Three-in-a-Row & Thinking-Ahead Games

Simple strategy games — tic-tac-toe (noughts and crosses) and easy “three-in-a-row” — where the fun is thinking one step ahead: if I go here, what might YOU do? The child learns to chase their own row, notice a threat, and block it. At five this is an emerging skill — the goal is planting the “think ahead” habit, not mastering perfect play (which comes years later).

  1. Play it straight first. Draw the 3×3 grid; take turns; the goal is three in a row. Let the child just enjoy making marks and getting the rules.
  2. Narrate your own thinking. “I’m putting mine here so I can try to get three across.” Modeling out loud teaches foresight without lecturing.
  3. Point out near-wins. “Uh-oh — look what I almost have!” Help them notice a threat before it completes. Noticing is the first step to blocking.
  4. Coach the one big question. “If you go there, what might I do next?” One move of look-ahead is plenty at this age.
  5. Celebrate a block or a setup. “You blocked me!” Praise the strategic move itself, not just winning.
  6. Let the child win often. Played for real, an adult always draws or wins — so play loosely, make visible “mistakes,” and keep it light and fun.

Variation: play with objects (buttons vs. acorns) or draw in sand or on a steamy window; grow to a bigger four-in-a-row grid; try a simple blocking or capture game. Keep stakes low so emotion doesn’t swamp the thinking.

Requirements

  • Space: A tabletop, a patch of floor, or any flat outdoor spot
  • Surface: Paper, a steamy window, sand or dirt, or a grid of objects
  • Materials: Paper and pencil, or two kinds of small objects as markers (buttons, acorns, coins); nothing fancy
  • Participants: 2 players (1 adult + 1 child), or two children with an adult coaching
  • Supervision: Light — mostly gentle coaching and keeping it fun; watch small markers around mouthing toddlers

Rationale & Objective

Strategy games like tic-tac-toe make “thinking ahead” visible. Crowley & Siegler (1993, “Flexible strategy use in young children’s tic-tac-toe,” Cognitive Science, 17[4], 531–561) found children add strategic rules one at a time — Win, then Block, then more complex moves — and initially can’t coordinate two goals, often blocking while missing their own three-in-a-row (or vice versa). DeVries & Fernie (1990, “Stages in children’s play of tic tac toe,” Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 4[2], 98–111) documented matching stages, noting the youngest players don’t yet grasp the competitive goal. Anticipating an opponent is a strategic-theory-of-mind task: Sher, Koenig & Rustichini (2014, “Children’s strategic theory of mind,” PNAS, 111[37], 13307–13312) showed adult-like anticipation of a competitor emerges around age 7, with 5-year-olds reasoning only partially and focusing on their own payoff — consistent with the broader finding that representing others’ minds comes online around age 4 (Wellman, Cross & Watson, 2001, “Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development,” Child Development, 72[3], 655–684). On planning, Brocas & Carrillo (2018, “The determinants of strategic thinking in preschool children,” PLoS ONE, 13[5], e0195456) found about 65% of 4–5-year-olds solve one-step-ahead tasks but only about 32% solve multi-step ones, with working memory the limiting factor. Honest framing — optimal tic-tac-toe (consistent blocking plus setting up double threats, several moves deep) is genuinely beyond most 5-year-olds and won’t be “trained in” by repetition; the value is seeding the habit of pausing to ask “if I go here, what might you do?” — mastery arrives years later.

Progress Indicators

  • Early: plays moves with little awareness of the opponent — places marks to make a row but treats the other player’s marks as irrelevant; may think both players getting three is a shared “win”; needs full rule support
  • Developing: pursues their own row purposefully and, when prompted (“uh-oh, look what I almost have”), notices a threat — but acts on only one goal at a time (chases own row OR blocks, not both) and rarely sees diagonals
  • Proficient: independently blocks one obvious opponent threat AND pursues their own row across turns, switching between offense and defense — though still mostly one move ahead and misses double threats
  • Advanced (rare at 5, edge of the range): blocks an obvious threat and on another turn deliberately sets up their own two-in-a-row, begins to answer “if I go here, what will you do?”, and can extend to a bigger four-in-a-row grid

Safety Notes

  • Physical risk is minimal (paper and pencil, or objects on a grid) — just watch small markers around any child still mouthing objects
  • The real risk is emotional — played to win, an adult will crush a 5-year-old every time and kill the fun; let the child win often, narrate your thinking instead of exploiting their mistakes, and keep it light
  • Don’t push strategy too hard, too young — drilling “think ahead!” on every move turns a game into a test and breeds frustration or avoidance; back off, slow down, or switch to a cooperative variant if you see distress or stalling
  • Anticipation and blocking are emerging, not expected, at age 5 — treat any strategic flash as a bonus, not a benchmark (graceful losing and competitiveness are handled separately under emotional regulation)

Hints

  • Playfulness: make it silly and fast — draw the grid in sand with a stick, use buttons vs. acorns or two snack types, give the marks goofy voices (“oh no, here comes Mr. Circle!”); wonder aloud (“if I put mine HERE, what might you do?”) to model foresight without lecturing
  • Sustain interest: rotate the format — paper to objects, change the markers, move from 3×3 to a bigger four-in-a-row grid, or try a simple blocking or capture game; celebrate a new milestone (“you blocked me!”) rather than a win/loss tally
  • Common mistake: crushing the child every game, over-coaching every move, or demanding optimal play — coach the question, not the answer, and let them lose to their own un-blocked threats sometimes so the “aha” is theirs
  • Limited space: needs almost nothing — a stick-in-the-dirt grid, nine pebbles or leaves, or a square drawn on a steamed-up window; markers can be anything two-colored or two-shaped you already have
  • Cross-domain: anticipating the opponent builds theory of mind and perspective-taking (“what is the OTHER player trying to do?”), the grid is a natural math layout (rows, columns, diagonals), and the format reinforces turn-taking and waiting (self-regulation)
  • Progression: play the rules and enjoy moves → notice “I almost got three” → block ONE obvious threat after it’s pointed out → block it independently → deliberately set up your own two-in-a-row → answer “if I go here, what will you do?” (one real move of look-ahead) → graduate to a bigger four-in-a-row grid or a simple blocking game

Sources

  • Crowley, K. & Siegler, R. S. (1993). “Flexible strategy use in young children’s tic-tac-toe.” Cognitive Science, 17(4), 531–561
  • DeVries, R. & Fernie, D. (1990). “Stages in children’s play of tic tac toe.” Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 4(2), 98–111
  • Sher, I., Koenig, M. & Rustichini, A. (2014). “Children’s strategic theory of mind.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 111(37), 13307–13312
  • Brocas, I. & Carrillo, J. D. (2018). “The determinants of strategic thinking in preschool children.” PLoS ONE, 13(5), e0195456
  • Wellman, H. M., Cross, D. & Watson, J. (2001). “Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief.” Child Development, 72(3), 655–684
  • Moffett, L., Moll, H. & FitzGibbon, L. (2018). “Future planning in preschool children.” Developmental Psychology, 54(5), 866–874
  • Head Start ELOF — Cognition: Reasoning and Problem-Solving (planning and anticipating outcomes)
  • CDC/AAP “Learn the Signs. Act Early.” — by 5 years: follows rules or takes turns when playing games
  • ASQ-3 (Ages & Stages Questionnaires) — 60-month Problem Solving domain
  • Piaget — Preoperational Stage (declining egocentrism limits holding two viewpoints at once)
  • Gardner — Logical-Mathematical intelligence