Cassie turns 4 today. She kind of almost understands Tic Tac Toe, but diagonal confuses her.

She is at a spatial relationship stage of the game, still wrapping her head around the fact that two players are vying for control in the same territory. This is far beyond her CandyLand and Memory games, which are essentially races, where someone is ahead. No, this is far more intircate.

Spencer is now 7. He often wants to play Tic Tac Toe when we are out to eat and he has been given crayons by a waitress.

He sees the moves.

And he has just recently discovered the life defining elegance of Tic Tac Toe:

He can control the opponent.

It has nothing to do with winning or losing. It has to do with power.

In Conan The Barbarian, Thulsa Doom points to a girl on a high cliff and beckons her. She mindlessly takes the step, plunging to her death. Thulsa then explains to Conan that THAT is true power.

And it all begins in Tic Tac Toe. The first moving player can control where the other player goes, and there is the tacit agreement of "Do what I say, or you lose". Strangely enough, he must react properly to that second player, or lose himself.

There is an exercise at work here. Tic Tac Toe is almost not a game, but a philosophical exercise, teaching the strength of controlling someone else's actions.

He does not expect to win anymore. Now he expects to simply not lose. Is it a puzzle more than a game at that point? No, because he can beat Cassie. She is in the earlier stages of this evolution.

Sometimes, just by distraction (such as steaming waffle fries with bacon and melted cheese arriving at our table), he will lose. His goal is not to win, but to not lose.

Another major philosophical point is reached: Not losing is often the goal just as much as winning is. This is a piece of advice that will serve him well in the future. He can strive to be on a team, not be the best, but still score a personal victory by not being the worst, allowing him to further his skills by being on the team in the first place. He need not win, but he did not lose.

The interesting thing in Tic Tac Toe is that the draw occurs only by striving to not lose.

The second player always reacts to the first. The second player MUST defend, or lose. If the first player plays properly, the second player gets no choices on where they move. It is either play for the draw or lose. Yet the second player still plays the game, knowing they cannot actually win, unless the first player commits an error in their second move.

This is a game that gets fairly harsh criticism. The criticism is that the game is quickly mastered, at least by adults. The game is solved.

And, indeed, it is - 100%.

Yet we still watch movies a second time, knowing the ending.

There are a few epic large concepts hiding in this tiny 9 move game, which wiser players will internalize and take with them beyond the game:

As attacker: You can influence the actions of others, predicting responses, as long as you are aware of the other's goals.

As defender: Sometimes, you must play for the not-lose as well as the win.

These ideas will serve both Spencer and Cassie well in the future.

The computer in Wargames points out "The only way to win is not to play", and is hugely incorrect. The world is won BECAUSE the computer plays the game and realizes that some fights are fultile and some paths predetermined. It HAD to play the game to win the metagame, and that's what tic tac toe does.

For children, it teaches persistance. And sportsmanship. But in truth, there are thousands of other games that can do that.

It teaches us to know sometimes we control our surroundings, and sometimes our surroundings control us. If there is no victory, that also means there has been no defeat, and an interesting dance of equality occurs. The game becomes more like a puzzle for two.

While this is not PuzzleGeek or DanceGeek, I think the intrinsic value of this game is so great that it in truth MUST be played, at least until it is solved. The lessons learned follow through to many other boardgames and aspects of life.

Tic Tac Toe is indeed, not broken, but important lessons disguised as a children's game.

I write 35 reviews, and the one with the most recommends is for Tic Tac Toe...

You never can tell what some people will like...

yet, many 'wonder' just WHY I happen to "rate" THIS as the '10' it so richly deserves!?! yeah, let's just 'see' THESE folks get their little`uns to "play" with the likes of "P.R." then, damm 'Euro-snoots'!

Hold on there, Grogs.

10?

I never said the game was good. Maybe necessary, but that doesn't mean good. Using the BGG rating index, you would pass up most other games to play Tic Tac Toe.

YES, I most certainly WOULD "pass upon" such! Now, were I to properly "consume" thesein their entirety, then I'd even "pass through" my digestive system FOR those as well, and render these their 'proper doo-doo' too-too.

I would like to thank everyone who reconsidered their ratings (or added ratings) to Tic Tac Toe.

When I placed this review, it had a rating of 2.11. In the past week, it has made the mighty climb all the way up to 2.20.

Finally, with your help, I have accomplished a worthy goal.

Many thanks.

...Maybe I really did have a bizare developement as a young child. Still learning the spatial awareness required for tic-tac-toe at 4? Apparantly I played my first game of chess at 3... (I'm not saying I'm actually good at it now, I'm simply saying I started playing it young)



...Power implies strength, and a desire to manipulate others is not a form of strength, but instead a form of weakness, due to it being the cowards act.

...Well, if you're going to write a philosophical review of Tic-tac-toe...

On a more psychological level, can one truely predict the actions of others, even in tic-tac-toe? It is a fundamental error of human judgement that "I am trying to win/not lose, therefore everyone else is trying to win/not lose", since that is simply applying your sense of self to somebody else. Granted, a game will be less fun for all involved if not everyone is trying their best at the game, but human beings don't always do what is in their best interests. http://www.altruists.org/ideas/economics/behavioral/ provides a curious example of this.

And even then, people miss things. Back to chess. "...But. I know you're about as good as me at this game. You were one move away from check-mate, and... Oh never mind."

She plays chess, and asked for her own set, but doesn't like the knights and cannot predict them. The ability to play chess is not indicative of the ability to see the lines of play in TicTacToe. These are different thought processes, particularly since TicTacToe is such a closed loop and all permutations easily seen. The completionist strategies of TicTacToe only occur in Mate-In and endgame situations in chess. A different animal.



Holy jump in personal logic! Going by your definition, every parent throughout history is a coward by trying to control their children, and I have to wholeheartedly refute that. Boy, that is one twisted view - all influential leaders, good or bad, are cowards?



I think you need to read this through again. In TicTacToe, if I try not to lose and you simply play randomly, I still win, and the worse case I guarantee myself is a draw. By playing to draw, I cover myself in all aspects.



Indeed, this is the point of the review - that winning is your best interest, but not always the best course of action.

I think this is one of the best reviews I've ever read. It takes something I knew (that if both players play correctly tic-tac-toe must end in a draw) and puts a whole new spin on it, bringing the game and the philosophy of the game to a whole new level.

Just now stumbled upon this wonderful review.

Is what I got out of his comment is that Manipulation is 'weakness and a cowards act'. This being completely different from Leading or 'influencing' someone down a path you desire. Manipulation (IMO) is more trying to get someone to do something they don't want to do but you want them to do, whereas Leadership is setting an example you want someone to follow or lovingly and firmly taking them by the hand to guide them. Both are considered influencing.

I am sure we can all think of a time in our childhood when a parent/person tried to manipulate us. We rebel, despise them, act grudgingly. On the other hand we can think of someone who loves us and sets a good example which we willingly try to follow. There is a fine line between the two and both are dependant on each individuals perception of what they are doing. So while the end result may be the same as far as tic tac toe goes in the real world the different paths to those outcomes makes a HUGE difference.

Just my 3 cents :P

Tonight I'm going to teach my kids tic-tac-toe.

I hope they learned a lot from it.

I hate myself for saying this, but a huge childhood movie is being unjustly criticised! (believe me, there are a lot of other more valid criticism, like the computer voice, something every kid had to have, and the terrible acting... but I digress)

The computer in Wargames actually says "A Strange Game - The Only Way To Win Is Not To Play" about the nuclear war scenarios, not Tic-Tac-Toe. I also remember it playing the nuclear war in about four hundred different ways and total mutual destruction is the certain outcome in every one (it's called "mutually assured destruction" for a reason, after all!). So its not saying you shouldn't play for the experience, but "The only way to win is not to play FOR REAL!"

I think if I remember right the game of tic-tac-toe is actually described in a similarly positive light as in your review as teaching the concept of "futility". This is the key factor for me in terms of rating this game. If both people try to make the best moves, it always results in a draw. If you don't want to make the best moves, why play this? Go and kick/throw a ball outside or something!

Seriously though, fantastic review but I've still got to score this game low since the rating system isn't about objectivity and I will hopefully never play this ever again. Or at least until my future children see Wargames, even then I may suggest they just play against themselves.

The good thing is, I can score your review high, so have a big thumbs up for showing us a new way of thinking about the game. Thanks!

A

P.S. No, I really am this sad.

Ummmm... I think you kind of misinterpreted this whole thing. I'm referring to the learning process it equates to the real world which it starts learning by playing TicTacToe and then realizing the life lessons it teaches. The computer says it BECAUSE TicTacToe makes it apply the scenarios to the wargames. The Game the computer refers to is BOTH, since the wargame is obviously not a game to it. The realization of the AI in Wargames is the same as my kids picking up the subtlety of not losing. THATs what I'm pointing out - the bridge from TTT to real applications, just like the computer makes.

I have enjoyed reading the above review. Puts the game in a perspective I didn't realize before. Well written.

One quick reply about chess. The lines do exist in this game - the patterns are more complex, but still exist. I'm referring to the lines the different pieces move along. The game really opened up for me when I "discovered" these lines.

*[The lines for the knights are harder to see (more like a circle).]

Thank you. This review really reminded me of the value of tic-tac-toe, specifically, and generally of many things that seem pointless but that possess a subtle virtue of their own.

Words like "control" aside, your review has valid points: TicTacToe was the game where I first learned about playing for the draw and forced moves. I think there's a reason why TicTacToe is often used as a learning example for studying game theory and computer AIs: the player has several legal options to choose from, but the game is simple enough that you can map out the whole state tree on a piece of paper (or in your head). It's a solved problem, but at least there is a decision someone had to solve for (as opposed to Candy Land, Snakes and Ladders, War, etc.).

I disagree. Steven Lukes's theory of the "three faces of power" brilliantly delineates three different functions of power, to wit: one, decision-making, or the ability to make someone act such that fulfill your end; two, non-decision-making, or the ability to control someone's set of decisions such that they have to fulfill your end (either you completely prohibit the choices which don't fulfill your end or the remaining choices which don't fulfill your end are utterly unpalatable); three, desire manipulation, or the ability to make someone want to act such that they fulfill your end. Much of gaming is about non-decision-making, which at its most fundamental is simply the manipulation and delimitation of the game theoretical matrix. Tic-Tac-Toe is a very simple example of this.