A positional game is a kind of a combinatorial game described by:

  • $X$ a finite set of elements. (Often $X$ is called the board and its elements are called positions.)
  • $F$ a family of subsets of $X$. (These subsets are usually called the winning-sets.)
  • A criterion for winning the game.

For $n$-pile Nim, wouldn't $X$ be the union of disjoint posets, e.g. $\{(1,2,...,k_1), (1,2,...,k_2),..., (1,2,...,k_n)\}$? Then a move consists of choosing a point in one of the posets and removing that point and everything above it in said poset.

Then $F$ would be $\{\{{(1,2,...,j),(),()}\}, \{{(),(1,2,...,j),()}\}, \{{(),(),(1,2,...,j)}\}\}$

And the winning criterion is being the first one to "receive" a position in $F$?

This seems right to me, but it appears that player two can have a winning strategy, which contradicts the notion of Nim being strong positional.


No. For a positional game, the legal moves are to take any element of $X$ which hasn't already been taken. In this setting of Nim, taking an element of one of the posets can mean that several other elements of $X$ stop being legal moves.

Also, I don't think your $F$ makes sense. $F$ should be the sets such that if you can take all of one set in $F$, you win the game. That's not what you have (your $F$ would mean that the winner is the first to take the last $j$ elements of one of the posets).


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.