Connect three edges to win; many other connections can be embedded in a Y board

Generated at 23/02/2021, 03:22 from 1000 logged games.

Representative game (in the sense of being of mean length). Wherever you see the 'representative game' referred to in later sections, this is it!

Place a piece. Connect all three sides.

General comments:

Play: Combinatorial

Mechanism(s): Connection

BGG Entry | Y(dimension 19) |
---|---|

BGG Rating | 7.08657 |

#Voters | 108 |

SD | 1.66384 |

BGG Weight | 2.5 |

#Voters | 10 |

Year | 1953 |

User | Rating | Comment |
---|---|---|

mst3k4L | 7 | |

yakshto | 8.5 | Played on a regular triangular hex board, Y is probably a bit more elegant than Hex (making it the most elegant game ever?), but somehow less engaging nevertheless. Requires huge boards (I'd go for base-17-18-19 at least). Base-14 Y feels like 9x9 Hex. |

mrraow | 7 | Good connection game, but loses out to hex in terms of simplicity and elegance. |

Willward | 7 | Debate continues over whether this game is better than its great-uncle [I]Hex[/I]. I vote "yes". |

fogus | 6.4 | [2014.11.26] I printed out a ton of Mudcrack Y boards for travel and it's my favorite "airplane tray table" game. Elegant, simple to teach, and strategically deep. |

rschmucker | 6 | |

gregcrowe | 7 | |

diecarpitur | 5 | |

Scortez | 5.25 | |

Stephen Glenn | 9 | Homemade copy |

skybison | 9 | It's not Go. It doesn't need to be. Why? Y. |

Aiken Drum | 6 | I love connection games, and this one is excellent. |

fuchsundbrunnen | 8.5 | |

matthulgan | 10 | |

Pionek | 7 | |

jirka bauma | 7 | |

matango | 9 | hex variant |

simpledeep | 9 | |

cousinIt | 8 | |

schwarzspecht | 8 | |

David Greene | 8 | |

jayzen | 7 | |

fivecats | 6.5 | |

jrodman | 8 | I really enjoy this connection game, only I can't find enough players. |

Peter Loop | 9 | |

Wentu | 6.4 | |

Nehm | 6 | |

HexNash | 10 | |

dakarp | N/A | Very nice abstract connection game. |

The Player of Games | 8 | Interesting game. I really enjoy the wooden board from Kadon. Comes with rules for: 1) The Game of Y 2) Aliens and Amazons 3) Singularity 4) Leap Over 5) Tetra 6) Quinta 7) Sexta 8) Solitaires |

mattcmaddox | N/A | Handmade board. |

Orphius | 6 | |

metobillc | 7 | |

unic | 8 | |

KnightTim | N/A | In The 15 Greatest Board Games in the World |

Mingy Jongo | 9.9 | I use a homemade 19-hexagons-wide regular board. The curved ones with pentagons mixed in just seems wrong. |

wizhyun | 7 | |

pattonre | 6 | |

AbstractStrategy | 3 | I found it really quick to reach a conclusion and boring. Am I missing something? Not sure... If Hex is worse than this then I can't be bothered playing... |

cdunc123 | 8.5 | Provisional rating since I've only played a couple of games, and on a small board at that. But I enjoyed it as much as Hex, and maybe even more. Since both players have the same objective, it had a different feel to Hex; it seemed like I often had more interesting options each move. And it's even more elegant than Hex, since there is no distinction between sides. Among "deep games," it may be the most elegant there is. |

ecoboardgeek123 | N/A | diy version |

Kaelistus | 8 | |

scih | 6 | |

lulu35 | N/A | 2J abstract |

Drek_Overlord | 6 | |

MatroidX | 4 | I prefer Hex to this close variant. |

Phil Bordelon | 6 | (The rating is an average of two different forms of the game.) I actually think I like Y a bit more than Hex, but it needs to be played on a large board (like, say, 13-17 to a side) to really shine. At that scale, I think Y is probably a high 8. In its most common published form, it's a take-it-or-leave-it game (a 5 in BGG parlance) in that any single misstep can cost you the game, and going first almost guarantees a win. So: 13/2, or 6.5. I'll round that down to a 6, since I actually spent money on a nice Y board... that is the clearly inferior form. Sigh. |

fiddly_bits | N/A | I have a homemade "straight" Y board. |

MadSad | 8 | |

damonstea | 5 | |

kc2dpt | 7 | |

BankofDracula | 7 | |

djnesq | 7 | Connoisseurs of this genre of games probably can point out the strategies that distinguish Y/Hex/Havannah one from another. I enjoy them all, but they feel pretty much the same to me. The Y board is small; an early disadvantage is hard to overcome because you don't have the opportunity for counterplay at the other end of the board that some of those other games give you. |

glanfam | 9 | Beautiful Kadon wooden edition |

fehrmeister | 5 | |

uigrad | 6 | Too expensive for what is included. I made my own version. (shhhh) |

Friendless | 7 | Similar to Hex, and I similarly struggle to find opponents. |

steadym | 8 | Always up for some of this. Elegant and beautiful connection game. |

hippiephysicschick | N/A | lost board? |

RDReilly | 10 | One of my favorite abstracts. Considerable depth; doesn't take too long to play. |

keithw | 9 | |

Ludo le gars | 8.5 | Home-made version |

BoardGameBarrister | 8 | The game that the LovelyWife and I played while dating. |

lyman | 7 | I like the Kadon (non-uniform) board. Have not played by email partially since I think the regular board is less interesting. Generally I mostly play Unlur when I play connection games. |

seandavidross | 6 | |

twixter | 8 | Very similar to Hex, one of my addictions. The Kadon board is very aesthetic. I would prefer an even larger extension of such a grid, however. Maybe 17 points along each edge, 345 total...? |

Tony van der Valk | 9 | I like the bent-Y board |

DaMarsh | 7 | Good game, beautiful board, and rules for additional games. All of these descriptions apply to many games from Kadon Enterprises (//www.gamepuzzles.com). |

Punainen Nörtti | 10 | |

latindog | N/A | Currently Unplayed :( |

antlersantlers | 9 | |

Avaer | 8 | |

JazzFish | 7 | Learned this one out of a book in second grade, so it holds a special place in my heart. |

megamau | 8 | Not much different from Hex. |

Helian | 7 | |

dooz | 7 | |

leffe dubbel | 7 | |

molnar | 10 | Addictive abstract strategy, with mathematical elegance that cannot be matched. It's impossible. The connection games (also [gameid=4112], [gameid=2759], [gameid=949], [gameid=3826]...) appeal to me because when they're done, they're done - no keeping score. This is my favorite of the genre, both players have the same goal (not quite true of Hex) and someone has to win (Sperner's Lemma). Can be played with pencil and paper, but the Kadon board is exquisite. Generally, my ratings take into account the physical product not at all. I rate the idea, the thought processes that one goes through while playing. On strictly that basis, I am no longer certain that Y is actually a better game than [gameid=34221]. Honest. For all I know, [gameid=11997] is even better. The attention-getting wood board though, the black and white stones, the 'clack' - that all pushes it up for me. The published version also differs somewhat from the version you'll find online. The seeming curvature introduced on the Kadon board has more than aesthetic significance: by shortening the distance along the edges relative to the distance from the center to the edge, the power is spread more evenly throughout the board, which makes for a game where the hot spots can move around quite entertainingly. (And it also looks cool.) I'll mention here that the book "Mudcrack Y & Poly-Y" (which is not in the database, because it is specific to one game) has an excellent discussion of strategy. Like everything that I've read from Ea Ea, the themes of that discussion can be applied elsewhere as well. |

AdamMcD | 6 | Like Hex - the game lacks character. Only lines and dots are present. Like chess - I won't play with someone who takes long turns. |

brian | 6 | |

Jim Tarnung | 6 | |

BeyondMonopoly | 9 | A very involved, and involving game that takes Hex and grows forward with it. Excellent gameplay. |

rayzg | 8 | Homemade version -- plastic sheet protector, printout, and dry-erase markers. Also own book "Muddcrack Y and Poly Y." Tricky to create aesthetically pleasing board with graphics programs. |

mrgodot | 6 | |

The Abstractionist | N/A | Wooden board. |

erak | 6 | Seemed a little basic. The board was beautiful however. |

ed_in_play | N/A | printed triangle shaped board 16x16x16 to use with go pieces |

XMJA | 9 | |

T0afer | 4 | Edit: After several plays of this I find Y to be much less fun to play than Hex, greater elegance be damned. I'm told you need very large boards to reduce the First player advantage in a meaningful way and honestly I don't know why I wouldn't just play Hex. It's not like Hex is a bad game or is in great need of more elegance. |

Forianst | 6 | |

bellowski | 8 | Nice, fairly quick game. Kind of expensive, but components are outstanding and add to the experience(gotta love go stones on wood). Worth adding to a collection. |

Pirxtrurl | 7 | |

Thesse1955 | 6 | |

CDRodeffer | N/A | I've heard good things about it, and would like to trade for a copy. |

greg4413 | 6.5 | |

AngusBull | 7.5 | Very Good abstract connection game. Can be played with pencil and paper which makes it quite portable. |

paynentt | 7 | |

Scrabblette | 9 | |

dabeshouse | 8 | |

pieces09 | 7 | |

yzemaze | 6 | |

Zickzack | 6.1 | In a way, the rules are simpler than Hex. However. there are more symmetry axes which allow less variety. If you want to avoid swaps, there are only 2 (!) opening moves in Y compared to at least 5 in Hex. Further, the edge areas cover larger parts of the board than in Hex. Games are shorter in Y than on a Hex board of a similar size (e.g. Hex on 11x11 and Y with an edge length of 15). The two effects together leave Hex as the richer game. The strategic advice contained in books like "Mudcrack and Poly-Y" is trivial at best. The designers do not understand their own game. This shows in board sizes that are too small for meaningful play, especially when played as Master Y, and in board geometries that cannot be balanced by a 1-move swap rule. |

rseater | 3 | degenerate first player advantage. Using pie rule is unsatisfying and the state state is still too small to be interesting. update: the game is mathematically interesting and adds some core mechanics to the connection genre, but that doesn't save this particular instance from being boring imbalanced computation |

yolandavi | 7 | |

Ritz1974 | 9 | Very elegant, but lost my home-made wooden game board when I last moved |

Iguanoman | 8 | |

bop517 | 6 | Solid abstract...need to try again. |

Kytty | 6 | |

Javest | 6.8 | |

Slounger | 5 | DIY |

dbucak | 9 | |

zdim | 7 | |

FiveStars | 10 | A most elegant game closely related to Hex! |

bankrupt | 7 | |

pezpimp | 6 | Based on one play: Connect the three sides to win. A little more complex then its cousin of connecting two sides since you cannot forget about any side, but still leaves you wishing there was more to it. |

steveoliverc | N/A | 3-sided Hex. Print & play, but get a nice wooden set. |

Size (bytes) | 32172 |
---|---|

Reference Size | 10293 |

Ratio | 3.13 |

Ai Ai calculates the size of the implementation, and compares it to the Ai Ai implementation of the simplest possible game (which just fills the board). Note that this estimate may include some graphics and heuristics code as well as the game logic. See the wikipedia entry for more details.

Playouts per second | 34436.33 (29.04µs/playout) |
---|---|

Reference Size | 2028809.09 (0.49µs/playout) |

Ratio (low is good) | 58.91 |

Tavener complexity: the heat generated by playing every possible instance of a game with a perfectly efficient programme. Since this is not possible to calculate, Ai Ai calculates the number of random playouts per second and compares it to the fastest non-trivial Ai Ai game (Connect 4). This ratio gives a practical indication of how complex the game is. Combine this with the computational state space, and you can get an idea of how strong the default (MCTS-based) AI will be.

Label | Its/s | SD | Nodes/s | SD | Game length | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Random playout | 34,617 | 276 | 6,010,343 | 48,257 | 174 | 13 |

search.UCB | NaN | NaN | 0 | 0 | ||

search.UCT | NaN | NaN | 0 | 0 |

Random: 10 second warmup for the hotspot compiler. 100 trials of 1000ms each.

Other: 100 playouts, means calculated over the first 5 moves only to avoid distortion due to speedup at end of game.

Rotation (Half turn) lost each game as expected.

Reflection (X axis) lost each game as expected.

Reflection (Y axis) lost each game as expected.

Copy last move lost each game as expected.

Mirroring strategies attempt to copy the previous move. On first move, they will attempt to play in the centre. If neither of these are possible, they will pick a random move. Each entry represents a different form of copying; direct copy, reflection in either the X or Y axis, half-turn rotation.

1: White win % | 49.90±3.09 | Includes draws = 50% |
---|---|---|

2: Black win % | 50.10±3.09 | Includes draws = 50% |

Draw % | 0.00 | Percentage of games where all players draw. |

Decisive % | 100.00 | Percentage of games with a single winner. |

Samples | 1000 | Quantity of logged games played |

Note: that win/loss statistics may vary depending on thinking time (horizon effect, etc.), bad heuristics, bugs, and other factors, so should be taken with a pinch of salt. (Given perfect play, any game of pure skill will always end in the same result.)

Note: Ai Ai differentiates between states where all players draw or win or lose; this is mostly to support cooperative games.

Match | AI | Strong Wins | Draws | Strong Losses | #Games | Strong Score | p1 Win% | Draw% | p2 Win% | Game Length |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

0 | Random | |||||||||

2 | UCT (its=3) | 631 | 0 | 293 | 924 | 0.6522 <= 0.6829 <= 0.7121 | 50.76 | 0.00 | 49.24 | 171.13 |

12 | UCT (its=13) | 631 | 0 | 351 | 982 | 0.6121 <= 0.6426 <= 0.6719 | 51.73 | 0.00 | 48.27 | 170.17 |

22 | UCT (its=23) | 631 | 0 | 355 | 986 | 0.6095 <= 0.6400 <= 0.6693 | 50.30 | 0.00 | 49.70 | 168.59 |

31 | UCT (its=32) | 631 | 0 | 349 | 980 | 0.6134 <= 0.6439 <= 0.6732 | 51.12 | 0.00 | 48.88 | 166.77 |

39 | UCT (its=40) | 631 | 0 | 342 | 973 | 0.6180 <= 0.6485 <= 0.6779 | 53.24 | 0.00 | 46.76 | 165.94 |

46 | UCT (its=47) | 631 | 0 | 359 | 990 | 0.6069 <= 0.6374 <= 0.6667 | 55.35 | 0.00 | 44.65 | 165.17 |

49 | UCT (its=50) | 559 | 0 | 441 | 1000 | 0.5281 <= 0.5590 <= 0.5895 | 54.50 | 0.00 | 45.50 | 164.35 |

50 | UCT (its=50) | 507 | 0 | 493 | 1000 | 0.4760 <= 0.5070 <= 0.5379 | 51.10 | 0.00 | 48.90 | 163.82 |

Search for levels ended: time limit reached.

Level of Play: **Strong** beats **Weak** 60% of the time (lower bound with 95% confidence).

Draw%, p1 win% and game length may give some indication of trends as AI strength increases.

This chart shows the win(green)/draw(black)/loss(red) percentages, as UCT play strength increases. **Note that for most games, the top playing strength show here will be distinctly below human standard.**

Game length | 78.38 | |
---|---|---|

Branching factor | 151.33 | |

Complexity | 10^170.21 | Based on game length and branching factor |

Computational Complexity | 10^7.81 | Sample quality (100 best): 11.37 |

Samples | 1000 | Quantity of logged games played |

Computational complexity (where present) is an estimate of the game tree reachable through actual play. For each game in turn, Ai Ai marks the positions reached in a hashtable, then counts the number of new moves added to the table. Once all moves are applied, it treats this sequence as a geometric progression and calculates the sum as n-> infinity.

Distinct actions | 191 | Number of distinct moves (e.g. "e4") regardless of position in game tree |
---|---|---|

Good moves | 94 | A good move is selected by the AI more than the average |

Bad moves | 97 | A bad move is selected by the AI less than the average |

Response distance | 5.91 | Mean distance between move and response; a low value relative to the board size may mean a game is tactical rather than strategic. |

Samples | 1000 | Quantity of logged games played |

A mean of 41.25% of board locations were used per game.

Colour and size show the frequency of visits.

Game length frequencies.

Mean | 78.38 |
---|---|

Mode | [77] |

Median | 78.0 |

This chart is based on a single representative* playout, and gives a feel for the change in material over the course of a game. (* Representative in the sense that it is close to the mean length.)

Table: branching factor per turn, based on a single representative* game. (* Representative in the sense that it is close to the mean game length.)

This chart is based on a single representative* game, and gives a feel for the types of moves available throughout that game. (* Representative in the sense that it is close to the mean game length.)

Red: removal, Black: move, Blue: Add, Grey: pass, Purple: swap sides, Brown: other.

This chart shows the best move value with respect to the active player; the orange line represents the value of doing nothing (null move).

The lead changed on 24% of the game turns. Ai Ai found 2 critical turns (turns with only one good option).

This chart shows the relative temperature of all moves each turn. Colour range: black (worst), red, orange(even), yellow, white(best).

Measure | All players | Player 1 | Player 2 |
---|---|---|---|

Mean % of effective moves | 2.72 | 2.71 | 2.73 |

Mean no. of effective moves | 3.10 | 3.10 | 3.10 |

Effective game space | 10^5.49 | 10^2.84 | 10^2.66 |

Mean % of good moves | 25.04 | 0.00 | 50.08 |

Mean no. of good moves | 32.99 | 0.00 | 65.97 |

Good move game space | 10^44.40 | 10^0.00 | 10^44.40 |

These figures were calculated over a single game.

An *effective move* is one with score 0.1 of the best move (including the best move). -1 (loss) <= score <= 1 (win)

A *good move* has a score > 0. Note that when there are no good moves, an multiplier of 1 is used for the game space calculation.

Measure | Value | Description |
---|---|---|

Hot turns | 97.44% | A hot turn is one where making a move is better than doing nothing. |

Momentum | 34.62% | % of turns where a player improved their score. |

Correction | 35.90% | % of turns where the score headed back towards equality. |

Depth | 3.82% | Difference in evaluation between a short and long search. |

Drama | 0.00% | How much the winner was behind before their final victory. |

Foulup Factor | 1.28% | Moves that looked better than the best move after a short search. |

Surprising turns | 0.00% | Turns that looked bad after a short search, but good after a long one. |

Last lead change | 38.46% | Distance through game when the lead changed for the last time. |

Decisiveness | 2.56% | Distance from the result being known to the end of the game. |

These figures were calculated over a single representative* game, and based on the measures of quality described in "Automatic Generation and Evaluation of Recombination Games" (Cameron Browne, 2007). (* Representative, in the sense that it is close to the mean game length.)

Colour shows the frequency of swaps on turn 2 if this move is played on turn 1; black < red < yellow < white.

Based on 100 trials/move at 0.1s thinking time each.

Colour shows the success ratio of this play over the first 10moves; black < red < yellow < white.

Size shows the frequency this move is played.

Colour shows the frequency of swaps on turn 2 if this move is played on turn 1; black < red < yellow < white.

Size shows the frequency this move is played.

0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
---|---|---|---|

1 | 190 | 36290 | 2286650 |

Note: most games do not take board rotation and reflection into consideration.

Multi-part turns could be treated as the same or different depth depending on the implementation.

Counts to depth N include all moves reachable at lower depths.

Inaccuracies may also exist due to hash collisions, but Ai Ai uses 64-bit hashes so these will be a very small fraction of a percentage point.

No solutions found to depth 3.

Puzzle | Solution |
---|---|

White to win in 3 moves | |

White to win in 3 moves | |

Black to win in 3 moves | |

White to win in 3 moves | |

Black to win in 3 moves | |

Black to win in 3 moves | |

Black to win in 3 moves | |

Black to win in 3 moves | |

White to win in 3 moves | |

White to win in 3 moves | |

Black to win in 3 moves | |

White to win in 3 moves | |

Black to win in 3 moves | |

Black to win in 3 moves | |

Black to win in 3 moves | |

Black to win in 3 moves | |

White to win in 3 moves | |

White to win in 3 moves | |

White to win in 3 moves |

Weak puzzle selection criteria are in place; the first move may not be unique.