h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Game of Hex - A1040176
Author: Pimms - U219930

More from my Piet Hein project - just a short one this.

Any comments?

Any comments at all?

Pimms

Yes - not as simple as it first appears - though once you have thought it through if you go first you win.

Good entry, though I think it needs the external link to fully appreciate it.

Thanks for commenting McKay
I don't think there is an easy way around needing an external link in a text entry. It seems several of my entries benefit from a little visual help. Maybe that is why no-one has written about them before.

re the 'not as simple as it first appears' do you mean winning the java applet, or following the first-player-win proof?

Pimms

I meant winning against the computer, despite instinctively starting from a good spot, my initial tactics were too reactive and I lost. Once I'd observed its play for a few games I started to win.

that's then - I was worried I was failing in my duty to clarity of expression

I admit I can beat the computer now if it is second player - as long as I concentrate.

Pimms

Just a minor quibble: "Nash presented his game first in 1948..." Even though Hein's game was introduced in 1942, this makes it sound like Nash beat him to the punch, perhaps it would be a little more fluid to say "Nash first presented his game in 1948..."

Like I said, it's minor

Otherwise great entry

Oh, and I managed to beat the computer on the first try, even if it was on the Basic setting. I'm sure though that this was simply dumb luck, and I only tried it the one time

Thanks Miloso, I've reworded it a bit to clarify the point.

Pimms

I was given some criticism from a non-h2g2 researcher reading the entry on my computer, as a result of which I've expanded the Blockbusters section a bit.

Any further comments anyone?

Pimms

Curses! No one has been commenting with necessary improvements, but Scouts are picking other entries to dance with, while this sits like a timid wallflower. Does it have a squint or what?



Pimms (as patient and calm as Niagara Falls)

I can't see anything wrong with it - I really enjoyed this entry in fact! The game is really hard - I played the computer a few times and just as I thought I had it beat it went and won! I'm no good at games where you have to think ahead more than a couple of moves though, so I didn't expect to be any good!

Thanks for introducing me to the game though (and see, people, maths can be fun!)

Oh Cyzaki! You shouldn't to my impatience.

Pimms

I don't suppose you know much about John Nash do you? Because I'm trying to write an entry about him and not getting very far... Can't remember the A-number, but it's in the collaborative writing workshop if you want to give me a hand with it!

Am I right in thinking that player one has the longer side and goes first, and player two the shorter side and goes second?

Looks like I didn't make it as clear as I wanted to

The standard boards are shaped like a diamond (would rhombus be better?) - so the four sides are equal in length.

The Blockbuster board does have an asymmetrical board, and also has asymmetric competitors, one 'team' consisting of a single player, the other of two players. The two player team has to link the two sides which are further apart. Since each hexagon has to be won, by correctly buzzing the answer first to a question, the greater distance is balanced by the greater chance of buzzing first by having two people available to guess. In Blockbusters both sides have the chance to 'play' first on the randomly chosen hexagon, and the winner of each hexagon has the chance to choose the next hexagon to play for in a game.

Is that clearer?

Pimms

Right, I've followed the link (and won playing first on basic level) and I've now got a better idea what the game is about. The secret seems to be to play defensively to block the opponent rather than to strike out for a line oneself - although this amounts to much the same thing in the end!

I wonder if the "Blockbusters" analogy serves to confuse rather than enlighten? It's certainly worth a mention, but it's different in that both sides are the same length (I think!) and squares aren't competed over. Perhaps it might be clearer to give a more direct explanation, and relegate Blockbusters a bit. It's definitely worth mentioning, as there are clear similarities.

But I *am* very bad at visualising things, so perhaps I'm just slow on the uptake. What does everyone else think?

I've updated the entry Otto, ( for noting the ambiguity) but my psychic powers tell me that another Scout has used a pick on this (actually it was the hint that the 'not for review' box had become ticked). Why not cast your critical eye over another PR entry on the Soma Cube A1046260, in which you may again find a useful oversight to correct.

Pimms

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Congrats!

It's a full set now Cyzaki

With nothing left in PR I'll see what I can offer for the Nash entry - have you read the Milnor article 'John Nash and "A Beautiful Mind"' ? - it appears to give lots of leads for Nash's other works as well as an alternative biography to the Nobel speech. (it can be found using Google)

Pimms