In the "Sketch for proof" section, the claim is that blue can pretend to be the first player after responding at a2. But that would only be true if blue was free to make another move immediately, as dictated by the "first player winning strategy." But it's red's turn at that point, not blue's. So unless b2 has been proven to be a winning first move, this "proof" falls apart, it seems.
Can anybody help me understand why my logic is invalid? or possibly improve the proof sketch? I seem to be missing something important.
Perlmonger42 19:00, 25 June 2011 (CEST)