Partition Game

Alice and Bob are playing a game as follows. Originally there are $n > 1$ piles containing $s$ stones each. Alice starts by taking the first turn and at each step, the player chooses one pile and discards the other piles. Then that player divides the stones from that one pile into $n$ piles, such that each pile still contains at least 1 stone. The player that cannot move loses.

Determine all $s$ such that Alice has a winning strategy

Solution

We classify every natural numbers into winning numbers or losing numbers with the following recursion: The numbers $1, \dots, n-1$ are losing numbers. If a number can be partitioned into losing numbers, then it's a winning number. Otherwise it's a losing number. In other words, any given partition of a losing number must contain a winning number.

Now the game is a standard Sprague-Grundy game. If a player receives a state where one pile contains a winning number, then that state is a winning state. For example, $n$ is a winning number because the player can split it into ones, regardless of what the other numbers in the pile are. If a player receives a state where all piles are losing numbers, then it's a losing state.

Let $m=n-1$. Now we establish the base cases. $1, \dots, m$ are losing numbers. Then $n$ can be partitioned into all ones, and $mn$ can be partitioned into all $m$'s. It's easy to show that all the numbers in between can also be partitioned into summands between $1$ and $m$ inclusive, so $n,\dots,mn$ are winning numbers.

Now we claim: Let $x \equiv p \mod mn$ then $x$ is a winning number if and only if $p = 0$ or $p \geq n$, and it is a losing number if and only if $p \in [1,m]$. We prove it by induction on $k = \lceil x / mn \rceil$. The case of $k = 1$ is proven by the base case above.

Now suppose we have a number $x$ with residue in $[1,m] \mod mn$ and there is a way to partition this number into $n$ summands, all while staying within $[1,m] \mod mn$. The smallest sum (in the residue space) that can be attained is $n$, and the largest sum is $mn$, and they are all outside of $[1,m]$, a contradiction. So some of the summands must have residue $0$ or $\geq n \mod mn$. Let $y$ be this summand. Note that $ \lceil y / mn \rceil < \lceil x / mn \rceil$ in each of these cases. So $x$ is a losing number by induction hypothesis.

Now suppose we have a number $y$ divisible by $mn$, then we can partition it into $n$ numbers all having residue $m$. The easiest is of course to have the first $m$ terms $m$ and have the last term $y - m^2 = kmn - m^2 = (k-1)mn + m$. Each of these numbers are losing numbers with less quotient than $y$, so $y$ is a winning number.

Next, suppose we have $y$ with residue $[n, mn-1]$. Using the same argument as above, we can see that it can always be decomposed into the sum of $n$ numbers with residue $[1,m]$. However, the quotient of the summands are not necessarily less than $y$, but we have proved that the set in $[1,m]$ with quotient $k$ are losing numbers as well.

Moving coins across the board

On a $1 \times 2018$ chess-board, the $n (n < 2018)$ left-most squares contain 1 coin each. Alice and Bob are playing a game, where on each turn the player may choose a coin and move it to the right one or two units. The only condition is that each square may only contain one coin at a time (no "stacking"), except the last square (right-most square). Alice goes first. The player who cannot make a legal move loses. Determine all $n$ such that Alice has a winning strategy.

Solution

Label each square by its distance from the right-most square. So the right-most square is called square zero, and the left-most square is called square 2017. Suppose $(a_1, a_2, \dots, a_k)$ denotes the condition that there is a coin on each of the cells $a_1, \dots, a_k$ and the rest of the coins are in the square zero. WLOG, we may assume $a_1 < a_2 < \dots < a_k$.

Claim:

We claim that $(a_1, \dots, a_k)$ is a losing position if and only if $a_1 + \dots + a_k$ is divisible by 3.

First note that the game ends only when there's no more legal move left, and that's when all the coins are on square zero. So as long as the sum of the coin numbers are greater than zero, there is always a legal move available. At the very least, the coin with the lowest number can be moved to the right 1 or 2 steps (possibly reaching zero in the process).

Lemma:

If the sum of the numbers are not divisible by 3, there is always a legal move to make it divisible by 3 within one turn.

Note that our claim is a corollary of the lemma. If the sum of the numbers is divisible by 3, then no matter what move you do, you can only reduce it by 1 or 2. Based on the lemma, the opponent can always counter it by bringing down to the next multiple of 3. Therefore, your opponent will never face the situation without any legal move. Conversely, if it's not divisible by 3, you can always bring it to a multiple of 3 within one turn so that your opponent is facing a losing position next. And your winning strategy is always to keep the sum of the numbers divisible by 3.

Proof of lemma:

If the the sum of the numbers is $3m+1$, then you only need to move the lowest-numbered coin down by 1. This is always possible because it is at least 1. If the sum of the numbers is $3m+2$, then you need to move ANY coin down by 2. Suppose that this is not possible, either due to prospect of collision or running against the end of the board. That means the following:

1. There are no two consecutive empty cells. If there are two or more consecutive empty cells, then the coin to the left of that block can be moved down by two. This means that $a_i - a_{i-1} = 1,2$ for each $i$.

2. There is nothing on cell 2, because otherwise we can always move it to cell 0 directly.

3. There is no "jumping over" possible. Meaning, if cell $x$ is empty but $x+1,x+2$ are both occupied, we can take $x+2$ and move it to $x$. So this configuration is not allowed: EMPTY, OCCUPIED, OCCUPIED.

This means cell 1 has a coin on it. $a_1 = 1$. Since 2 is empty, then 3 must have a coin on it ($a_2 = 3$). If 4 has a coin on it, then it violates condition 3 above, so 4 must be empty. That means 5 must be occupied (by condition 1). We can continue this pattern indefinitely, to arrive at the conclusion that current condition must be: $(1,3,5, \dots, 2k-1)$. The sum of the numbers is therefore $1 + 3 + \dots + 2k-1 = k^2$, which cannot be $3m+2$. Contradiction. Hence it's always possible to choose a coin to move down by 2. This completes our proof of the lemma.

Now, the initial condition is $(2018-(n-1), 2018-(n-2), \dots, 2018)$, so that the sum of the numbers is: $n(4037-n)/2$. For this to be divisible by 3, either $n$ is divisible by 3, or $n \equiv 2 \mod 3$. These are the losing positions. So in order for Alice to have winning strategy, $n \equiv 1 \mod 3$.