For every countable wellordering $\alpha $ greater than $\omega $ , it is shown that clopen determinacy for games of length $\alpha $ with moves in $\mathbb {N}$ is equivalent to determinacy for a class of shorter games, but with more complicated payoff. In particular, it is shown that clopen determinacy for games of length $\omega ^2$ is equivalent to $\sigma $ -projective determinacy for games of length $\omega $ and that clopen determinacy for games of length $\omega ^3$ is equivalent to determinacy for games of length $\omega ^2$ in the smallest $\sigma $ -algebra on $\mathbb {R}$ containing all open sets and closed under the real game quantifier.

We determine the consistency strength of determinacy for projective games of length ω2. Our main theorem is that $\Pi _{n + 1}^1 $-determinacy for games of length ω2 implies the existence of a model of set theory with ω + n Woodin cardinals. In a first step, we show that this hypothesis implies that there is a countable set of reals A such that Mn (A), the canonical inner model for n Woodin cardinals constructed over A, satisfies $$A = R$$ and the Axiom of Determinacy. Then we argue how to obtain a model with ω + n Woodin cardinal from this.

We also show how the proof can be adapted to investigate the consistency strength of determinacy for games of length ω2 with payoff in $^R R\Pi _1^1 $ or with σ-projective payoff.

We analyze combinatorial properties of open covers of sets of real numbers by using filters on the natural numbers. In fact, the goal of this paper is to characterize known properties related to ω-covers of the space in terms of combinatorial properties of filters associated with these ω-covers. As an example, we show that all finite powers of a set of real numbers have the covering property of Menger if, and only if, each filter on ω associated with its countable ω-cover is a P+ filter.

“Recursive” games were first defined and studied by Everett. Related results can be found in Gillette, Milnor and Shapley, and Blackwell and Ferguson. In this paper we introduce the notion of a recursive matrix game, which we believe eliminates the vagueness but none of the useful generality of the earlier definition. We then give an inductive proof (different from the proof in [3]) that these games have a value, with ∊-optimal stationary strategies available to each player. We also apply the result and show how a class of games studied in a different framework are games of this type and thus have a value.