For a Certain Value of Perfect
Quadibloc
played much as a recreation by ordinary people, as they are
intimidated by learning the different moves of the different pieces.
The form of checkers played in the English-speaking world has suffered
so much from stereotyped opening play that even the three-move
restriction is proving insufficient.
If one is looking for a game of pure skill, there are alternatives.
People could play the Continental form of checkers, on the 10 by 10
board.
They could play Go (Wei Ch'i, Baduk).
Why, they could even play Parker Brothers' proprietary game of
Camelot!
But, since none of those alternatives has taken the world by storm...
Inspired by Camelot, by Halma, by Go, by Nine Men's Morris, by
Backgammon, and even Reversi, on my web page at
http://www.quadibloc.com/other/bo0108.htm
I describe a game of skill highly resistant to stereotyped play, which
also has an attractive brightly-colored board. However, I suspect it
may have other failings, even so...
John Savard
Torben Ægidius Mogensen
> Chess has too many draws. In the English-speaking world, it isn't
> played much as a recreation by ordinary people, as they are
> intimidated by learning the different moves of the different pieces.
I don't think this is much of an issue. I think people are more
intimidated by the fact that the opening game has been so extensively
analysed that you need to spend huge amounts of time to play at even a
reasonable level. Learning the rules is the least part.
> The form of checkers played in the English-speaking world has suffered
> so much from stereotyped opening play that even the three-move
> restriction is proving insufficient.
This too, is a symptom of an over-analyzed opening game. In both cases,
this is caused by a modest branching factor in the opening game, which
makes such analysis possible.
> If one is looking for a game of pure skill, there are alternatives.
>
> People could play the Continental form of checkers, on the 10 by 10
> board.
This is slightly better, but still the branching factor is small.
> They could play Go (Wei Ch'i, Baduk).
Go, on the other hand, has a huge branching factor. But the scale of
the game intimidates a lot of potential players.
> Why, they could even play Parker Brothers' proprietary game of
> Camelot!
Which, I'm afraid I don't know (not being from the US).
> But, since none of those alternatives has taken the world by storm...
>
> Inspired by Camelot, by Halma, by Go, by Nine Men's Morris, by
> Backgammon, and even Reversi, on my web page at
>
> http://www.quadibloc.com/other/bo0108.htm
>
> I describe a game of skill highly resistant to stereotyped play, which
> also has an attractive brightly-colored board. However, I suspect it
> may have other failings, even so...
I see that you explicitly want to avoid extensive opening game analysis,
which I think is good. I'm not sure colours matter so much -- many
people would be more attracted to a game with wooden or stone pieces
than a game with many colours. Also, using many colours limits
playability by colour-blind people.
Apart from that, my only dislike is that the game consists of two quite
different phases, but that the game can effectively be decided already
in the first. I don't mind games where you first construct a board from
tiles and then play it, but the board construction should mainly give
variation rather than a potential advantage to one side. An example of
this is Settlers of Catan, where the randomized layout gives variation
(and limits opening analysis). Settlers also uses dice and is best
played by more than two players, so it is not quite in the same category
as the games you describe.
One game I thought up some years ago with much the same intention as you
(making a visually pleasing game that is simple to learn but defeats
memorizing opening plays) is a variant of Go:
1. You build a board using the rhombic variant of Penrose tiles (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_tiling#Rhombus_tiling_.28P3.29).
2. You then play a normal game of Go on this board.
The Penrose tiles each have four sides, so each space on the board will
have four openings (unless at the edge) like in the normal Go game.
However, the overall geometry is very different and non-periodic, so you
can not remember patterns in the same way as in normal Go.
You don't want a very large board, so one made from 29 thin tiles and 47
thick tiles should be enough. You can construct the board by having
players take turns placing tiles with the rule that a new tile must
touch as many of the already played tiles as possible. To avoid
analysis in board construction, you can randomly determine which kind of
tile is used next. For example, you can roll a d10 and select a thin
tile on 0-3 and a thick tile on 4-9 (until only one type remains).
Torben
Quadibloc
wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> > Chess has too many draws. In the English-speaking world, it isn't
> > played much as a recreation by ordinary people, as they are
> > intimidated by learning the different moves of the different pieces.
> I don't think this is much of an issue. I think people are more
> intimidated by the fact that the opening game has been so extensively
> analysed that you need to spend huge amounts of time to play at even a
> reasonable level. Learning the rules is the least part.
You have a very valid point; this also does intimidate people. But it
does so at a different level.
What I'm referring to here is the fact that in Continental Europe,
chess is sometimes played as an ordinary family board game just for
fun, just like checkers or backgammon. In the English-speaking world,
chess is almost nonexistent in that role, while checkers is routinely
taught by parents to young children.
> > The form of checkers played in the English-speaking world has suffered
> > so much from stereotyped opening play that even the three-move
> > restriction is proving insufficient.
>
> This too, is a symptom of an over-analyzed opening game. In both cases,
> this is caused by a modest branching factor in the opening game, which
> makes such analysis possible.
>
> > If one is looking for a game of pure skill, there are alternatives.
>
> > People could play the Continental form of checkers, on the 10 by 10
> > board.
>
> This is slightly better, but still the branching factor is small.
Given that the branching factor is also small - despite being enlarged
somewhat not just by the larger board, but by the different capturing
rule - why hasn't this game met the same fate as the English form of
draughts or checkers?
My suspicion is that checkers was played more intensively in the
English-speaking world because chess had a much more limited cultural
visibility; on the Continent, almost anyone wanting to play a board
game to a high level of seriousness would switch from checkers to
chess - while in the English-speaking world in general, and perhaps in
Scotland in particular, checkers was popular but chess was virtually
nonexistent.
> > They could play Go (Wei Ch'i, Baduk).
>
> Go, on the other hand, has a huge branching factor. But the scale of
> the game intimidates a lot of potential players.
This is true. And, as well, it is "foreign". So, while there are cheap
plastic chess sets and cheap plastic checkers sets, and cheap plastic
backgammon sets, for that matter, and checkers is included in
collections of 50 different family games (but chess usually isn't
here) only somewhat fancier Go sets are available.
> > Why, they could even play Parker Brothers' proprietary game of
> > Camelot!
>
> Which, I'm afraid I don't know (not being from the US).
Well, you can find out:
http://www.quadibloc.com/other/bo0104.htm
> I'm not sure colours matter so much -- many
> people would be more attracted to a game with wooden or stone pieces
> than a game with many colours.
This somewhat relates to the earlier points you made about chess that
I disputed somewhat. My paradigm is for a game that is capable of
being attractive to *small children* despite being printed on a square
sheet of cardboard, folded in the middle, with a few plastic pieces in
the package.
Think of Ludo or Parcheesi.
So I am thinking of the child with a brightly-colored board for Ludo,
rather than the adult hefting a marble Rook. Again, the idea is that
the games people learn as children are the ones that are a "part" of
the prevailing culture.
> Also, using many colours limits
> playability by colour-blind people.
That is a point. I hadn't gotten to the point of addressing
accessibility issues, although I did consider the most common form of
color-blindness, red-green color blindness, in my choice of how the
colors were assigned.
The green tiles could be green with a blue border, and the orange
tiles could be orange with a red border; this would make the
chequering of the board easier to see, and the squares belonging to
each of the two players could then be distinguished by relying on only
the two colors red and blue.
Since both red and blue are dark colors, though, this is still a
problem in the case of total color-blindness, and if chequering takes
precedence and gets the light/dark dimension, there does seem to be
little alternative.
However, one could give the red and blue tiles orange and green
borders as well - and both red and orange tiles would have, say, a
circular or octagonal central region, while blue and green tiles a
square central region.
> Apart from that, my only dislike is that the game consists of two quite
> different phases,
I agree here; I also think that this is the most serious flaw in the
game.
> but that the game can effectively be decided already
> in the first.
Here, I have the opposite worry; that the first phase is more
intellectually demanding than the second phase... but that it might
well be likely to have only a limited influence on the decision of the
game. (Tiles can only be flipped from the opponent's color to neutral;
one's own pieces can still be captured on the neutral squares - the
difference is that capture is compulsory, and the opponent's pieces
can also be captured. So one can't create a board where one's own
pieces are immune to capture.) If that is the case, I see that as an
even worse flaw.
> One game I thought up some years ago with much the same intention as you
> (making a visually pleasing game that is simple to learn but defeats
> memorizing opening plays) is a variant of Go:
>
> 1. You build a board using the rhombic variant of Penrose tiles (see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_tiling#Rhombus_tiling_.28P3.29
> ).
Oh, I don't have to go that far afield.
See
http://www.quadibloc.com/math/pen01.htm
> 2. You then play a normal game of Go on this board.
>
> The Penrose tiles each have four sides, so each space on the board will
> have four openings (unless at the edge) like in the normal Go game.
> However, the overall geometry is very different and non-periodic, so you
> can not remember patterns in the same way as in normal Go.
I have heard of that game idea somewhere. Even with the matching rules
for tiles, though, it's possible to work oneself into a corner when
constructing a tiling one tile at a time.
In any case, I am thankful that you took the time to reply to my post.
I hope that my own response has clarified the thinking behind some of
my original points.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> On Nov 20, 9:08 am, torb...@pc-003.diku.dk (Torben Ægidius Mogensen)
> wrote:
> > Also, using many colours limits
> > playability by colour-blind people.
>
> That is a point. I hadn't gotten to the point of addressing
> accessibility issues, although I did consider the most common form of
> color-blindness, red-green color blindness, in my choice of how the
> colors were assigned.
>
> The green tiles could be green with a blue border, and the orange
> tiles could be orange with a red border; this would make the
> chequering of the board easier to see, and the squares belonging to
> each of the two players could then be distinguished by relying on only
> the two colors red and blue.
>
> Since both red and blue are dark colors, though, this is still a
> problem in the case of total color-blindness, and if chequering takes
> precedence and gets the light/dark dimension, there does seem to be
> little alternative.
>
> However, one could give the red and blue tiles orange and green
> borders as well - and both red and orange tiles would have, say, a
> circular or octagonal central region, while blue and green tiles a
> square central region.
I have now added an illustration showing how this might be
implemented, again on the page
http://www.quadibloc.com/other/bo0108.htm
Some may feel I have unleashed a horror of clashing colors upon the
world, though.
John Savard
Harald Korneliussen
> My suspicion is that checkers was played more intensively in the
> English-speaking world because chess had a much more limited cultural
> visibility; on the Continent, almost anyone wanting to play a board
> game to a high level of seriousness would switch from checkers to
> chess - while in the English-speaking world in general, and perhaps in
> Scotland in particular, checkers was popular but chess was virtually
> nonexistent.
I don't think Draughts was played more in English-speaking countries.
For their common history, Chess has been the upper class game, and
Draughts for the lower classes. But in Netherlands, where they got a
middle class some hundred years ahead of the rest of us, they
preferred Draughts. France also, I think, had more of a middle class
earlier than Britain (heh, does Britain have a middle class even
today? ;-) and in any case, after the revolution a game which was more
"of the people" might get its own kind of high status.
Draughts was also far more popular in the Soviet Union than in the
west.
Torben Ægidius Mogensen
> On Nov 20, 9:08�am, torb...@pc-003.diku.dk (Torben �gidius Mogensen)
> wrote:
>> One game I thought up some years ago with much the same intention as you
>> (making a visually pleasing game that is simple to learn but defeats
>> memorizing opening plays) is a variant of Go:
>>
>> �1. You build a board using the rhombic variant of Penrose tiles (see
>> � �http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_tiling#Rhombus_tiling_.28P3.29
>> ).
>>
>> �2. You then play a normal game of Go on this board.
>>
> I have heard of that game idea somewhere.
I posted this idea some years ago, probably on this very list.
> Even with the matching rules
> for tiles, though, it's possible to work oneself into a corner when
> constructing a tiling one tile at a time.
If by "painting yourself into a corner" you mean that it is possible to
make holes that can not be filled, I agree. But you can still play the
Go-like 2nd phase on a board with holes.
Torben