Tic Tac Toe Extreme

Boonskiies · Post Post #25 (ISO) » Sat Nov 22, 2014 10:24 am

Uhm...should I go again? Haha.

Blackberry · Post Post #26 (ISO) » Sat Nov 22, 2014 10:28 am

I'm willing to play with someone if somebody else wants to play!

Quick clarification on the rules: Let's say someone wins one of the boxes (Example, Bottom Right Corner) but there are still unclaimed mini-boxes within that box - if someone is sent back to that Bottom Right Corner box are you playing where A) They must play in one of those boxes still if there is room, or B) They can now go anywhere. I've seen both ways so just wanted to confirm ^_^.

Feirei · Post Post #27 (ISO) » Sat Nov 22, 2014 11:27 am

Boon, lets just say you win by default and instill a community-enforced deadline for moves and just play with whoever expressed interest first.

CuddlyCaucasian · Post Post #28 (ISO) » Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:06 pm

In post 26, Blackberry wrote:I'm willing to play with someone if somebody else wants to play!

Quick clarification on the rules: Let's say someone wins one of the boxes (Example, Bottom Right Corner) but there are still unclaimed mini-boxes within that box - if someone is sent back to that Bottom Right Corner box are you playing where A) They must play in one of those boxes still if there is room, or B) They can now go anywhere. I've seen both ways so just wanted to confirm ^_^.

I usually see it where if you're sent to a box that's already been won, you get to go anywhere!

JDGA · Post Post #29 (ISO) » Sat Nov 22, 2014 5:16 pm

I see it where if a box has already been one, you're out of luck and have to play there regardless. I'd be happy to play, btw.

Boonskiies · Post Post #30 (ISO) » Sun Nov 23, 2014 7:25 pm

In post 29, JDGA wrote:I see it where if a box has already been one, you're out of luck and have to play there regardless. I'd be happy to play, btw.

This is correct. You have to play in the empty box anyways.

Boonskiies · Post Post #31 (ISO) » Sun Nov 23, 2014 7:27 pm

How we were playing anyways.

Mathdino · Post Post #32 (ISO) » Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:48 pm

In post 26, Blackberry wrote:I'm willing to play with someone if somebody else wants to play!

Quick clarification on the rules: Let's say someone wins one of the boxes (Example, Bottom Right Corner) but there are still unclaimed mini-boxes within that box - if someone is sent back to that Bottom Right Corner box are you playing where A) They must play in one of those boxes still if there is room, or B) They can now go anywhere. I've seen both ways so just wanted to confirm ^_^.

I challenge you.

You go first.

Mathdino · Post Post #33 (ISO) » Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:50 pm

Alternatively I could play winner and the winner of us could play the next person.

Boon, you wanna go?

Blackberry · Post Post #34 (ISO) » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:13 am

Do we want to set up a tournament of sorts? With either 4 or 8 players?

And I'm fine with the ruling of "you have to play in the empty squares even if someone has already won that large square".

Mathdino · Post Post #35 (ISO) » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:21 am

That rule breaks the game. First move: top middle square in the top middle largesquare. Then you take literally every top middle square on the entire board and let them fill up theirs.
Rinse.
Repeat.
First player to move wins.

My friends and I play where if you send someone to a square already taken, the other person can move anywhere they like. It disincentivises placing too much value on particular squares, creates some really interesting games, and opens up the game (at least to the point where one player can't just dominate it if they get on a roll).

But sure, I PM'd Boonskiies seeing if he wants to play me. You could go against JDGA.

Blackberry · Post Post #36 (ISO) » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:40 am

In post 35, Mathdino wrote:That rule breaks the game. First move: top middle square in the top middle largesquare. Then you take literally every top middle square on the entire board and let them fill up theirs.
Rinse.
Repeat.
First player to move wins.

Shhhh, you're ruining my strategy!

Although I disagree that it's as easily "rinse repeat" as you suggest, because once Player 2 fills in the last square of the Top Middle (or whatever square Player 1 "gives" Player 2) then Player 1 will lose their control as they can't pick that last Top Middle, and anywhere else they go then Player 2 could send Player 1 back there (I haven't thought this all the way out, but ultimately I think if both players continue to play in this fashion, if they were both making optimal moves, it would end in a draw).

But I agree, it makes it more easily solvable. I'm sure the game is solvable regardless of which rule we select though XD.

Mathdino · Post Post #37 (ISO) » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:50 am

Khan Academy has a not that complex program that solves the game as X. Even if it's 2 humans, X still has a major advantage. So yeah that's been solved multiple times.

The freer version, I have no idea. I mean you could theoretically get a computer to chug it out, but no one's done it before (just checked). If I had to guess, it'd end with a draw in most places like normal TTT. That said, results would probably be different based on whether the computers are playing to win or playing to not lose, and what they know about the opponent's goals.

Some guy I know 'invented' it and majorly popularised it among the people we know (we called it Super Nintendo for no reason whatsoever), so I've played it without about 2 dozen people and it's awesome every time. Of them, I can comfortably say no one's solved it

Blackberry · Post Post #38 (ISO) » Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:11 am

In post 37, Mathdino wrote:Khan Academy has a not that complex program that solves the game as X. Even if it's 2 humans, X still has a major advantage. So yeah that's been solved multiple times.

The freer version, I have no idea. I mean you could theoretically get a computer to chug it out, but no one's done it before (just checked). If I had to guess, it'd end with a draw in most places like normal TTT. That said, results would probably be different based on whether the computers are playing to win or playing to not lose, and what they know about the opponent's goals.

Some guy I know 'invented' it and majorly popularised it among the people we know (we called it Super Nintendo for no reason whatsoever), so I've played it without about 2 dozen people and it's awesome every time. Of them, I can comfortably say no one's solved it

The one you linked with the solved program says the default is with the rules "If a player is sent to a mini-square that has already been won, or in which all the cells are already filled, then the player may next place his mark in any unfilled cell in any other mini-board" - which is the rule you just suggested we switch it to O_o.

...

(Random:) The App Game version of this has a pre-game rule that I think mixes up how solvable the game is:

Each player gets to place down 9 markers at the beginning (simultaneously - so you don't know what your opponent is doing).
The rules are as follows:
1. You must take one of each small square (one top right, one top left, etc.)
2. You can't take more than 2 small squares in a large square
3. You can't take the middle small square of the middle large square
4. If you overlap with any of your opponents selection, the square is left blank

Mathdino · Post Post #39 (ISO) » Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:09 am

Dammit. Meh, still never met a human that solved it. I'd like to think Ultimate TTT has the complexity of checkers.

Variation looks cool, I'll try it with someone sometime and tell you how it goes.

Boonskiies · Post Post #40 (ISO) » Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:36 am

Players: Mathdino, Boonskiies

█ | █ | █

█ | █ | ██ | █ | ██ | █ | █

█ | █ | █

█ | X | █

█ | █ | █

█ | █ | ██ | █ | ██ | █ | █

█ | █ | █

█ | █ | ██ | █ | ██ | █ | █

[Responding to that PM with this.]

Mathdino · Post Post #41 (ISO) » Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:38 am

█ | █ | █

█ | █ | ██ | █ | ██ | █ | █

█ | █ | █

█ | X | O

█ | █ | █

█ | █ | ██ | █ | ██ | █ | █

█ | █ | █

█ | █ | ██ | █ | ██ | █ | █

Boonskiies · Post Post #42 (ISO) » Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:53 am

█ | █ | █

█ | █ | ██ | █ | ██ | █ | █

█ | █ | █

█ | X | O

X | █ | █

█ | █ | ██ | █ | ██ | █ | █

█ | █ | █

█ | █ | ██ | █ | ██ | █ | █

Mathdino · Post Post #43 (ISO) » Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:54 am

█ | █ | █

█ | █ | ██ | █ | ██ | █ | █

█ | █ | █

O | █ | █

█ | X | O

X | █ | █

█ | █ | ██ | █ | ██ | █ | █

█ | █ | █

█ | █ | ██ | █ | ██ | █ | █

Boonskiies · Post Post #44 (ISO) » Mon Dec 01, 2014 9:57 pm

█ | █ | █

█ | █ | ██ | █ | ██ | █ | █

█ | █ | █

O | █ | █

█ | X | O

X | █ | █

█ | █ | X█ | █ | ██ | █ | █

█ | █ | █

█ | █ | ██ | █ | ██ | █ | █[/quote]

[sorry about the wait]

Mathdino · Post Post #45 (ISO) » Tue Dec 02, 2014 3:09 am

█ | █ | █

█ | █ | ██ | █ | ██ | █ | █

█ | █ | █

O | █ | █

█ | X | O

X | █ | █

█ | █ | X█ | █ | ██ | █ | █

█ | █ | █

█ | O | █

█ | █ | █

█ | █ | ██ | █ | ██ | █ | █
All good.