The author of this page, about a simple game (Chomp) http://plus.maths.org/content/mathematical-mysteries-chomp makes the following statement: "One of the players is sure to have a winning strategy. This is easy to see, because the game must finish in finitely many moves, and can't be drawn."
Is that "easy to see"? It doesn't seem obvious to me that a finite game that cannot be drawn must have a winning strategy for one player or the other.
I dare say it's not the first time in my life I've failed to see the obvious, but I'd be interested to see a proof of this assertion.
Suppose that the second person does not have a winning strategy, then the first person must have a move which does not lose. After two moves we cannot have a winning position for the second player. We are therefore back in a position where the second player does not have a winning strategy.
Since the game is finite and determinate, and we never reach a position which is a win for the second player, the first player must win.