Talk:Domineering

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Questions

Could someone familiar with game theory translate the sentence:

As in most games, we as the mathematician are "rooting" for Left

Also, is there a standard of calling players "Right" and "Left", because it would be clearer to call them "Horizontal" and "Verticle"?

Thanks. — Reinyday, 02:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a standard in combinatorial game theory of calling the players Left and Right. The sentence you quote means nothing at all except that there is a convention of assigning the game a positive number when Left is winning and a negative one when Right is winning.

The only problem I can foresee with changing the article to use "Vertical" and "Horizontal" for the players is that then it would be less clear in the notation {x|y} which value is for which player. —Blotwell 19:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Reinyday, 19:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts

This article focusses rather heavily on the mathematical properties of some very small examples. This does the game an injustice, as it is quite fun and an interesting challenge for 8x8 and above. Also it is an active area of research in AI. I may attempt to improve the article sometime. Soo 15:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

separate articles for Domineering and Cram

Just for future reference, I copy here my recent talk with Blotwell. We agree to separate the two games. Yuokt (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Blotwell. I'm currently trying to improve the article on Domineering and Cram, and I think it would be better to separate the two games in different articles. You merged the two articles a year ago, which made sense because of their duplicate content, but in fact, the two games are quite different. Cram is impartial, while Domineering is partisan, which implies different mathematical properties, different research focus, etc.

Is it ok for you if I separate again the articles ? (and take care of avoiding duplicate content, of course)

Yuokt (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yuokt (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yuokt, I agree it would be sensible to split them if you can expand the articles to cover the theory of each in detail. (Possibly you would also like to propose it on Talk:Domineering.) But I think Cram and Domineering should be prominently linked to each other, otherwise we will end up with a Cram article with a Domineering section and a Domineering article with a Cram section. In other words, don't just avoid making duplicate content: make sure that the next guy who edits the article will also not add duplicate content. —Blotwell 21:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. I'll try to put adequate banners at the top of the articles to make it clear for everyone.

Yuokt (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP-edit was indeed not spam

Just for the record, @Nyook reverted an IP-edit restored in https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Domineering&curid=1190521&diff=965191460&oldid=964971253 . It was indeed an improvement, as the game can be played on an arbitrary polyomino, but makes little sense on polygons, unless they are drawn along the edges of the previously mentioned graph paper, but that was unclear in the context. (It could of course be played on any finite graph whose edges are partitioned into two colours, but that is a different matter altogether, ¿perhaps equivalent to some familiar game?.) I see that “polygon” was in the text from the original version, but polyomino is more accurate. PJTraill (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]