Notes on an evil algorithm

A few notes on your ultimate destruction.

Just something to let you know I'm thinking about you...

First Idea:

The algorithm could be unbeatable if it is able to:

1. Win: Check if there is an opportunity to win next move.
2. Don't let you win: If none, then check to see if it can keep you from winning next move.
3. Fork for the win: If none, find a way to set itelf up for a win in two moves by creating a "fork" so no matter what you do next, it still wins.
4. Don't let you fork for the win: If none, prevent you from making said "fork". Don't let you fork.

• by distracting you with an emergency elsewhere on the board.
• by occupying the one spot you need to make a fork.

5. Hold the center: Otherwise, take the center square.
6. Occupy the early fork: If the center is taken, and you took a corner, take the opposite corner from you.
7. Establish a stronghold: If the center square is taken, take a corner square.
8. Whatever: If the center and all the corner squares are taken, take whatever remains. (sides are undesirable)

These strategies should work regardless of whether it plays first or second.

Second Idea:

On the other hand, there may be another way to do it by using a series of 48 board states to test against, and returning the propper response to each. That is how the tinkertoy tic-tac-toe worked. Reproducing that in software would not be too hard, though could be less elegant than another method.

Third Idea:

On the third hand, There may be a CS way. I am only vaguely aware of this, but noughts and crosses is a game tree that can be searched using a minimax method with unlimited depth. The trick is that perfect games end in a tie, how would you go about finding the optimal way to tie? That's heavy on theory, and I have not the foggiest clue right now of how to turn that into actual code. More research required for that...