper by Demaine and Hoffman seems to consider several different variants of the game; moreover, they only show NP-hardness.

    Some more references:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokoban

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity#Complexities_of_some_well%2Dknown_games

    David Eppstein's webpage: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/cgt/hard.html

    – Jan Kyncl Jan 14 '13 at 05:37
  • Well, it is no surprise that Sokoban is NP-complete. Most games people care to play are PSPACE-hard (let alone NP-hard) but may not be in NP. Similarly, most puzzles (non-mathematical) people are interested in are NP-hard. – Cyriac Antony Jun 24 '20 at 07:03
48

The game of Go is mathematical in several ways. Its rules involve connected sets of pieces rather than pieces. Many combinatorial games including infinitesimals can be represented as positions in go endgames, as was described in Mathematical Go: Chilling Gets the Last Point

alt text
(source: xmp.net)

Douglas Zare
  • 27,806
  • 4
    Though I love Go, I can't agree that it has a mathematical feel except in the endgame. Set and Sudoku both seem to use the same sort of "proof" process that we're already used to; with the exception of Go endgames and perhaps complex ko fights, I rarely have the familiar "proving / deriving" feeling during a game. – Matt Noonan Feb 01 '10 at 20:52
  • 4
    I think many of the ideas which you can prove in the go endgame (before infinitesimals) are present but too complicated to prove in much earlier stages. In addition, the connectivity fights in go seem like they should give you that feeling of proving elementary statements. You sometimes want to prove that you can connect one group of stones to another provided that there is no enemy stone added to a particular area. The smaller the area, the less you need to worry about that connection. – Douglas Zare Feb 02 '10 at 01:47
  • 1
    go is so complex! clearly, it is mathematical, but my favorite part is its organic nature that openings and middle game take or feel like. – Sean Tilson Apr 07 '10 at 03:01
  • 1
    Go is interesting from the computer science point of view because it is very far from solved. Checkers is solved, and chess has been "solved" from a practical point of view - computers beat the best humans. Will this happen with Go? And when computers start beating pros, will moving to a larger board regains the advantage for humans? – Pait Jun 07 '11 at 17:04
  • Artificial intelligence in go involves a lot of statistical learning, which requires nice mathematics. Also I want to believe that there is something mathematical like an "influence function", which would give the influence of each player at each location and relies on geometric considerations. – kaleidoscop Aug 27 '11 at 14:33
  • 4
    Bu the way i've been thinking for a long time to a "continuous version" of go, where you can play anywhere on the field (not just at intersections).

    There would be some rules to modify but the overall seems more natural to me. Unfortunately I don't have the skills to program it, would someone be interested?

    – kaleidoscop Aug 27 '11 at 14:35
  • 1
    This already exists as a game at least, there's a page about it on Sensei's Library for example (http://senseis.xmp.net) – ndkrempel Oct 07 '11 at 23:58
  • @Raphael Lachieze-Rey: Many years ago, I worked out rules for playing go on a general point-set topological space, which includes some version of "continuous go": http://www.segerman.org/topologo/ – Henry Segerman Aug 09 '12 at 09:45
  • 1
    One way to measure the complexity of a game is by declaring that Person 1 is someone who knows only the rules of the game, and that Person n+1 is someone who will beat Person n 90% of the time; then, the complexity is the maximal such chain. I've heard (though I can't remember where) that chess is 5 and go is 9. I'd imagine that this measure of complexity is correlated with how well we can program computers to play the game, although (presumably interestingly, from a psych point of view) there are probably cases where this doesn't match up perfectly. – Aaron Mazel-Gee Jan 13 '13 at 09:42
  • 2
    @Aaron Mazel-Gee: There are big problems with this measure of complexity. Mixing luck in with skill does not cancel the skill, but it can decrease this measure of complexity to below 1. In the other direction, replacing a game with a best-of-n match does not change what it takes to learn to play the game, but it increases that measure of complexity. – Douglas Zare Jan 14 '13 at 19:58
  • 1
    @Pait Yes, it's happened. And I doubt that moving to a larger board will help, since AlphaGo exploits the translation invariance of the rules (by using convolutional neural networks). – Adam P. Goucher Apr 03 '16 at 16:09
  • I see that my comment is from almost 5 years ago. Nevertheless, it happened far faster that I would have imagined - the progress seems to have come all in the last year, when AlphaGo started beating the previous best programs by several stones. It's incredible.

    @AdamP.Goucher, if someone had made a statement such as "moving to a larger board will not make a different because the software uses neural networks" a year ago, I would have said he drank the Kool Aid ;-) That is not no longer appropriate.

    – Pait Apr 03 '16 at 16:16
  • 1
    While some aspects of the game are translationally invariant there is usually a huge difference between the value of a group (essentially connected set) of stones on the 3rd line versus the 4th line, and that value changes dramatically even if you change from $19 \times 19$ to $23 \times 23$. On a larger board, the center makes up more of the possible territory, for example. If you change the size of the board, you need to reconsider all of the moves that trade influence in the center for territory on the side. So, I think convolutional neural networks help less than you might expect. – Douglas Zare Apr 03 '16 at 16:47
  • 1
    @Pait: While there was a significant jump, I wouldn't say that most of the progress was made in the last year. I think a lot of people didn't want to admit how much progress other go programs made before that. The other computer programs were playing at the top amateur/lower professional levels earlier. Before AlphaGo, go programs played better than all but about 100 players in North America, and although NA is not the strongest region that was still a huge accomplishment. – Douglas Zare Apr 03 '16 at 16:53
  • 1
    There was a big jump in the prospects of go programs when they started using randomized rollouts about 10 years ago. One key point is that rollouts parallelize well, and computing power is improving primarily through increased parallel power rather than faster processors. Of course, you need the parallelizable algorithm to work, which was not obvious then, and many people dismissed adding randomness to deterministic games at that time. (I proposed it for chess earlier, and few people agreed with me.) – Douglas Zare Apr 03 '16 at 16:58
  • Thanks @DouglasZare for your interesting comments! Have you or would you care to collect your thoughts and ideas in a blog post or position paper?

    I still would say that AlphaGo changed the paradigm from randomized tree search to position evaluation by pattern recognition, which seems very significant to me. You clearly know much more than I do and it would be very instructive to read more.

    – Pait Apr 04 '16 at 02:28
  • 1
    @Pait: I wrote about the progress in go before AlphaGo in a column for GammonVillage, which requires a subscription, but I think I could send you a copy. I haven't looked at the details of AlphaGo except that I am familiar with deep learning and some of the techniques they used which are analogous to those used in backgammon. I don't know how they dealt with ko fights, for example, and that could be quite important. It was the main obstacle to me to applying deep learning to go. – Douglas Zare Apr 04 '16 at 04:34
  • Neat! More adequate to move this offline, I'm pait@usp.br – Pait Apr 04 '16 at 13:39
42

Believe it or not, Battle Ship is an interesting mathematical game. Well, at least if you play it in high enough dimension: Finding small explicit sets that hit all large enough combinatorial rectangles (ships) has been studied quite a lot and there are still a couple of open problems. See for instance, here.

Glorfindel
  • 2,743
Mitch
  • 657
  • 8
  • 15
  • 11
    Many children's games are surprisingly mathematically interesting. These games typically have very simple rules and very little scope for player strategy. This means that that the entire evolution of the game can be described by simple rules, which in turn means that the game can be treated mathematically. Even games like War and Candyland, which have no player strategy whatsoever, lead to interesting math. – David Harris Jan 14 '11 at 20:29
40

The ability to embed mathematical problems into chess (like combinatorial game theory into go) should not be underestimated. Papers by Richard Stanley and Noam Elkies demonstrate problems where the objective is to determine the number of ways to perform a given task. They include problems where the answer is

  • A Catalan number, say the 7th or even the 17th. (Problems A and B from Stanley. Problem A from Elkies.)
  • Fibonacci numbers, arbitrarily large. (Problem 4 from Elkies.)
  • The coefficients of the Maclaurin series for tangent, say the 7th or 9th. (Problem D from Stanley. Problems B and 1 from Elkies.)
  • Directly computable from the Selberg integral $\int_0^1 \cdots \int_0^1 \prod_{1\le i\lt j\le 4} (x_i - x_j)^2 dx_1\cdots dx_4 $. (Problem E from Stanley.)

Of course, the answers are this for some mathematical reason, not accidentally. Many of the problems are also elegant from a chess perspective.

aorq
  • 4,934
  • I have seen some problems they have constructed, however, the ones I have seen do not follow the normal objectives of chess, which is quite different from the connections between go and combinatorial game theory. – Douglas Zare Feb 01 '10 at 10:29
  • 9
    Let me add that I am impressed by their ability to embed interesting problems in a game I still view as not mathematical. – Douglas Zare Feb 01 '10 at 10:37
37

There's also the famous Rubik's Cube, which is popular and heavily maths-related.

31

Lights Out is a game which has effectively been reduced to a problem in linear algebra, particularly a routine exercise in Gaussian elimination. A good link can be found here. What's particularly interesting is the fact that operations in the game commute, which allows for the linear algebra approach.

I wonder if there are any non-commutative turn based games which can also be solved mathematically? Certainly, chess is out of the question!

Alex R.
  • 4,902
  • 2
  • 40
  • 66
  • 2
    I gave a talk at MathFest in 2007 on the $n$-dimensional generalization of this game. Just assume your playing the game on a lattice and pressing a light changes all lights touching it. We also generalized the solution to include things like lights out on a torus or a sphere or a mobius band... The point is, all the solutions are similar and the generalization follows fairly easily by reconstructing the "button vectors" which are related to the change of state when pressing a particular button. – B. Bischof Feb 02 '10 at 17:43
  • 4
    I'm not sure about non-commutative turn based games, but certainly the puzzles presented in a number of popular video games can be easily described with non-abelian groups. One that comes to mind was a lever puzzle in the first God of War game. The state of a device was manipulated with two levers and a particular state would open the door. It turns out that the state space of this device was a group generated by the actions of the two levers. So proceeding in the game was equivalent to finding a representation of a given group element in terms of the generators. – Aubrey da Cunha Oct 07 '11 at 18:28
31

Poker is a family of card games.

Many model games from game theory approximate poker situations, and some of the earliest work on game theory featured model games for betting and bluffing in poker (despite the popular misconception that bluffing is not mathematical) studied by Borel and von Neumann.

Nes Ankeny wrote a book Poker strategy: Winning with game theory in 1981 which gives an interesting mathematical approach to poker. Ankeny was a number theorist who was also a world-class poker player.

Tournament poker often rewards lower places than first. This means the value of chips is nonlinear, and several models have been used to determine the appropriate risk aversion by finding good functions from the distributions of chips to probabilities of finishing in each place. One is diffusion, which led to an application of the Riemann map of an equilateral triangle, although the difficulty of computing this and higher dimensional diffusion led to the widespread adoption of the independent chip model instead: Shuffle all chips, and rank players by their highest chips. Equivalently, remove the chips from play one by one.

Bill Chen and Jerrod Ankenman wrote The Mathematics of Poker aimed more at mathematicians than poker players. They studied model games in which players are dealt numbers from [0,1] instead of cards. They also computed the Nash equilibrium strategies for some situations in NL Texas Hold'em, the most popular variant at the moment. They also addressed a few topics outside of game theory, such as the risk of ruin probability with an unknown but normally distributed true win rate, and with a distribution skewed enough that the Brownian approximation fails, as for tournament play.

When the first few players fold, and we know they are more likely to have folded 8-4 than ace-ace, what can we say about the distributions of hands for the remaining players? Jerrod Ankenman remarked, "the problem of finding the hand distributions of the blinds given that the first n players have folded a specified set of distributions [sets of hands] is NP-hard."

[I merged two answers about poker.]

  • 3
    See also Alspach's articles: http://www.math.sfu.ca/~alspach/pokerdigest.html – Douglas S. Stones Feb 02 '10 at 08:04
  • Thanks for the references. I'm trying to track down Ankeny's book, since I'm writing a book on practical poker math myself. The Brian Alpach articles I've read are applications of very basic combinatorics, e.g., using inclusion-exclusion to count how often there are k pairs dealt among n players. There is a lot more to poker math than the odds of various deals. – Douglas Zare Feb 02 '10 at 22:08
28

Clay Institute in its lectures on millennium problems list as one of it question "P vs NP Problem" and simple Minesweeper is listed as example for which finding strategy is equivalent to solution of such problem....which was proved by Richard Kaye referenced below. Here is the beginning of minesweeper article:

The connection between the game and the prize problem was explained by Richard Kaye of the University of Birmingham, England ('Minesweeper is NP-complete', Mathematical Intelligencer volume 22 number 4, 2000, pages 9-15). And before anyone gets too excited, you won't win the prize by winning the game. To win the prize, you will have to find a really slick method to answer questions about Minesweeper when it's played on gigantic grids and all the evidence suggests that there isn't a slick method. In fact, if you can prove that there isn't one, you can win the prize that way too.

kakaz
  • 1,596
26

What about Pool? It contains quite a lot of geometry.

26

Blokus is a fairly new game that's gaining popularity (though there are older games with a similar set-up). There are several versions, and the four-player version has some non-cooperative elements to the gameplay.

Each player takes turns to place polyominoes of size 1 squares through five (the monomino, domino, triominoes, tetrominoes, and pentominoes) so that they touch a previously played piece of their own colour, but only at the corners. The overall aim of the game is to try and cover as much area with your own pieces as possible. The countertactics to stop a player doing this involve placing your pieces in a way that will block them from making good moves.

I think this game would fit your criteria. It is relatively unstudied from a mathematical point of view as far as I know. I imagine some familiarity with some of the mathematical work on tessellations of polyominoes would have to give a player at least a marginal advantage in planning a long-term strategy. It probably fits the criteria in other ways too.

Q.Q.J.
  • 2,083
22

Since you mentioned bridge in the question, but nobody has said anything about it, I'll take a stab. Interestingly, bridge has several more-or-less orthogonal mathematical aspects to it.

  1. The play of the hand necessarily involves calculating or estimating probabilities. These are not so difficult as to be mathematically interesting, but I do think they can be slightly more challenging that counting your outs in poker. In bridge there are often multiple possible ways of combining chances to make your contract, some highly dependent for their success upon the order in which the chances are taken.

  2. Coming up with efficient communication schemes is central to both bidding and defense. I don't really know enough of the theory behind designing bidding systems to comment. But designing an efficient "relay" system probably involves a smidgen of math.

  3. Finally there's more esoteric stuff. For instance, since bridge is not a game of complete information, one doesn't usually expect combinatorial game theory structures to arise. However it can happen that the bidding and play reveal enough information so that everyone knows what cards everyone else has, in which case there is of course complete information. Sometimes this actually brings added complexity though! One manifestation of this is higher order throw-ins, which can be analyzed via nimbers, etc.

  • I did have a short stub on bridge, but yours is better, so I'll delete mine. – Douglas Zare Feb 01 '10 at 18:01
  • 2
    I understand that Meckstroth and Rodwell, probably the best pair in the US if not the world, once used the Fibonacci sequence in their bidding system. Never got to ask how… – Chad Groft Apr 08 '10 at 01:18
  • 3
    Hmm... I've never learned much about this, but some googling (see http://orig.gibware.com/moscito/moscito.pdf) suggests that common to all relay systems is the principle that a bid X permits the transfer of roughly the golden ratio times as much information as the bid X+1 permits. So that would sort of suggest designing your relay system around the fibonacci sequence, except successive EARLY fibonacci numbers are not that THAT close to the golden ratio, and probably it is these early values which would arise most often in actual play. So that might cost your system efficiency. – Sam Lichtenstein Apr 08 '10 at 15:34
  • I would add two more points:
    1. "Restricted choice" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_restricted_choice) is bridge player jargon for Bayes law. I am not sure there is any large community, other than strong bridge players, that contains many high school dropouts and where everyone is able to apply Bayes Law with reasonable accuracy.

    (Even bridge players who think of them as less mathematical/analytical would be annoyed to find out they made a play with 60% success rate, when there was one with 70% success rate available.)

    – Arend Bayer Aug 10 '12 at 09:02
  • The accepted standard approach to analyzing suit combinations is actually a fairly rigorous game-theoretic approach.
  • Problem: Given declarer's and dummy's holding in a suit, how should declarer play this suit to get at least x tricks. The assumption is that he has to lead the suit every time (no endplays), and can lead from hand or from dummy at any trick as he chooses (sufficent entries). Analysis: Find a Nash equilibrium under the assumption that the defenders know declarer's hand, whereas declarer does not know the defenders' hands. The defenders' will often play a mixed strategy.

    – Arend Bayer Aug 10 '12 at 09:11