# Subtraction Nim Game - better strategy?

I wasn't sure on the difficulty of the problem, and this is a math recreational problem I’ve decided to investigate. Feel free to move the thread if this is the wrong place. Full answers not needed; hints or suggestions are also welcome.

The game starts with two positive integers, x and y, in two piles.
Each player can subtract a multiple of the smallest number from the biggest number, as long as the result is greater than or equal to 0. The exception is that if either pile is 0, and not both, then the next player can take all from the other pile.
The player who takes all from the last pile, wins.

Claim: This game is a NIM game for one player if that player can choose to go first or second, and plays optimally.
Question: Is there a way to play optimally other than to "brute force" know which positions lead to a win? ie. Is there a more elegant way? I ask this because given any two numbers, one of my friends seemed to known instantly to go first or second and the strategy to win.

ex.
Game starts with (52,15). Anne and Bob are players. Anne chooses to go first
Anne: (22,15), taking 2*15 from 52
Bob: (7,15), taking 15 from 22
Anne: (7,8), taking 7 from 15
Bob: (7,1), taking 7 from 8
Anne: (1,1), taking 6*1 from 7
Bob: (0,1), taking 1 from 1
Anne: (0,0), taking the last pile. Anne wins.

Here are my observations:
* P-positions (Previous Player wins positions) and N-positions (Next Player wins positions) can be calculated by brute force inductive reasoning. Choose to go first if the game starts with an N-position, and give your opponent a P-position at every step. Otherwise, go second, as your opponent at a P-position is forced to give you an N-position. Proceed normally.
* Every P-position has only one move, a forced move, unless it’s (0,0)
* Label (0,0) as a P-position. (The previous player won)
* Observe (n,0) positions are N-positions.
* Observe (n,n) positions are P-positions.
* Observe (n,n+1) positions are P-positions, when n > 1. as (n,n+1) -> (n,1) -> (1,1)
* It can be useful to consider only pairs of numbers which have gcf = 1. My unproven claim is that multiples of a P-states are P-states, and multiples of N-states are N-states.
ex. The decision of going second given P-state (4,5) (see chain: (4,5) -> (4,1) -> (1,1) -> (0,1) -> (0,0) ) is the same decision for P-state (8,10) (see chain: (8,10) -> (8,2) -> (2,2) -> (0,2) -> (0,0) )
* Observe that for (x,y), x > y and the remainder for x/y is R, the only two moves that should be considered (if possible) are (R, y) and (R+y, y). Any other move is a losing move.
** Example: Given (7,2) it is a losing move for Alice to say (5,2), as this simply passes the option to say either (3,2) or (1,2) to Bob, and if Bob knows (3,2) is a P-position, he says (3,2) and subsequently wins.
** Anne can apply this reasoning like in the game above. For example, she can consider that given (52, 15) if she should say (22,15) or (7,15), as she already knows playing (37,15) is a losing move. She then realizes (7,15) is an N-position as Bob can then say (7,8), so Alice knows by inductive reasoning (22,15) is a P-position, as this forces Bob to say (7,15) instead.

1 person

One additional observation. If Anne knows her Fibonacci sequences, she can immediately deal with chains that contain only mandatory moves.
For example, for the sequence starting with 1,1, ... Anne can conclude (1,1) is a P position (1,2) is an N position, (2,3) is a P position, and so on alternating. ie. For two consecutive Fibonacci numbers, if f_i, f_{i+1} and i is even, it is a P position, otherwise it is an N position

1 person

I figured out a solution to this problem. It was suggested to me by a coworker that the Euclidean Algorithm would be involved in this, and it is.

Consider the above sample game, (52, 15). We can run through the algorithm and we get the following
52 = 15*2 + 22
22 = 15*1 + 7
15 = 7*2 + 1

There is a choice when the multiple of the smaller number is greater than 1 (either take all or leave one multiple remaining), otherwise no choice if equal to 1 (take the last multiple before the next line)
We can then count what the number of mandatory steps (where multiple is equal to 1) after we would make a choice (when multiple is greater than 1) until the next choice or the game ends.

For illustration, this information can be mapped to a string of 0s and 1s.
Let '1' denote when the multiple is greater than 1 on a line (choice)
Let '0' denote when the multiple is equal to 1 on a line. (no choice)

The game has the following actions allowed.
I can either change '1' to '0' (same as taking all but one smaller multiple)
I can 'pop' the first digit (take all)
The last one to take '0' loses

Anne's strategy is simple.
If the first digit is 1, go first.
If there is a leading amount of 0s before the first '1' or the end of the string, count them.
If the count is even, go first. If the count is odd, go second.
Every following choice Anne makes ensures the count of leading zeroes is odd for player Bob.

So for (52, 15), we map to the following string: '101'.
Anne goes first. A player should always go first if there's a choice.

101 : Anne at (52, 15)
01 : Bob at (22, 15) Notice there are an odd number of leading zeroes before the next '1', and that's why Anne chose this move. Bob must take 0
1 : Anne at (7, 15)
0 : Bob at (7, 8).
: Anne at (7, 1) From here, Anne wins by making both sides equal to the gcf(52, 15) = 1. Bob takes one side. Anne takes the remaining side.

topsquark