The Immigration Game (invented by Don Woods in 1971) extends the solitaire Game of Life (invented by John Conway in 1970) to enable two-player competition. The Immigration Game can be used in a model of evolution by natural selection, where fitness is measured with competitions. The rules for the Game of Life belong to the family of semitotalistic rules, a family with 262,144 members. Woods' method for converting the Game of Life into a two-player game generalizes to 8,192 members of the family of semitotalistic rules. In this paper, we call the original Immigration Game the Life Immigration Game and we call the 8,192 generalizations Immigration Games (including the Life Immigration Game). The question we examine here is, what are the conditions for one of the 8,192 Immigration Games to be suitable for modeling open-ended evolution? Our focus here is specifically on conditions for the rules, as opposed to conditions for other aspects of the model of evolution. In previous work, it was conjectured that Turing-completeness of the rules for the Game of Life may have been necessary for the success of evolution using the Life Immigration Game. Here we present evidence that Turing-completeness is a sufficient condition on the rules of Immigration Games, but not a necessary condition. The evidence suggests that a necessary and sufficient condition on the rules of Immigration Games, for open-ended evolution, is that the rules should allow growth.
Modern board games are a rich source of interesting and new challenges for combinatorial problems. The game Nmbr9 is a solitaire style puzzle game using polyominoes. The rules of the game are simple to explain, but modelling the game effectively using constraint programming is hard. This abstract presents the game, contributes new generalized variants of the game suitable for benchmarking and testing, and describes a model for the presented variants. The question of the top possible score in the standard game is an open challenge.
Our ignorance of the winnability percentage of the solitaire card game `Klondike' has been described as "one of the embarrassments of applied mathematics". Klondike, the game in the Windows Solitaire program, is just one of many single-player card games, generically called 'patience' or 'solitaire' games, for which players have long wanted to know how likely a particular game is to be winnable. A number of different games have been studied empirically in the academic literature and by non-academic enthusiasts. Here we show that a single general purpose Artificial Intelligence program named `Solvitaire' can be used to determine the winnability percentage of 73 variants of 35 different single-player card games with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.1% or better. For example, we report the winnability of Klondike as 81.945%+/- 0.084% (in the `thoughtful' variant where the player knows the rank and suit of all cards), a 30-fold reduction in confidence interval over the best previous result. The vast majority of our results are either entirely new or represent significant improvements on previous knowledge.