sprouts-theory

(For diagrams, see http://www.files.takingthefun.com/sprouts/2011clashgame2/) 22- (Khorkov - Jordan+

Hi, we are happy to announce that we have released Glop 2.0 http://sprouts.tuxfamily.org/ On this

Congratulations for this great analysis! What a game, that pushes Sprouts some levels up! Move 40 is

In [1] it is shown that the problem of determining whether play from an arbitrary sprouts position

> Thanks for this update. Congratulations on your continued progress. Would > it be okay for me

Weeds [1] is a variation of Sprouts in which the player has the option to NOT add a new spot on the

Thanks Dan for making it right (I keep forgetting what heaps are in the context of directed graphs).

Oops, when I wrote, 4 spots is Wild of Restive Genus with nim-values 1^0, I should have written: 4

Outstanding work. Although I know that Julien and Simon are more interested in theory, I personally

Correction for definitions 4M and 4NM: Def.4M (type 4M) : for two positions G, H, and a (position of

I wrote: > Yper Cube wrote: > >> We obviously don't have the same results for the Q_n

I wrote: > A "louse" is a boundary > consisting of a single degree-2 point that does

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Dan Hoey <hao...@aol.com> wrote: With regard to }1A.} = *[1]

I propose using parentheses in this neo-Glop notation in a different way: Parentheses can enclose a

"Josh Purinton" <josh.p...@gmail.com> wrote to suggest that the neo-Glop-notation

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:02 PM, <lap...@tuxfamily.org> wrote: > You're right when you

> I think Roman *already* plays his moves this way, except perhaps at > the very end of the

2009/1/5 Roman <beg...@list.ru>: > k=11: no choice Gx (x>1) (any move creates G0) This

2009/1/5 Roman <beg...@list.ru>: > 5+3+1L2=Gx,x>1 (misere game) According to Aunt Beast,

After 15- 1(16)2 6(17)6[1-5] 7(18)8 6(19)17[7-10] 10(20)18 11(21)12 7(22)8 22(23@10)8 15(24)15[19] 13

After about 10 days of computation, Aunt Beast has verified via exhaustive search that 1(17)1[2-4] is

lap...@tuxfamily.org wrote: > Hi Dan, > > you should have a look to these positions (in

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Josh Purinton <josh.p...@gmail.com> wrote: I asked Aunt

Three Stooges is right. I now realize that the diagram I was looking at when I wrote this already had

A correction on the previous post and an addition. On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Yper Cube <

I stumbled on this paper the other but have not had time to pursue it. I should mention it on the

Le Tue, 9 Dec 2008 00:03:37 -0500, "Josh Purinton" <josh.p...@gmail.com> a écrit

Here's the final version. Thanks to Dan Hoey and Jeff Peltier for their many suggestions and

> Did you have any time to form an impression of my "Tame Game" > conjecture? >

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Aaron Siegel <aaron.n...@gmail.com> wrote: Is the