One more generalization
If we change Def.4 from:
Def.4 (type 4) : for two positions G, H, and a (position of an impartial game) J
we define G == H + J if,
G
is equivalent to the game H + J (in Conway's notion), meaning that they
have the same reduced tree and thus are completely equivalent in both
normal and misere play.
to:
Def.4n (type 4n) : for two positions G, H, and a (position of an impartial game) J
we define G =n= H + J if,
G has the same nim value with the game H + J when both are played in normal play,
or (equiv.) n(G) = n(H+J) (n(G) is the nim value of G, etc.)
or (equiv.) n(G) = n(H) + n(J) (this is nim-addition)
we can then continue to define types 3n, 2n and 1n (without any change in those definitions, except using =n= instead of == )!
It is possible that several equivalences exist that are true only in normal play (or not yet easy to prove for misere play), for example }2.2.2.2A.} =n= }2.2.2.2.2.2A.} may be true (still not easy but surely easier that the general one).
We can further add more variations of Def.4 (and following of 3, 2, 1):
Def.4m (type 4m) : for two positions G, H, and a (position of an impartial game) J
we define G =m= H + J if,
G has the same misere Grundy value with the game H + J (when both are played in misere play).
or (equiv.) n-(G) = n-(H+J) (n-(G) is the misere nim value of G, etc.)
Def.4nm (type 4nm) : for two positions G, H, and a (position of an impartial game) J
we define G =nm= H + J if,
G =n= H + J and G =m= H + J
Def.4g (type 4g) : for two positions G, H, and a (position of an impartial game) J
we define G =g= H + J if,
G and H + J have the same genus sequence.
Def.4N (type 4N) : for two positions G, H, and a (position of an impartial game) J
we define G =N= H + J if,
(G is a win for the first player in normal play) iff (H + J is a win for the first player in normal play).
Def.4M (type 4M) : for two positions G, H, and a (position of an impartial game) J
we define G =M= H + J if,
(G =N= H + J) and (G =M= H + J)
Def.4NM (type 4NM) : for two positions G, H, and a (position of an impartial game) J
we define G =NM= H + J if,
(G is a win for the first player in both normal and misere play) iff (H + J is a win for the first player in both normal and misere play).
We can then easily prove that
(G == H) => (G =g= H) => (G =nm= H) => (G =NM= H)
and (G =nm= H) => (G =n= H) => (G =N= H)
and(G =nm= H) => (G =m= H) => (G =M= H)
and(G =NM= H) => (G =N= H)
and(G =NM= H) => (G =M= H)
where G and H can be positions or partial positions or boundaries or branches.
It's not that i'm optimistic that we'll find soon any such equivalence, (except for the =n= case where i would be indeed optimistic) but it may be useful to have a way of stating them in a common format when (and if) we find some.
Ypercube