let's write a book about Hex

Reviewing games by the top players here leaves me impressed and
at times amazed, more so than when I review master-level chess.
Top level Hex play can seem like a magic act.

There is a body of literature about Hex and I'm grateful to
everyone who has contributed to it. But there is room to go
farther. Nothing I've read so far explains strategy at the very
highest levels. I'm hoping this is not because it's impossible
to put into words. Go is also a subtle game, but that hasn't
stopped people from writing about it. Even if only some of
the aspects of top-level Hex play could be described in words,
I think it's worth doing.

I'd write a book on Hex myself if I could. Problem is, I don't
play Hex well enough to annotate top-level games. I am hoping
that one or more of the strong players would like to work on
such a project.

I have experience in writing, editing, and publishing and I would
enjoy doing the technical work of preparing a book about Hex.
I like web pages too--I miss HexWiki--but I think there are still
reasons to publish books. Books endure and are remembered.
Even on Wikipedia it carries weight to be able to cite a book.

I think Hex is a great game. I don't see it ever becoming
as popular as chess or go, but I think it's interesting and
deep enough to have a larger following than it does today.
An in-depth book about Hex published now would perhaps be
remembered for some time to come. We have an opportunity here.

English is not the first language of many top Hex players, but
that need not be an obstacle to producing a high-quality book.
If you can write insightful commentary on top-level games
even in poor English (or in German) I can take it from there.
I also have experience in graphic design and the PostScript
language, useful for a book with board diagrams. And, perhaps
most importantly, I have free time for such a project.

Print-on-demand services like lulu.com and blurb.com make
it easy to publish books even in the smallest quantities.
E-books are of course also an option.

A project like this probably wouldn't make any money to speak of.
To be realistic, I recommend it only for the satisfaction of
creating literature and promoting Hex.

I'd like to see hexwiki.org come back. But whether or not it
ever does, I'd also like to help publish a book. If you're
a strong player and you might be interested in working on
such a project, please let me know.

Hi Tom,

I was recently thinking just the same thing - a book on Hex strategy would be great. Of course, there is already such a book (http://www.amazon.com/Hex-Strategy-Making-Right-Connections/dp/1568811179), but it is hopelessly out of date.

I considered writing something myself, but so far I haven't for a few reasons:
1) It's going to be a LOT of work, and I'm busy
2) I still feel like I'm learning the game - if I wrote something now, I might feel like changing it in a couple of months
3) Related to (2), I'm not sure that I'm good enough at the game yet - several players are significantly better than I am.

Despite these things, I'd probably write something eventually if nobody else does. However, that might be in a while, and I encourage others to write as well. Maybe we can make it a joint effort?

In the meanwhile, if you want to make the top players explain their "magic acts", try asking about a specific game in the forum. I think you'd get a lot of responses explaining whatever moves you are curious about =)

Hi Tom,

I like your idea. I would support it if you you would decide to go for a book of 3 to 5 different games, because I think there are similar challanges for games like D&B. For Hex I cant help atm.

Push it!

I think it is a great idea, I'm willing to buy it.

Commenting a few of Golem's best games would be a good skeleton for the book. Do we need the agreement of the players for that?

Then adding some theory and philosophy of the game would make the meat.

Would you agree on some chapters like:

- no draw possible hence winning game for second player
- hex templates (huge chapter)
- hex ladders
- the middle game
- hex openings
\* the acute corner openings
\* the other openings
- strategy and tactics ?

I am not a good player but I am willing to read and review what is written.

Nice idea. You got me if it comes to translate Polish<->English. Unfortunately I am out of game for too long to act as a games/strategy/tactics commentator. I'll try to convince my brother to participate.

Briefly, before my day gets started:
\* Very interested!
\* Quite willing to annotate games, or have my own games used (win or lose); in particular, I would be willing to explain "magic acts" in the forum, as shalev suggests (though some older games it will take some effort to reconstruct my thinking)
\* There was lots of information in the Hex Wiki, which seems to have disappeared. It would be great to recover it (even if not as an editable wiki)

@shalev: "not…good enough at the game yet"? Don't you have something like the 3rd best rating in Hex13? :)

The hexwiki can be found quite extensively using the WayBack Machine, eg.: Hex Templates.

There is an anti robot filter, so you can't wget it directly, some more knowledgeable user may curl it and republish?

This idea has been aired a few times. Let's just say if one of the top twenty want to do a Kickstarter, I'll pledge! But it would probably not succeed...

But you know another avenue which might be cool to give the game some attention? YouTube. You have people actually making a living on playing computer games and talking about it - how much more interesting wouldn't it be with an actual deep game :)

Most abstract game fans aren't used to talking aloud about their reasoning as they play, but it could be a worthwhile skill to cultivate.

Anyone play the card game Dominion? Wandering Winder (one of the top players) has a youtube channel where he plays and talks about his thinking. IMO it really shows the potential of this medium.

I, too, think this is an interesting idea. I would be very interested to see what strong players have to say about the opening and other advanced strategy.

It sounds like Tom Ace has all the technical aspects covered, but for what it's worth I have a lot of experience with the automated creation of PDF and PS graphics. I've also published a (graphics-heavy) book on lulu.com before.

na_wspak: It would be great if your brother could participate.

In general, one of the issues with creating a Hex book is drawing the boards. How do you think we should do this? Should it all be screenshots, or is there a better way? I think the Hex wiki had some nice shortcuts for creating a drawing of a board...

@Carroll: Nice find about the hexwiki on the WayBack Machine! With regards to your chapter suggestions, they sound reasonable, although I might make a few changes. Maybe split the ladder chapter in two (it's a big topic), maybe add an "obtuse corner" chapter, maybe have only a basic chapter on templates and put the rest in an appendix. "Middle game" might not be specific enough, and we might want chapters on "useless/dominated moves" and "annotated games". I need to think about it more. Also, where do we put something like "Marley's Folly"?

http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/forum/topic2.jsp?forum=50&topic=400

@Art Duval: haha, well, I'm still more than 300 Elo below Maciej, and there are several players who are currently underrated or inactive but should possibly have a rating above 2400 (namely Daniel Sepczuk, Naked Face, lazyplayer, and Arek Kulczycki).

Wow. It's great to see so much interest. Thanks everyone.

I like the joint-effort idea. As Shalev said, it is a lot of work--
but the workload can be distributed. Even if you only have time
to annotate a game or two, that would help.

Carroll asked "Do we need the agreement of the players for that?"
Good question. I just now wrote to the webmaster asking about
permission to use LG game records for a project like this.

Carroll also asked whether there would be chapters about Hex basics
(templates, ladders, theory, ... ). Even though that material
is available elsewhere, I think it makes sense to include it.
I could write some basic chapters, so advanced players wouldn't
need to spend time on that.

And I of course second what Ignatius J Reilly said to na_wspak. :)

I'd certainly be interested in such a book. Great idea! :)

Shalev: no screenshots. I want the diagrams to look great.

The HexWiki had a link to my server that renders
LG Hex games in color (as encapsulated PostScript).
I've since started experimenting with black-and-white
as would appear in pages of a printed book. For a sample
(first attempt; there is room for improvement), see
(classname)http://minortriad.com/1200919.pdf

Hi Tom,
This is right up lazyplayer's alley, try to get him on board.

Having good examples and descriptions of what is going on for the various Hex terminologies and formations would be good for keeping people on the same page.

For example for me i have a formation that i like which i stumbled on and have used in a few games that i call "The Super Triangle". It expands your space, I like to say it has big shoulders. Here is one example used in a game, http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/game/game.jsp?gid=1512990 The structure is g10, h11, i9 which helped make the connection to the right side for me.

I don't have much computer savy but i will pipe where i can.

@Tom Ace: The diagram looks nice. Below are graphic issues we may think about:
- last move mark,
- moves sequence (numbers),
- loose/strong/solid/redundant connection,
- controlled field of whites/blacks,
- neutral/uncontrolled/contentious/unimportant/irrelevant field,
- weak/optimal/strong/brilliant/alternative move,
- (named) template/sequence/pattern.

Those above are gathered ad hoc. As like as not some of them won't be used. And there are, probably, also a missing ones.

That's really good idea. I'm new to hex, and I'm interesting in getiing stronger. But there is not so much information in the internet(thanks for wiki on WayBack Machine). if any support or help is needed, i can try to help(but don't know how)
However, I have one question: on which audience this book will be orientated? I mean, will weak players understand it?

na_wspak: good points. I'm going to start writing an introductory chapter and that will drive the process of implementing the kinds of features you mention. The main thing I worked on in that sample diagram was making the goal edges look okay in black and white. The diagrams in Cameron Browne's book look good in general, except that I never liked how they indicate white's and black's edges with dots floating outside of the board.

JKB: I would like to make a book that would start with the basics and be useful to anyone. For a book to discuss advanced strategy I think it makes sense to have introductory chapters that establish terminology for all the basics.

@Tom, for me your pieces and board are nice and clear, but the white border makes a fuzzy moving false 3D effect (at least on screen) that prevents me from looking inside the board without headache... I would prefer you to keep only black edges and rely on the white page for the white edge.

Carroll: I see what you mean about the zigzag white borders being distracting.
I've uploaded a .pdf file that includes a second style; is that any better?
Same URL, http://minortriad.com/1200919.pdf

Not sure I'm strong enough to have anything co contribute, but if I can, I'll be glad to help with such a book project.

@Tom, yes it is really nice and I like the numbering in the borders better too!

I'm in if I could be any help!

I like the idea of taking couple of most important games as a basis.

@Marius: I'll say the same thing to you I did to shalev, but just change the details: Of course you're strong enough to contribute, didn't you win a Hex19 championship recently? :)

@Tom, I am sorry i didn't answer you for a long time. Writing a book all alone is beyond my capability.

I'm in! I will try to do whatever is needed.

I would like to pre-order a copy of this book!

I would also like to pre-order a copy of this book.

Is somebody here on LG willing to work as a project manager on this? It seems that there will be many hands working on this project and this requires a lot of concertation that is not needed in the case of one (monolithic) author:
- choice of topics
- arrangement of chapters
- creation of graphics (including creation of converters from various game notations to a vector graphics format)
- general layout
- who-does-what
- deadlines
- proofreading
- decision making

Especially the process of making decisions (who will decide what) has to be defined, otherwise the project can be get stuck over unsolvable discussions, e.g. whether the Hex board should be depicted with the long diagonal horizonally or tilted by 30 degrees.

My idea, how to make a Hex book goes like this:
Create something like HexWiki first, but more written like a book.
Then create a printed version from the Wiki content.

Be forewarned - proofreading will be a major task for a book. (That's a major part of my company's business.)

In order to simplify collaborative work, here are a couple of handy hints:
1) Use plain human-readable text for as much as possible (adding style can be done in one fell swoop consistently, hopefully robotically, later). Many simple wiki-like mark-up languages fit that description, but not all.
2) Work out what issues are nothing but bikeshedding, and work in such a way that they don't need to be decided until the end, or even at all. (e.g. orientation of board images - basically nothing should depend on the outcome of such a decision, so it can be done very late in the process.)

Thomas Werner: I'm willing to do whatever work I am able to, which would include organizational tasks. So far no one else has said they want that work. I have code to generate the graphics.

I have mixed feelings about putting it all on a wiki first.

Tom Ace: so what do we do now? Should we start writing?

I think one large issue is that it's not clear how to divide the Hex knowledge into chapters. Here are some topics we should write about:

- General tips (offense is defense, play moves that do multiple things, etc.)
- Useless and dominated moves
- The first move (with swap rule) and maybe a bit of an opening book
- Templates (edge templates with one or multiple stones, inner board templates)
- Acute corner patterns
- Obtuse corner patterns
- Ladders + escapes
- More ladder stuff: folding ladders, double ladder tricks, ladders under bridges, etc.
- Other patterns that often form near the edges? (e.g. Marley's Folly)
- Annotated games and puzzles
- Other stuff I'm forgetting (feel free to add stuff)

Some non-strategic topics we could include are
- rules, history, related games, computer play, etc.
- proof that Hex has no draws
- symmetry arguments
- proof that Hex is PSPACE-complete
- n-th row template problem
- other stuff I'm forgetting

Again, it is not clear how to divide this into chapters - some of these topics are small, while some are huge.

Cameron Browne's book had far too much of the non-strategic topics you mention, shalev. I bought it from Amazon along with two go books, expecting it to be in the same genre basically, and I was very disappointed.

That draws are impossible, and symmetrical responses (mirroring) always a bad idea, are things which are interesting both for the recreational mathematics crowd and for very beginning players. But beyond that, I don't think it's worth going. Certainly Hex players have no more need to know what PSPACE complexity is than Chess or Go players do.

Besides Browne's book, Hex has been written about from a recreational mathematics perspective many, many times. The appeal of a strategy book for me is that it could be something more, something different than that. Recreational mathematics was where Hex came from (Piet Hein being something like Denmark's equivalent to Martin Gardner), but I wish it could grow up and break free of it :)

I see no problem with including the "non-strategic" items shalev mentions, so long as they don't crowd out strategic content.

Shalev proposed several chapters that I think are clearly
worth having and which could be started immediately (i.e.,
even before other questions about organization are settled).
In that category I would include:

- Acute corner patterns
- Obtuse corner patterns
- Annotated games and puzzles

Corner patterns are a perfect example of what is missing in
Cameron Browne's book. A lot of games here on LG start with
a bunch of moves in an acute corner. There's a need to
explain what is going on there, perhaps with illustrations
of how the moves affect the play that follows.

I would love to see annotated games. It's hard to imagine having
too many of them. This is exactly what I am not strong enough a
player to do, so I look to others for this. Pick a game or games
you think is instructive, mention here that you would like to
annotate it, and write anything you can about it. Any first draft
is a start that others can review and suggest additions to.

About puzzles: is anyone here familiar with what open-source
software is available that could be used for full verification
of puzzles on small boards? I compiled six from source years
ago and haven't followed what Hex software has become available
since. Verifying puzzles is an instance of FatPhil's point about
proofreading. If we include puzzles they should be rock-solid.

I like most of the possible topics Shalev suggested, although
I think some are not worth going into at length. Back in 2004
I translated Stefan Reisch's proof of PSPACE-completeness
from German into English and although it is of theoretical
interest I would leave the proof out of a book on tactics
and strategy.

On the other hand, the proof that Hex has no draws is short
and sweet.

To suggest another topic, I think it's worth discussing how
strategy changes with board size. 19x19 and 13x13 have things
in common but there are differences as well. And how does play
differ on odd-order boards versus even-order? These are again
matters that I'd look to strong players to work on.

For solving/verifying puzzles, cf. http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~hayward/hex/#Solver with source code at http://benzene.sourceforge.net/

I cannot compile it, though. After trivial changes (native_file_string -> string, TIME_UTC -> TIME_UTC_ ) I'm stuck at
../../src/book/BookBuilderCommands.hpp:32:25: error: cannot declare field ‘benzene::BookBuilderCommands::m_bookBuilder’ to be of abstract type ‘benzene::BookBuilder’

Perhaps you try to include someone from ualberta Hex group in the process of writing/checking the book (and compiling the code)

Shalev, what is "Marley’s Folly"? :)

http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/forum/topic2.jsp?forum=50&topic=400

;-)

lazyplayer, check out Gregorlo's link for an explanation of the term "Marley's Folly". I think Marley originally meant for the name to be a joke, but I like it, so I've been using it.

Also, what's your take on the book? Do you think you'd be able to write something, maybe about 11x11 play?

I would prefer a series of small books. Like Kiseido's Elementary Go Series. More or less like Rhoads's series divided in Basic, Intermediate and Advanced (and maybe even a fourth one about Computational Hex, p-space completeness, and that other stuff). The Basic one would include several annotated games (with a hex-language oriented to beginners) illustrating the concepts involved during the book, and so on.

I'm pretty sure all the concepts and strategies can be split in those categories, and suitable games to be annotated, or even hex problems, can be found for each book.

What do you think?

Shalev, i would like to write something, but i don't have some weeks to set up proper typesetting system, so i never do it... if someone sets up a typesetting, i would be happy to do it. In common or also alone. Because obviously each of us has sighly different ideas... :)

For the display of board positions and in-game development, I recommend something like Sensei's Library is using for Go, where moves are just numbered.

Did this project get dropped or is it being worked on in secret.

As a new player of Hex and Havannah,  I'm interested.

Nothing has happened.  I didn't anticipate what kind of effort it would

take to manage a project like this, where manage doesn't just mean making

decisions but also somehow getting people other people to do work.

If there were one or two people who were able and willing to write

most of the material I could do the editing and book design work,

but getting a dozen or so people to write becomes another task

altogether.  It would be a challenge for anyone and it's worse for

me because I don't have the temperament for management (in my

professional life, I stayed in engineering rather than going into

managerial positions).

And because there is no money in a project like this, a manager

doesn't have the leverage over contributors that comes from signing

their paychecks.

I had the idea for a book and I can edit and do graphic design,

but I am not a top Hex player.  That puts me at a disadvantage when

it comes to inspiring people to contribute.  I don't have the level

of achievement at Hex that translates into the respect that makes

it possible to manage people.

I also wonder how well anyone knows how to put the finer points of

Hex into words.  This is part of what drew me to Hex to being with.

It's like Go in being a subtle game that requires intuition.

I still think Hex is great and I would still like to see more

literature about it in one form or another.  I just don't know

quite how to make that happen.

I started writing a chapter. I'll post when done. My progress is slow...

I've also been working on a Latex package that lets me quickly draw Hex positions (I found such a package on the hexwiki, but it didn't really work for me). I'll probably post that soon. The images it creates are not as nice as Tom's, but it's very convenient to have them be generated by the Latex itself - it allows for easy editing. I think lazyplayer was asking for such a tool a while back.

As for collaboration, if others are serious about writing, we could use sharelatex.com. If you don't already know about it (and you use Latex), check it out - it's awesome! It lets you collaboratively edit and compile Latex online. It costs money for some use cases, but I think creating a public project is free.

shalev, what about your chapter is gonna be? On 2013-12-05 you put up a possible chapter list, do you follow that idea?

The chapter will be about useless moves. Some of this information is on the Hex wiki, but not everything. For example, I think most people know that this is equivalient to this. However, Many people probably don't know that this is equivalent to this, or that this is equivalent to this.

Interesting point to characterise!

Many of those are well known and published in papers by Ryan Hayward and Philip Henderson in papers like: https://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~ph/ijcai09.pdf .

Yes, I've read most of these papers. It's just that the Hex player community doesn't know about them, and some of the papers probably go into more mathematical detail than is necessary for Hex players to understand. So really my chapter will be a popularization of known results :)

General question on Hex rules.

I am having a dispute about the 'swap' rule in Hex.

I favor it, but my opponent claims that John Nash didn't include the 'swap' in his rules, therfore it is not legitimate.

Does anyone know whether the rules by Nash (or Piet Hein) said or wrote anything about the 'swap', and if either or both supported it ?

Thanks.

@VSapristi: Your opponent is confused about what counts as "legitimate", and whether "legitimacy" is even an appropriate concept in this context.  One can imagine many variations on the rules of hex.  The "right" one to play is whichever one you and your opponent mutually agree to.  Most people prefer the version of the rules which allows a swap, since not allowing a swap move leads to a lopsided and boring game (assuming both players are at least moderately experienced).

What Nash or Hein thought doesn't matter at all.  A thought experiment: suppose careful historical research shows that neither Nash nor Hein invented Hex, that in fact the inventor was David Hilbert and Hilbert's version of the rules specified that on the 12th move a player is allowed to place three stones.  Would it follow that these crazy Hilbert rules are the "legitimate" rules and that we should all play by Hilbert's rules?  No, of course not.  Similarly, we should not care (unless we are historians) what Nash's or Hein's version of the rules were.