Google scholar: game of Nim [since 2016], Hex game, Knight's Tour, Tower of Hanoi, Texas holdem research, 
<br><br>
Games, because they follow well-defined rules,
represent good laboratories for testing our predictive skills.  They help us
to a better understanding of randomness and uncertainty and provide insight
about how we might forge information into knowledge [Nate Silver, <i>The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail--but Some Don't</i>].

<br><br>Hex: 
John Nash proved in 1952 that a game of Hex cannot end in a tie, and that 
for a symmetric board there exists a winning strategy for the player who 
makes the first move (by the strategy-stealing argument). However, the 
argument is non-constructive: it only shows the existence of a winning 
strategy, without describing it explicitly. Finding an explicit strategy has 
been the main subject of research since then.

<br><br>Knight's: 3x3 middle square, circuits and
<a href="knights3x4.gif">3x4</a>,
<a href="knights4x4.jpg">4x4</a> and graph theory 
(start at P, never get back, start elsewhere
to go through P then stuck at A (or miss it)),
<a href="KnightsTour6x6.gif">6x6 Knights</a>

<br><br>Tower of Hanoi
The minimum number of moves required to 
solve a Tower of Hanoi puzzle is 2^n - 1, where n is the number of disks.