Talk:Dots and boxes

message: The article states that " In games with an even number of boxes, it is conventional that if the game is tied then the win should be awarded to the second player (this offsets the advantage of going first)."
I have never heard of such a convention, what is the source? Besides, I think it is a wild claim that going first is an advantage. This is not "Hex" we are talking
about and there is no strategy stealing argument. For example in a 1x1 game, clearly the second player wins.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.185.92 (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second players winning in a draw? 

message: A few years ago I wrote a Java applet to play Dots and Boxes.  What do you think: would it add to the article to have such an applet on Wikipedia?  I don't know whether it's technically possible, but I don't see why not.  I'll be happy to license it as GPL or even GFDL, but I want to find out what other people think first.  dbenbenn | talk 16:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree - Although an external link to such an applet would be a useful addition. -Surturz 05:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Java applet? 

message: I've seen the game before, but never really played much. The article doesn't really explain how a chain is defined. Obviously I don't know otherwise I'd add it myself, so could someone enlighten me and/or edit the article to say what exactly chains are? Thanks. --Ciaran H 19:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chains? 

message: According to the article, A player who completes the fourth side of a box earns one point and takes another turn. In step 8 of the example illustrated at the top of the article, B completes the upper-left-hand box, yet somehow A then takes a turn and completes three boxes in a row without B being allowed to take another turn. Once B completes one box in step 8, why does A get to move immediately afterward?  It would seem that upon completing the first box, B could then complete the remaining three boxes in three successive moves. --Metropolitan90 07:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look a bit closer, you'll notice that in step 8 B completes the box and then draws the line going from the centre to the middle-right dot. In fact, any move B could make would give A the remaining 3 squares (the 4x4 game is actually analysed a small amount in the novel Golem in the Gears by Piers Anthony). However, I would suggest this page needs a little clean-up, possibly giving the rules their own section rather than including it in the introduction. Confusing Manifestation 16:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I revised the description of the sample game per your explanation. --Metropolitan90 06:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why doesn't B win 4-0? 

message: Are there enough references for this to be a good article? --Jtalledo (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whaaaat!? The article itself sucks, it is not the references that are the problem. Sorry! Naki (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article? 

message: Well, at least here in Brasil, when there's nothing better to do, this can be played in huge entire-paper board (with about 1cm x 1cm each box)... And it's not so rare to see this kind of play... 6x6 here is for begginers... The only major problem of this is after the game, when counting the boxes (with ending scores around 120 x 80)... 201.56.56.96 22:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  6x6? 

message: Has this game been solved? For all size grids, or only up to a certain size?70.42.112.151 06:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine the game is only solvable up to a certain size. I calculate the number of moves in a game to equal (2cr-c-r) where c = number of dots across, r = number of dots down. I calculate the number of possible games equal to the factorial (2cr-c-r)! (actually you could probably divide that by 8 to account for rotations & reflections)--Surturz 05:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate this comment was made a long time ago, but for future readers, it is my understanding that the game is solved for grids of up to 5x5 boxes, that is to say 6x6 dots. I also seem to remember that winning strategies exist for any size box, involving the "first" player attempting to create a number of chains whose parity is that of the number of boxes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.57.215 (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OoooK! So, who wins (with perfect play for both players) on 5x5 grid - player 1 or 2? Unlike 4x4, where the game can end in a draw, with 5x5 the number of boxes is not even, so no draws. Thanks! Naki (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solved? 

message: There's a variant of this game where instead of drawing a line on your turn, you claim one of the dots.  Each dot can only be claimed once, and lines are drawn between any two adjacent claimed dots. (Which player claimed any given dot is irrelevant after their turn.)  Any move which closes a box claims that box for the player who made the move, just as in this game.  Thus, a single move can claim up to 4 boxes at once.  There's no chaining - you get one dot per turn, every turn until all dots are claimed.  It's not a very fair game - with perfect (or even decent) play, the second player is pretty much guaranteed a win.  But then, few of these games are completely fair to both players.  I'm not sure what the official name of this version of the game is (if it even has one), but I'd like to see some mention of it on this page, maybe with a little mathematical analysis if anybody has a source for that sort of thing. Lurlock (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dot-centric variant 

message: There is a case in which not taking a sacrifice CAN be to your benefit. That happens when not accepting a sacrifice in a short chain results in an additional double cross (since the number of initial dots + total number of double crosses can sometimes determine who wins the game). Can anybody confirm this?
Shayanuser (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If your opponent makes a loony sacrifice (along the edge of a short-chain rather than up the middle like you're supposed to) then it's usually better to refuse it (unless you're nibbling). Loony moves are always a blunder if they aren't forced. Maybe someone more wiki-savvy than I can explain loony moves in the article? 24.18.225.26 (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a clear example where it's better not to accept a sacrifice. Suppose there's a 2x2 box and a long chain (more than 4 squares), the rest of the grid being full. Adam plays into the 2x2 box, sacrificing all four boxes in the hope of getting the chain. Beatrice should counter-sacrifice by playing across the 2x2 box without taking any boxes, giving all four boxes to Adam but getting the chain herself. This move would not be available if she accepted the sacrifice by taking even one of the four boxes. 2.25.135.89 (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  not accepting a sacrifice CAN be to your benefit , mentioned differently in the article

message: § Unusual grids and variants says
:In the Netherlands, it is called "kamertje verhuren" ("Rent-a-Room") and the outer border already has lines.
(The "citation needed" tag is dated April 2016.)
The Dutch article is much shorter than the English, but it is largely parallel to it. I put it into Google Translate, and the output was very similar to the English. The edit summary of the oldest version there is "beginnetje, geschiedenis/literatuur/link gejat van Duitse wiki", i.e. (via GT), "start, history / literature / link stolen from German wiki". There is no mention of a border wall. The  at the beginning of the article is the same as the one here, housed on the Dutch WP.
I ran a Google search for  and looked at the first few hits: 
* http://nl.dots-game.org/
* https://nl.puzzle-loop.com/
* https://www.jijbent.nl/spelregels/kamertjeverhuur.php
* https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/dots-and-boxes/ecpfdpcjlaoefdnllnhlfadncngcainh?hl=nl
* http://www.spelletjesoverzicht.nl/kamertje-verhuren.html
* http://www.reizendoejezo.nu/kamertje-verhuren-printen.html
Between the pictures and GT's translations, it was clear that none of these sites mentioned a border wall either.
Clearly the evidence was against the description of the Dutch game, and without that there was no reason to have the sentence in "Unusual grids and variants". I have deleted it.
--Thnidu (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch version  

message: The article says,
:A game called Trxilt combines some elements of Dots and Boxes with some elements of Chess.
This is, however, unsourced. The game seems to exist; see e.g. . However, we do need a quotable source.--Nø (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. If a reliable published source turns up that explains the similarity, we can add it back. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trxilt? 

message: I have taken heed of the comment left buried inside the source of this article... and made sure that (when I've added 'Dots and Dashes' in as a name for this game) it **IS** cited as whomever has requested.  As someone grew up in the late 80's/90's/early 00's... not that it would likely matter much in this debate... I can personally attest that at least in the West Midlands region of England - everyone I've ever known has referred to this game as Dots and Dashes.  Unfortunately searching for references to others that use this term gets confused with schools using the phrase to teach about grapheme and morse code... which is clearly not related.  So the two references I have used are the best I could do in a short time span... please don't make me go to an actual library and find some old book!  Lantizia (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dots and Dashes