Selinger: Added category

2024-04-26T02:05:39Z

Added category

Selinger: New article on inferiority

2024-04-26T02:04:50Z

New article on inferiority

New page

A move is ''inferior'' if there is another move that is at least as good.

Technically, every losing move is inferior (unless it is the only available move), and every winning move is also inferior, unless it is the only winning move. However, it is often possible to figure out inferiority ''locally'', i.e., by looking at a few nearby cells, rather than having to consider the whole board. In particular, it is often possible to figure out whether a move is inferior without actually knowing whether it is winning or losing.

The concept of inferiority is closely related to the concept of [[domination]]: By definition, a move is inferior if and only if it is dominated by some other move. However, it is sometimes possible to know that a move is inferior without knowing which specific other move dominates it. This knowledge is still useful, because inferior moves should never be played and can be eliminated from consideration (unless there are no other options).

== Inferiority by domination ==

If a move X dominates a move Y, then Y is inferior. See the article on [[domination]] for examples, and for many different methods of proving domination.

== Inferiority by strong reversibility ==

We say that a Red move at X is ''strongly reversed'' by a Blue move at Y if (X,Y) = (Red,Blue) is strategically equivalent to (X,Y) = (Empty,Blue). In other words, after Blue's response, Red's stone could be removed without changing the value of the position.

'''Theorem.''' If a move X is strongly reversed by some move Y, then X is inferior.

'''Proof.''' Consider the position (X,Y) = (Empty,Empty), and suppose X is a winning move for Red. We must show that there exists another winning move elsewhere. By assumption, (Red,Empty) is a second-player win for Red, so (Red,Blue) is a first-player win for Red. By the assumption of strong reversibility, (Empty,Blue) is also a first-player win for Red, so Red has some winning move. If that winning move is somewhere other than X, then by [[monotonicity]], the same move is also winning for the position (Empty,Empty), proving the claim. If that winning move is X, then (Red,Blue) is a second-player win for Red. By strategic equivalence, (Empty,Blue) is also a second-player win for Red. Therefore (Blue,Blue) is a first-player win for Red, so Red has a winning move somewhere. By [[monotonicity]], the same move is also winning from (Empty,Empty), proving the theorem. □

'''Example 1.'''

Consider the position
<hexboard size="3x4"
edges="none"
visible="-a1,b3,c1,d3"
contents="B a2 a3 c3 d1 d2 E X:b2 X:c2 Y:b1"
/>
We claim that both cells marked "X" are inferior for Red. Indeed, after Blue Y, both X's are [[captured cell|captured]] by Red: Red can get at least one of them, [[dead cell|killing]] the other. Therefore, any red stone on either X is made irrelevant after Blue's Y, so that Y strongly reverses X.

It follows that X is an inferior move for Red, but the proof does not tell us what other move is better. It doesn't necessarily have to be Y.

'''Example 2.'''

Consider the position
<hexboard size="6x4"
edges="bottom right"
labels="none"
visible="-a1 a2 b1"
contents="R c1 B b2 a4 E X:c2 Y:b3"
/>
We claim that X is an inferior move for Red because X is strongly reversed by Y. To show this, we must show that the following two positions are strategically equivalent:
<hexboard size="6x4"
inline="inline"
edges="bottom right"
labels="none"
visible="-a1 a2 b1"
contents="R c1 B b2 a4 R X:c2 B Y:b3"
/><hexboard size="6x4"
inline="inline"
edges="bottom right"
labels="none"
visible="-a1 a2 b1"
contents="R c1 B b2 a4 E X:c2 B Y:b3"
/>
In both positions, Blue is connected to the edge by template [[edge template IV2b|IV-2b]], and Red has an escape fork for 2nd row ladders into the corner. With more work, one can show that the two positions are in fact equivalent, and therefore X is inferior for Red. Note that the proof does not indicate a specific move that is better.

For a concrete example, consider this position, with Red to move:
<hexboard size="6x6"
contents="B d2 b3 c4 R e1 b4 b5 E X:e2"
/>
X is losing, but there are two winning moves: c3 and f2.

The term "strongly reversed", with the meaning given here, appears in the source code of [[MoHex]]. Example 1 is one of MoHex's strong reversibility patterns.

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:05, 26 April 2024
Line 61:		Line 61:

	The term "strongly reversed", with the meaning given here, appears in the source code of [[MoHex]]. Example 1 is one of MoHex's strong reversibility patterns.		The term "strongly reversed", with the meaning given here, appears in the source code of [[MoHex]]. Example 1 is one of MoHex's strong reversibility patterns.
		+
		+	[[category:Theory]]

Inferiority - Revision history

Selinger: Added category

Selinger: New article on inferiority