"Tim Brauch" <RnEeMwOs.pVoEst@tbrauch.cNOoSPAMm> wrote in message news://Xns94B1B0DB1B331webmastertbrauchcom@18.104.22.168... > email@example.com (Jonathan Welton) wrote in > news://firstname.lastname@example.org: > > > 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.
If you are a really good player, you go second, and tell your opponent the moment he loses the advantage.