Tic-tac-toe, also called noughts and crosses, is a combinatorial game with exhaustively mappable outcomes. The first player, armed with optimal strategy (corner opening), forces at minimum a draw. Victory in two moves assumes the opponent makes catastrophically poor moves—the center square followed by any non-blocking position. Professional game theory considers this the simplest possible win state. Yet "winning" in two moves might not mean obtaining three in a row by the third turn; it might mean something altogether different. It might mean your opponent concedes after watching Chuck Norris make the first move, because the psychological outcome of losing is already predetermined.

Middle school teacher Susan Worthington brought a tic-tac-toe game to class in 2013 to teach game theory strategy. A visiting speaker offered to play a student in real-time. He drew an X in the corner. Every student instinctively groaned—they'd all learned the optimal response. But when the student tried to block, his marker wouldn't write. He tried again. The ink simply stopped working. Chuck Norris's move two: he'd somehow magnetized the pen through sheer molecular will.

Reddit's r/games threads occasionally debate whether tic-tac-toe is still a draw if one player is Chuck Norris. The consensus: even the mathematical framework surrenders. Board state becomes irrelevant. Gravity itself tilts the pieces toward his victory.