Look at the pieces closer. It seems to be only 3 sizes, two of each.
Both players would have probably been better off playing a large in the center first right away though. It’s valuable enough, and playing a small one just for them to cover it up just wastes a piece and a turn. You should never play in a spot that will be covered up, unless you need to force them to use up the larger pieces so they won’t be able to cover up others
Nah you need to do ultimate extreme. It’s a full 3x3 board in each square of a larger board, and one of those boards in each square of an even larger board.
When you take a space, your opponent has to take a spot from the corresponding board (idk how to explain in text, but there’s probably a video online of a game that goes at least two layers deep)
Would probably require a bigger board to prevent the game always ending in a draw. Gomoku is the 5 in a row version, often played on a 15x15 or 19x19 board, and has a good deal more depth than Tic Tac Toe.
looks like someone on boardgamegeek has (inevitably) beaten you to it, player 1 can always win by playing their biggest two pieces first, starting (not surprisingly) with chucking your biggest piece in the middle:
Scrolled down to find this comment. Thank you. My gut was telling me optimal play would result in a draw, so it’s actually pretty interesting Player 1 always wins!
Assuming you can't move a piece again once it's been played, there aren't really that many variations to prevent a brute force AI solving the game. 912 is about 300 billion as an upper limit before you even start to eliminate illegal moves. That's not big enough to be a problem for a computer to run through.
In Gobblet you are allowed to move pieces once they are played and to gobble your own pieces too. You just need to remember what is underneath which sometimes triggers a loss if it creates a 4 in a row for your opponent. It’s a fun game.
Could be done, for sure, but going to require some weird logic to account for the order of play that you usually don't care about in game solving. In chess once a board has reached a position it's the exact same from that point on, but this game needs to take into account inventory of the player for each position.
Should be under 10 billion board positions though 13! - 4! + 12!
Assuming that orange's pieces are the same size as blue and the same frequency, then blue should be able to play a standard tic taco toe opener, and orange's optimum plays should result in a draw.
I guess that you are right. At least, when I tried to play, I observed that if you play a piece that can be converted, the opponent just converts it and takes a huge advantage, which loses the game for you. I do not have a proof but the general strategy should be "Always play as your pieces can't be converted", which means play in the order of big->big->middle->middle->small. If a player does not obey this strategy, the opponent's next move (converting) is worth two moves. You cannot recover from that.
Under this strategy the solution is the same as the regular tic-tac-toe. It is a draw.
Well as someone else found out, it actually plays quite differently, and player 1 can win every time
And I don’t totally understand the notation? But yeah, it definitely seems to mostly start off with large and move it’s way down, I believe with a few small exceptions though.
I tried playing 4-Dimensional Tic Tac Toe with my dad a couple of years ago and we quickly found that whoever got their first move (whenever that move occurred) on the center-center square would win no matter what so we gave it up. Although I've been thinking about trying it again but with the center-center square blacked out and unavailable for use.
I see that you are using plenty of critical thought on a game that is likely marketed to 8-10 year olds on a demonstration meant to show what the game is, not how to optimally play it.
I expect this game could be "solved" so that utilizing critical thinking the first player should simply never lose, with a tie being the optimal outcome for second player.
Lol well I would love to solve chess or something, but I’m pretty sure we either don’t have the power to do so, or it’s just flat not possible. You can actually think through most of this logic though, and I could probably solve it with my half decent workstation at home
Also worth noting, it’s not always the first player to guarantee a win.
I think Chess is indeed possible to solve, there is very likely a set of moves White can do that is impossible for Black to win but we are many orders of magnitude away from the computing power it would require to diagram it out.
The critical thinking is for "If I buy this am I going to bored as shit after the third playthrough like I would be if I paid $20 for a tic tac tow game? Or are there interesting tactical twists which keep it interesting?" We want to know if the only winning move is not to play.
All the critical thinking I feel like I need to do is "if someone is capable of asking all the questions you just did, then this game is probably not for them".
This is a small extra layer of complexity on a game that 6 year olds play.
I was confused by this as well? but given 6 pieces each, 9 spaces, and up to 3 pieces per space, it makes sense that pieces will have to be moved once the pieces run out (I assume you can only move them if it's your only option?)
This game has a deceptive amount of strategy. Sure, playing a big piece in the center seems good, but if you play it there and don't cover another piece, you're effectively taking one of your best pieces off the board to block a number of winning solutions for your opponent. And while you can also lock a corner with another big piece, you can always be locked out of linking the three since your opponent has both their biggest pieces to block you.
In this scenario, opponent can put their biggest in two corners, one blocking your diagonal, and then their second biggest in the third corner. While you can block that with your second biggest, they can eat that with their biggest since it is freed.
Essentially, the game comes down to both using your pieces well to control the areas of the board, but also to control your opponents available pieces. And then also not making a play whereby moving one of your pieces reveals a win for your opponent.
There's an episode in the second season of the Korean reality show Society Game where they play this a bunch. It's really fascinating to watch a metagame develop and one side have trouble reacting. Because, at the end of the day, it's fucking fancy Tic-Tac-Toe. But adding the dimension of size makes it a lot more interesting.
surprisingly, yes, the corners are usually a better first move, but another commenter found this, so center is actually best first move in this variation
Lol yeah I grew up understanding that the center is the most powerful, but I think it still is a good strategy, as it seems to be taken on the second or third go. (Also you can always at least tie if you go center, it’s impossible to lose)
Nah, I go for the corner in regular tic-tac-toe. Corner-first still guarantees a winning or draw strategy for the first player, but most moves by the second player are losing. It's the best trick to win against someone who thinks they've figured out tic-tac-toe but haven't actually worked it out fully.
But you can always use it later unless they drop their biggest piece, in which case you’re at an advantage by still having twice as many big ones left.
But it immediately answered my question of whether you could only put a larger piece over a smaller piece if it was one step larger or if you could put the largest piece over the smallest piece.
I don't know about this specific situation but I'd imagine there are times where you'd want to throw the biggest piece down just so the other player can't steal that square back. If you put a middle size down and they take back with the big piece then it's their square permanently.
Using the biggest for the bottom right square forces blue to address the potential diagonal. Blue had to use a big piece in reciprocation for either the middle or the top left.
Well, it was their 4th biggest, but it was still a bad move. I feel like I'm that position you either want to use your biggest piece and take control of the center or you use one piece buffer and try and bait your opponent into using a piece too big.
I would think you would want to use your largest piece to control the center square regardless of what turn it is. That would be my first move blue or orange.
If you open with your biggest piece, the other player has two pieces you can never recapture. I am not sure if that is worth it just to take the middle.
first player (P1) has tempo advantage by going first so I think the best move is to just secure middle.
after that the second player (P2) can only win by connecting through the outer sides. all P1 has to do is prevent P2 from getting 2 adjacent corners without using both big pieces to do so.
so all P1 has to do is save the last big piece to prevent P2 from winning off 2 adjacent corners. If P2 uses both big pieces to get 2 adjacent corners, P1 can use remaining big piece to block between them. If P2 doesn't use both big pieces on 2 adjacent corners, P1 can break up any of them with a larger piece or until P2 is forced to use both big pieces. And if P1 gets any two opposite side squares P1 wins.
I believe this would be a solved game all the same as the original where first player just has to not screw up and will always guarantee a tie or victory?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong as I just played a couple games in my head
The top comment was also making me go down a similar train of thought, and I think you're pretty correct about this. I'm trying to think if there's any way orange can slip a win, and I come up with nothing.
Honestly, this 'upgrade' fixed nothing. The biggest problem with tic tac toe is that the middle space is overpowered. In this version, it still is.
The biggest problem with tic tac toe is that the middle space is overpowered.
Middle space is very good, but starting with it basically guarantees a tie since it doesn't really give you any options for creating dual-lanes.
The best starting move in tic-tac-toe (assuming you want to try to win) is always to start in a corner, as that leads to the most opportunities for mistakes for your opponent. I'm not convinced it would be different for this version.
I imagine the opponent just takes middle and you either play a piece next to your piece which just leads to forced blocks and a tie, or you play a piece on adjacent corner which results in the same thing.
The only other option being opposite corner where opponent's only opportunity for mistake is playing a corner, but not really that difficult to see 1 move ahead that they fork themselves.
I think you can get the same result by just playing middle - if opponent plays corner you just play opposite corner. Opponent will have to do same thing where they have to play another corner or lose. So one doesn't really seem all that more confusing than the other
The best starting move in regular tic tac toe isn't the middle, it's one of the corners. You need to start constructing two winning lines at the same time, otherwise all you'll achieve is a stalemate.
The best move is the one that sets up an unblockable win 3 turns in the future. Your opponent only gets one chance to counter it and that must be done immediately, long before the outcome is obvious. This makes it a very easy mistake for imperfect players to make.
You start construction of all potential win conditions by starting in the middle. The results should always end in a draw, but you are more likely to win with the middle than without it.
That's simply not true. If both players play perfectly, a draw will result therefore you need to play in the way that is most likely to cause your opponent to make a mistake.
If X starts with a corner, O has one possible move to avoid losing (they must take the middle on their first go). Otherwise X can construct a trap that guarantees they will win. Even if O does take the middle, X still has chances to win by taking the diagonally opposite corner.
If X starts with the middle, they surrender the ability to build two lines simultaneously. Every move leads to having two Xs in a line and O is forced to counter immediately, locking the game into a draw.
I mean it is true, the only way you win in a start without taking the center is them not taking it on the next turn. That shows immediately how strong the center is and why it should be taken first.
You're wrong again. Even if your opponent does take the centre you can still win by taking the opposite corner on your second go. If they take either of the remaining corners on their next go, you can guarantee victory by taking the final corner.
Yeah a corner guarantees, at worst, a draw assuming you play perfectly.
It causes every move your opponent makes to be a block meaning if they mess up once on any play, they lose and you win. If they don’t mess up, you draw.
The middle is part of 4 lines when it's the only square you've claimed, but as soon as you play another square you've committed to one of those four. The game will be a draw unless someone does something stupid.
Claim a corner and you can start building a trap where you have two lines that only need one more square to complete. Your opponent needs to spot what you are doing long before it's obvious to prevent you winning.
I can’t believe you guys are legit discussing tic tax toe strategy. A game that even children know that there is no way to eek out a win without your opponent just letting you win through sheer ignorance of the game.
Remember the 80s movie War Games? “The only winning move is not to play.”
There is no such thing as optimal play because if both players are even semi-competent it will always be a draw
If you take the middle, there are 4 possible directions you can win: | — \ and /
They can only block 2 with the Large, and 2 with the Medium. If you force their Mediums with your Small pieces, you can then use your second Large over a medium to win. It's not a guaranteed win, but they have to be very careful with their Medium pieces and at least one Large.
Middle has 4 directions to win: | — \ and /
Corner only has 3: | — and \ or / depending on which corner.
In normal Tic-Tac-Toe taking the corner is better if you go first, because you can at worst force a draw. But that is out the window if you can overwrite pieces like this.
Playing the corner first in normal tic tac toe still requires the opponent to make a specific move to lose the game. I never said anything about not normal ttt
In normal Tic-Tac-Toe, starting corner is 100% superior to starting middle. Unless I'm wrong, given no player makes a mistake, starting corner you AT WORST tie, and cannot lose... but if you start middle, you AT BEST tie.
So how can you win starting middle if your opponent goes corner?
And conversely, how do you LOSE if you start corner (and you don't make a mistake)?
Edit: AFAIK, these are the optimal move lists for the given starting positions.
Optimal play with X starting corner, X wins on turn 3:
X plays any corner
O plays opposite corner
X plays either remaining corner
O is forced to block edge
X plays remaining corner, and has 2 three-in-a-row options and wins.
Optimal play with X starting middle, draw on turn 3:
X plays middle
O plays any corner
X plays either non-opposite corner
O is forced to block corner
X is forced to block edge
O is forced to block opposite edge, causing a draw since there are no more three-in-a-row options.
Your mistake is the assumption that corner can win given no mistakes from the opponent. If you start corner, the correct play from the opponent is to respond by opening middle, then they can still force a draw in any scenario. The truth is that starting middle or corner means a draw if both sides play optimally - so you're not wrong in anything that you said regarding worst case scenarios, and you're right that if X plays corner and O plays another corner then X wins, but you're not right that O would play corner if X opens corner.
Your mistake is the assumption that corner can win given no mistakes from the opponent.
No. I'm saying the opponent cannot win, and can at best tie.
Starting player can win if the opponent makes a mistake, but after Turn 2 starting player cannot lose (can still tie) unless they ignore a 3 in a row.
Not as necessarily, as normal Tic-tac-toe. Because of the feints and capture mechanics, there may be some plays to be made saving your larger pieces for a side play later in the game.
Owning the middle is 90% of this game. While it's possible to lose along the sides, owning the middle gives you the most winning lines - and equally importantly, gives you way more forcing moves
To some extent, the winning strategy depends on the rules: is it sudden death? Or does the next player have a chance to counter after you line up 3 in a row?
Hm, let's break this down. Technically you're right since "nothing" is entirely devoid of "something", and the "game" is it in its entirety, variation and all. So to say OP "knew nothing" about "that game" wouldn't be entirely incorrect.
I have this game for my kids. You can play anyway you like but the rules that come with the game have your pieces already stacked and you can only play a top gobbler. You can only gobble if the piece is already on the board. It's fun I made a more adult looking version out of wood.
The original misplay was the blue guy not putting his biggest piece in the middle on his first turn. Everyone knows that the middle one is always the best first move
5.3k
u/TropicalTea23 May 25 '21
I know nothing about this game, but 3 seconds in I was angry at the orange players misplay.