firstname.lastname@example.org (Jonathan Welton) wrote in news://email@example.com:
> Neither of the proofs (which are basically the same) posted so far is > correct. Both would apparently conclude that a winning path would be > formed on a squared board, whereas this is not the case - a squared > board could end in a draw. > > An actual proof must use the hex nature of the board or, > alternatively, that 3 cells meet at each vertex. A proof is given in > Cameron Browne's book Hex Strategy, but whether it would convince an > intelligent layman is not clear. > > Maybe a simpler proof could be achieved by induction? > > Jonathan Welton
I wasn't assuming a square board, I was imagining the board set up like a parallelogram. At least, that is how I orientate the board when I play. Then red goes top to bottom and blue goes left to right (red and blue because the board I made uses poker chips).
What would be more interesting is trying to explain to a lay person that whoever goes first should win, unless they screw it up. That is why whenever I play, I always go second. If I lose, it was destined.
-- Timothy M. Brauch Graduate Student Department of Mathematics Wake Forest University