Richard describes the asymmetrical 2-player finite perfect-information game of Hexgo, saying: << I've just (re?)invented the game of Hexgo: . . . Problem: are there shapes & sizes of board for which the game makes sense (allows a complete analysis, makes for a reasonably fair game, etc.)?
I have no answers, other than to mention that "Hexago" seems to trip off the tongue more easily than "Hexgo". But in the mid-1980s I (re?)invented the likewise asymmetrical 2-player finite perfect-information game of Can as a way to play 3D Hex: The board is topologically a solid cylinder D^2 x D^1, and the cells upon which plays occur are the semi-regular truncated octahedra that tile space (as the 3D analogue of hexagons in 2D). (Or if you prefer, equivalently, play occurs on the nodes of a portion of a the dual graph: a bcc lattice with each node connected to its 8+6=14 near neighbors.) in Can*, play proceeds just as in Hex, with one player's goal to span the opposite ends of the Can with a path, and the other players goal to span the separate the opposite ends of the Can with a surface. I mention this now mainly because of its corresponding problem of determing how to set up an asymmetrical game so it will be fair. --Dan _______________________ * named in part as homage to an early name for Hex: John. _____________________________________________________________________ "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that certain je ne sais quoi." --Peter Schickele