Too many 'if' statements?

If you cannot come up with a formula, you can use a table for such a limited number of outcomes:

final int[][] result = new int[][] {
  { 0, 0, 1, 2 },
  { 0, 0, 2, 1 },
  { 2, 1, 3, 3 },
  { 1, 2, 3, 3 }
};
return result[one][two];

Since your data set is so small, you can compress everything into 1 long integer and turn it into a formula

public int fightMath(int one,int two)
{
   return (int)(0xF9F66090L >> (2*(one*4 + two)))%4;
}

More bitwise variant:

This makes use of the fact everything is a multiple of 2

public int fightMath(int one,int two)
{
   return (0xF9F66090 >> ((one << 3) | (two << 1))) & 0x3;
}

The Origin of the Magic Constant

What can I say? The world needs magic, sometimes the possibility of something calls for its creation.

The essence of the function that solves OP's problem is a map from 2 numbers (one,two), domain {0,1,2,3} to the range {0,1,2,3}. Each of the answers has approached how to implement that map.

Also, you can see in a number of the answers a restatement of the problem as a map of 1 2-digit base 4 number N(one,two) where one is digit 1, two is digit 2, and N = 4*one + two; N = {0,1,2,...,15} -- sixteen different values, that's important. The output of the function is one 1-digit base 4 number {0,1,2,3} -- 4 different values, also important.

Now, a 1-digit base 4 number can be expressed as a 2-digit base 2 number; {0,1,2,3} = {00,01,10,11}, and so each output can be encoded with only 2 bits. From above, there are only 16 different outputs possible, so 16*2 = 32 bits is all that is necessary to encode the entire map; this can all fit into 1 integer.

The constant M is an encoding of the map m where m(0) is encoded in bits M[0:1], m(1) is encoded in bits M[2:3], and m(n) is encoded in bits M[n*2:n*2+1].

All that remains is indexing and returning the right part of the constant, in this case you can shift M right 2*N times and take the 2 least significant bits, that is (M >> 2*N) & 0x3. The expressions (one << 3) and (two << 1) are just multiplying things out while noting that 2*x = x << 1 and 8*x = x << 3.

I don't like any of the solutions presented except for JAB's. None of the others make it easy to read the code and understand what is being computed.

Here's how I would write this code -- I only know C#, not Java, but you get the picture:

const bool t = true;
const bool f = false;
static readonly bool[,] attackResult = {
    { f, f, t, f }, 
    { f, f, f, t },
    { f, t, t, t },
    { t, f, t, t }
};
[Flags] enum HitResult 
{ 
    Neither = 0,
    PlayerOne = 1,
    PlayerTwo = 2,
    Both = PlayerOne | PlayerTwo
}
static HitResult ResolveAttack(int one, int two)
{
    return 
        (attackResult[one, two] ? HitResult.PlayerOne : HitResult.Neither) | 
        (attackResult[two, one] ? HitResult.PlayerTwo : HitResult.Neither);
}    

Now it is much more clear what is being computed here: this emphasizes that we are computing who gets hit by what attack, and returning both results.

However this could be even better; that Boolean array is somewhat opaque. I like the table lookup approach but I would be inclined to write it in such a way that made it clear what the intended game semantics were. That is, rather than "an attack of zero and a defense of one results in no hit", instead find a way to make the code more clearly imply "a low kick attack and a low block defense results in no hit". Make the code reflect the business logic of the game.

You can create matrix which contains results

int[][] results = {{0, 0, 1, 2}, {0, 0, 2, 1},{2, 1, 3, 3},{2, 1, 3, 3}};

When you want to get value you will use

public int fightMath(int one, int two) {
  return this.results[one][two]; 
}

Other people have already suggested my initial idea, the matrix method, but in addition to consolidating the if statements you can avoid some of what you have by making sure the arguments supplied are in the expected range and by using in-place returns (some coding standards I've seen enforce one-point-of-exit for functions, but I've found that multiple returns are very useful for avoiding arrow coding and with the prevalence of exceptions in Java there's not much point in strictly enforcing such a rule anyway as any uncaught exception thrown inside the method is a possible point of exit anyway). Nesting switch statements is a possibility, but for the small range of values you're checking here I find if statements to be more compact and not likely to result in much of a performance difference, especially if your program is turn-based rather than real-time.

public int fightMath(int one, int two) {
    if (one > 3 || one < 0 || two > 3 || two < 0) {
        throw new IllegalArgumentException("Result is undefined for arguments outside the range [0, 3]");
    }

    if (one <= 1) {
        if (two <= 1) return 0;
        if (two - one == 2) return 1;
        return 2; // two can only be 3 here, no need for an explicit conditional
    }

    // one >= 2
    if (two >= 2) return 3;
    if (two == 1) return 1;
    return 2; // two can only be 0 here
}

This does end up being less readable than it might otherwise be due to the irregularity of parts of the input->result mapping. I favor the matrix style instead due to its simplicity and how you can set up the matrix to make sense visually (though that is in part influenced by my memories of Karnaugh maps):

int[][] results = {{0, 0, 1, 2},
                   {0, 0, 2, 1},
                   {2, 1, 3, 3},
                   {2, 1, 3, 3}};

Update: Given your mention of blocking/hitting, here's a more radical change to the function that utilizes propertied/attribute-holding enumerated types for inputs and the result and also modifies the result a little to account for blocking, which should result in a more readable function.

enum MoveType {
    ATTACK,
    BLOCK;
}

enum MoveHeight {
    HIGH,
    LOW;
}

enum Move {
    // Enum members can have properties/attributes/data members of their own
    ATTACK_HIGH(MoveType.ATTACK, MoveHeight.HIGH),
    ATTACK_LOW(MoveType.ATTACK, MoveHeight.LOW),
    BLOCK_HIGH(MoveType.BLOCK, MoveHeight.HIGH),
    BLOCK_LOW(MoveType.BLOCK, MoveHeight.LOW);

    public final MoveType type;
    public final MoveHeight height;

    private Move(MoveType type, MoveHeight height) {
        this.type = type;
        this.height = height;
    }

    /** Makes the attack checks later on simpler. */
    public boolean isAttack() {
        return this.type == MoveType.ATTACK;
    }
}

enum LandedHit {
    NEITHER,
    PLAYER_ONE,
    PLAYER_TWO,
    BOTH;
}

LandedHit fightMath(Move one, Move two) {
    // One is an attack, the other is a block
    if (one.type != two.type) {
        // attack at some height gets blocked by block at same height
        if (one.height == two.height) return LandedHit.NEITHER;

        // Either player 1 attacked or player 2 attacked; whoever did
        // lands a hit
        if (one.isAttack()) return LandedHit.PLAYER_ONE;
        return LandedHit.PLAYER_TWO;
    }

    // both attack
    if (one.isAttack()) return LandedHit.BOTH;

    // both block
    return LandedHit.NEITHER;
}

You don't even have to change the function itself if you want to add blocks/attacks of more heights, just the enums; adding additional types of moves will probably require modification of the function, though. Also, EnumSets might be more extensible than using extra enums as properties of the main enum, e.g. EnumSet<Move> attacks = EnumSet.of(Move.ATTACK_HIGH, Move.ATTACK_LOW, ...); and then attacks.contains(move) rather than move.type == MoveType.ATTACK, though using EnumSets will probably be slightly slower than direct equals checks.

For the case where a successful block results in a counter, you can replace if (one.height == two.height) return LandedHit.NEITHER; with

if (one.height == two.height) {
    // Successful block results in a counter against the attacker
    if (one.isAttack()) return LandedHit.PLAYER_TWO;
    return LandedHit.PLAYER_ONE;
}

Also, replacing some of the if statements with usage of the ternary operator (boolean_expression ? result_if_true : result_if_false) could make the code more compact (for example, the code in the preceding block would become return one.isAttack() ? LandedHit.PLAYER_TWO : LandedHit.PLAYER_ONE;), but that can lead to harder-to-read oneliners so I wouldn't recommend it for more complex branching.

Why not use an array?

I will start from the beginning. I see a pattern, the values goes from 0 to 3 and you want catch all possible values. This is your table:

0 & 0 = 0
0 & 1 = 0
0 & 2 = 1
0 & 3 = 2
1 & 0 = 0
1 & 1 = 0
1 & 2 = 2
1 & 3 = 1
2 & 0 = 2
2 & 1 = 1
2 & 2 = 3
2 & 3 = 3
3 & 0 = 2
3 & 1 = 1
3 & 2 = 3
3 & 3 = 3

when we look at this same table binary we see the following results:

00 & 00 = 00
00 & 01 = 00
00 & 10 = 01
00 & 11 = 10
01 & 00 = 00
01 & 01 = 00
01 & 10 = 10
01 & 11 = 01
10 & 00 = 10
10 & 01 = 01
10 & 10 = 11
10 & 11 = 11
11 & 00 = 10
11 & 01 = 01
11 & 10 = 11
11 & 11 = 11

Now maybe you already see some pattern but when I combine value one and two I see that you're using all values 0000, 0001, 0010,..... 1110 and 1111. Now let's combine value one and two to make a single 4 bit integer.

0000 = 00
0001 = 00
0010 = 01
0011 = 10
0100 = 00
0101 = 00
0110 = 10
0111 = 01
1000 = 10
1001 = 01
1010 = 11
1011 = 11
1100 = 10
1101 = 01
1110 = 11
1111 = 11

When we translate this back into decimal values we see an very possible array of values where the one and two combined could be used as index:

0 = 0
1 = 0
2 = 1
3 = 2
4 = 0
5 = 0
6 = 2
7 = 1
8 = 2
9 = 1
10 = 3
11 = 3
12 = 2
13 = 1
14 = 3
15 = 3

The array is then {0, 0, 1, 2, 0, 0, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3, 3, 2, 1, 3, 3}, where it's index is simply one and two combined.

I'm not a Java programmer but you can get rid of all if statements and just write it down as something like this:

int[] myIntArray = {0, 0, 1, 2, 0, 0, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3, 3, 2, 1, 3, 3};
result = myIntArray[one * 4 + two]; 

I don't know if a bitshift by 2 is faster than multiplication. But it could be worth a try.

This uses a little bit of bitmagic (you're already doing it by holding two bits of information (low/high & attack/block) in a single integer):

I haven't run it, only typed it here, please doublecheck. The idea surely works. EDIT: It is now tested for every input, works fine.

public int fightMath(int one, int two) {
    if(one<2 && two<2){ //both players blocking
        return 0; // nobody hits
    }else if(one>1 && two>1){ //both players attacking
        return 3; // both hit
    }else{ // some of them attack, other one blocks
        int different_height = (one ^ two) & 1; // is 0 if they are both going for the same height - i.e. blocker wins, and 1 if height is different, thus attacker wins
        int attacker = one>1?1:0; // is 1 if one is the attacker, two is the blocker, and 0 if one is the blocker, two is the attacker
        return (attacker ^ different_height) + 1;
    }
}

Or should I suggest to separate the two bits of information into separate variables? Code based mostly on bit operations like this above is usually really hard to maintain.

To be quite honest, everyone has their own style of code. I wouldn't have thought performance would be affected too much. If you understand this better than using a switch case version, then carry on using this.

You could nest the ifs , so potentially there would be a slight performance increase for your last if checks as it wouldn't have gone through as many if statements. But in your context of a basic java course it probably won't benefit.

else if(one == 3 && two == 3) { result = 3; }

So, instead of...

if(one == 0 && two == 0) { result = 0; }
else if(one == 0 && two == 1) { result = 0; }
else if(one == 0 && two == 2) { result = 1; }
else if(one == 0 && two == 3) { result = 2; }

You'd do...

if(one == 0) 
{ 
    if(two == 0) { result = 0; }
    else if(two == 1) { result = 0; }
    else if(two == 2) { result = 1; }
    else if(two == 3) { result = 2; }
}

And just reformat it as you'd prefer.

This doesn't make the code look better, but potentially speeds it up a little I believe.

Let's see what we know

1: your answers are symmetrical for P1 (player one) and P2 (player two). This makes sense for a fighting game but is also something you can take advantage of to improve your logic.

2: 3 beats 0 beats 2 beats 1 beats 3. The only cases not covered by these cases are combinations of 0 vs 1 and 2 vs 3. To put it another way the unique victory table looks like this: 0 beats 2, 1 beats 3, 2 beats 1, 3 beats 0.

3: If 0/1 go up against each other then there's a hitless draw but if 2/3 go up against each then both hit

First, let us build a one-way function telling us if we won:

// returns whether we beat our opponent
public boolean doesBeat(int attacker, int defender) {
  int[] beats = {2, 3, 1, 0};
  return defender == beats[attacker];
}

We can then use this function to compose the final result:

// returns the overall fight result
// bit 0 = one hits
// bit 1 = two hits
public int fightMath(int one, int two)
{
  // Check to see whether either has an outright winning combo
  if (doesBeat(one, two))
    return 1;

  if (doesBeat(two, one))
    return 2;

  // If both have 0/1 then its hitless draw but if both have 2/3 then they both hit.
  // We can check this by seeing whether the second bit is set and we need only check
  // one's value as combinations where they don't both have 0/1 or 2/3 have already
  // been dealt with 
  return (one & 2) ? 3 : 0;
}

While this is arguably more complex and probably slower than the table lookup offered in many answers I believe it is a superior method because it actually encapsulates the logic of your code and describes it to anyone who's reading your code. I think this makes it a better implementation.

(It's been a while since I did any Java so apologies if the syntax is off, hopefully it is still intelligible if I've got it slightly wrong)

By the way, 0-3 clearly mean something; they're not arbitrary values so it would help to name them.

I hope I understand the logic correctly. How about something like:

public int fightMath (int one, int two)
{
    int oneHit = ((one == 3 && two != 1) || (one == 2 && two != 0)) ? 1 : 0;
    int twoHit = ((two == 3 && one != 1) || (two == 2 && one != 0)) ? 2 : 0;

    return oneHit+twoHit;
}

Checking one hit high or one hit low is not blocked and the same for player two.

Edit: Algorithm was not fully understood, "hit" awarded when blocking which I did not realize (Thx elias):

public int fightMath (int one, int two)
{
    int oneAttack = ((one == 3 && two != 1) || (one == 2 && two != 0)) ? 1 : (one >= 2) ? 2 : 0;
    int twoAttack = ((two == 3 && one != 1) || (two == 2 && one != 0)) ? 2 : (two >= 2) ? 1 : 0;

    return oneAttack | twoAttack;
}

I don't have experience with Java so there might be some typos. Please consider the code as pseudo-code.

I'd go with a simple switch. For that, you'd need a single number evaluation. However, for this case, since 0 <= one < 4 <= 9 and 0 <= two < 4 <= 9, we can convert both ints to a simple int by multiplying one by 10 and adding two. Then use a switch in the resulting number like this:

public int fightMath(int one, int two) {
    // Convert one and two to a single variable in base 10
    int evaluate = one * 10 + two;

    switch(evaluate) {
        // I'd consider a comment in each line here and in the original code
        // for clarity
        case 0: result = 0; break;
        case 1: result = 0; break;
        case 1: result = 0; break;
        case 2: result = 1; break;
        case 3: result = 2; break;
        case 10: result = 0; break;
        case 11: result = 0; break;
        case 12: result = 2; break;
        case 13: result = 1; break;
        case 20: result = 2; break;
        case 21: result = 1; break;
        case 22: result = 3; break;
        case 23: result = 3; break;
        case 30: result = 1; break;
        case 31: result = 2; break;
        case 32: result = 3; break;
        case 33: result = 3; break;
    }

    return result;
}

There's another short method that I just want to point out as a theoretical code. However I wouldn't use it because it has some extra complexity that you don't normally want to deal with. The extra complexity comes from the base 4, because the counting is 0, 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, ...

public int fightMath(int one, int two) {
    // Convert one and two to a single variable in base 4
    int evaluate = one * 4 + two;

    allresults = new int[] { 0, 0, 1, 2, 0, 0, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3, 3, 1, 2, 3, 3 };

    return allresults[evaluate];
}

Really just additional note, in case I'm missing something from Java. In PHP I'd do:

function fightMath($one, $two) {
    // Convert one and two to a single variable in base 4
    $evaluate = $one * 10 + $two;

    $allresults = array(
         0 => 0,  1 => 0,  2 => 1,  3 => 2,
        10 => 0, 11 => 0, 12 => 2, 13 => 1,
        20 => 2, 21 => 1, 22 => 3, 23 => 3,
        30 => 1, 31 => 2, 32 => 3, 33 => 3 );

    return $allresults[$evaluate];
}

Since you prefer nested if conditionals , here's another way.
Note that it doesn't use the result member and it doesn't change any state.

public int fightMath(int one, int two) {
    if (one == 0) {
      if (two == 0) { return 0; }
      if (two == 1) { return 0; }
      if (two == 2) { return 1; }
      if (two == 3) { return 2; }
    }   
    if (one == 1) {
      if (two == 0) { return 0; }
      if (two == 1) { return 0; }
      if (two == 2) { return 2; }
      if (two == 3) { return 1; }
    }
    if (one == 2) {
      if (two == 0) { return 2; }
      if (two == 1) { return 1; }
      if (two == 2) { return 3; }
      if (two == 3) { return 3; }
    }
    if (one == 3) {
      if (two == 0) { return 1; }
      if (two == 1) { return 2; }
      if (two == 2) { return 3; }
      if (two == 3) { return 3; }
    }
    return DEFAULT_RESULT;
}

Try it with switch casing...

Take a look here or here for more info about it

switch (expression)
{ 
  case constant:
        statements;
        break;
  [ case constant-2:
        statements;
        break;  ] ...
  [ default:
        statements;
        break;  ] ...
}

You can add multiple conditions(not simultaneously) to it and even have a default option where no other cases have been satisfied.

PS: Only if one condition is to be satisfied..

If 2 conditions arise simultaneously.. I don't think switch can be used. But you can reduce your code here.

Java switch statement multiple cases

The first thing that occurred to me was essentially the same answer given by Francisco Presencia, but optimized somewhat:

public int fightMath(int one, int two)
{
    switch (one*10 + two)
    {
    case  0:
    case  1:
    case 10:
    case 11:
        return 0;
    case  2:
    case 13:
    case 21:
    case 30:
        return 1;
    case  3:
    case 12:
    case 20:
    case 31:
        return 2;
    case 22:
    case 23:
    case 32:
    case 33:
        return 3;
    }
}

You could further optimize it by making the last case (for 3) the default case:

    //case 22:
    //case 23:
    //case 32:
    //case 33:
    default:
        return 3;

The advantage of this method is that it is easier to see which values for one and two correspond to which return values than some of the other suggested methods.

((two&2)*(1+((one^two)&1))+(one&2)*(2-((one^two)&1)))/2

You may use a switch case instead of mutiple if

Also to mention that since you have two variables then you have to merge the two variables to use them in switch

Check this Java switch statement to handle two variables?

As I draw a table between one/two and the result, I see one pattern,

if(one<2 && two <2) result=0; return;

The above would cut down atleast 3 if statements. I don't see a set pattern nor I am able to glean much from the code given - but if such logic can be derived, it would cut down a number of if statements.

Hope this helps.

A good point would be to define the rules as text, you can easier derive the correct formula then. This is extracted from laalto's nice array representation:

{ 0, 0, 1, 2 },
{ 0, 0, 2, 1 },
{ 2, 1, 3, 3 },
{ 1, 2, 3, 3 }

And here we go with some general comments, but you should describe them in rule terms:

if(one<2) // left half
{
    if(two<2) // upper left half
    {
        result = 0; //neither hits
    }
    else // lower left half
    {
        result = 1+(one+two)%2; //p2 hits if sum is even
    }
}
else // right half
{
    if(two<2) // upper right half
    {
        result = 1+(one+two+1)%2; //p1 hits if sum is even
    }
    else // lower right half
    {
        return 3; //both hit
    }
}

You could of course crunch this down to less code, but it is generally a good idea to understand what you code rather than finding a compact solution.

if((one<2)&&(two<2)) result = 0; //top left
else if((one>1)&&(two>1)) result = 3; //bottom right
else result = 1+(one+two+((one>1)?1:0))%2; //no idea what that means

Some explanation on the complicated p1/p2 hits would be great, looks interesting!

The shortest and still readable solution:

static public int fightMath(int one, int two)
{
    if (one < 2 && two < 2) return 0;
    if (one > 1 && two > 1) return 3;
    int n = (one + two) % 2;
    return one < two ? 1 + n : 2 - n;
}

or even shorter:

static public int fightMath(int one, int two)
{
    if (one / 2 == two / 2) return (one / 2) * 3;
    return 1 + (one + two + one / 2) % 2;
}

Doesn't contain any "magic" numbers ;) Hope it helps.

I personally like to cascade ternary operators:

int result = condition1
    ? result1
    : condition2
    ? result2
    : condition3
    ? result3
    : resultElse;

But in your case, you can use:

final int[] result = new int[/*16*/] {
    0, 0, 1, 2,
    0, 0, 2, 1,
    2, 1, 3, 3,
    1, 2, 3, 3
};

public int fightMath(int one, int two) {
    return result[one*4 + two];
}

Or, you can notice a pattern in bits:

one   two   result

section 1: higher bits are equals =>
both result bits are equals to that higher bits

00    00    00
00    01    00
01    00    00
01    01    00
10    10    11
10    11    11
11    10    11
11    11    11

section 2: higher bits are different =>
lower result bit is inverse of lower bit of 'two'
higher result bit is lower bit of 'two'

00    10    01
00    11    10
01    10    10
01    11    01
10    00    10
10    01    01
11    00    01
11    01    10

So you can use magic:

int fightMath(int one, int two) {
    int b1 = one & 2, b2 = two & 2;
    if (b1 == b2)
        return b1 | (b1 >> 1);

    b1 = two & 1;

    return (b1 << 1) | (~b1);
}

Here's a fairly concise version, similar to JAB's response. This utilises a map to store which moves triumph over others.

public enum Result {
  P1Win, P2Win, BothWin, NeitherWin;
}

public enum Move {
  BLOCK_HIGH, BLOCK_LOW, ATTACK_HIGH, ATTACK_LOW;

  static final Map<Move, List<Move>> beats = new EnumMap<Move, List<Move>>(
      Move.class);

  static {
    beats.put(BLOCK_HIGH, new ArrayList<Move>());
    beats.put(BLOCK_LOW, new ArrayList<Move>());
    beats.put(ATTACK_HIGH, Arrays.asList(ATTACK_LOW, BLOCK_LOW));
    beats.put(ATTACK_LOW, Arrays.asList(ATTACK_HIGH, BLOCK_HIGH));
  }

  public static Result compare(Move p1Move, Move p2Move) {
    boolean p1Wins = beats.get(p1Move).contains(p2Move);
    boolean p2Wins = beats.get(p2Move).contains(p1Move);

    if (p1Wins) {
      return (p2Wins) ? Result.BothWin : Result.P1Win;
    }
    if (p2Wins) {
      return (p1Wins) ? Result.BothWin : Result.P2Win;
    }

    return Result.NeitherWin;
  }
} 

Example:

System.out.println(Move.compare(Move.ATTACK_HIGH, Move.BLOCK_LOW));

Prints:

P1Win

I'd use a Map, either a HashMap or a TreeMap

Especially if the parameters are not on the form 0 <= X < N

Like a set of random positive integers ..

Code

public class MyMap
{
    private TreeMap<String,Integer> map;

    public MyMap ()
    {
        map = new TreeMap<String,Integer> ();
    }

    public void put (int key1, int key2, Integer value)
    {
        String key = (key1+":"+key2);

        map.put(key, new Integer(value));
    }

    public Integer get (int key1, int key2)
    {
        String key = (key1+":"+key2);

        return map.get(key);
    }
}

static int val(int i, int u){ int q = (i & 1) ^ (u & 1); return ((i >> 1) << (1 ^ q))|((u >> 1) << q); }

Thanks to @Joe Harper as I ended up using a variation of his answer. To slim it down further as 2 results per 4 were the same I slimmed it down further.

I may come back to this at some point, but if there's no major resistance caused by multiple if-statements then I'll keep this for now. I will look into the table matrix and switch statement solutions further.

public int fightMath(int one, int two) {
  if (one === 0) {
    if (two === 2) { return 1; }
    else if(two === 3) { return 2; }
    else { return 0; }
  } else if (one === 1) {
    if (two === 2) { return 2; }
    else if (two === 3) { return 1; }
    else { return 0; }
  } else if (one === 2) {
    if (two === 0) { return 2; }
    else if (two === 1) { return 1; }
    else { return 3; }
  } else if (one === 3) {
    if (two === 0) { return 1; }
    else if (two === 1) { return 2; }
    else { return 3; }
  }
}

Use constants or enums to make the code more readable Try to split the code into more functions Try to use the symmetry of the problem

Here is a suggestion how this could look like, but using an ints here is still kind of ugly:

static final int BLOCK_HIGH = 0;
static final int BLOCK_LOW = 1;
static final int ATTACK_HIGH = 2;
static final int ATTACK_LOW = 3;

public static int fightMath(int one, int two) {
    boolean player1Wins = handleAttack(one, two);
    boolean player2Wins = handleAttack(two, one);
    return encodeResult(player1Wins, player2Wins); 
}



private static boolean handleAttack(int one, int two) {
     return one == ATTACK_HIGH && two != BLOCK_HIGH
        || one == ATTACK_LOW && two != BLOCK_LOW
        || one == BLOCK_HIGH && two == ATTACK_HIGH
        || one == BLOCK_LOW && two == ATTACK_LOW;

}

private static int encodeResult(boolean player1Wins, boolean player2Wins) {
    return (player1Wins ? 1 : 0) + (player2Wins ? 2 : 0);
}

It would be nicer to use a structured type for the input and the output. The input actually has two fields: the position and the type (block or attack). The output also has two fields: player1Wins and player2Wins. Encoding this into a single integer makes it harder to read the code.

class PlayerMove {
    PlayerMovePosition pos;
    PlayerMoveType type;
}

enum PlayerMovePosition {
    HIGH,LOW
}

enum PlayerMoveType {
    BLOCK,ATTACK
}

class AttackResult {
    boolean player1Wins;
    boolean player2Wins;

    public AttackResult(boolean player1Wins, boolean player2Wins) {
        this.player1Wins = player1Wins;
        this.player2Wins = player2Wins;
    }
}

AttackResult fightMath(PlayerMove a, PlayerMove b) {
    return new AttackResult(isWinningMove(a, b), isWinningMove(b, a));
}

boolean isWinningMove(PlayerMove a, PlayerMove b) {
    return a.type == PlayerMoveType.ATTACK && !successfulBlock(b, a)
            || successfulBlock(a, b);
}

boolean successfulBlock(PlayerMove a, PlayerMove b) {
    return a.type == PlayerMoveType.BLOCK 
            && b.type == PlayerMoveType.ATTACK 
            && a.pos == b.pos;
}

Unfortunately, Java is not very good at expressing those kinds of data-types.

Instead do something like this

   public int fightMath(int one, int two) {
    return Calculate(one,two)

    }


    private int Calculate(int one,int two){

    if (one==0){
        if(two==0){
     //return value}
    }else if (one==1){
   // return value as per condtiion
    }

    }