Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
"When you don't know what to play, wait for an idea to come into your opponent's mind. You may be sure that idea will be wrong" (Siegbert Tarrasch)
Vanilla 1.1.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
the "chicken" element ends up adding a bit of "reading other players" to a game, to see if they would fold or not. It isn't random, but based upon knowing whether or not your opponent fold.
That's true of rock-paper-scissors as well. It causes randomness, beacuse the optimal strategy involves secretly making a random decision. Trying to read people may work in Poker, but it doesn't work very well in r-p-s and it wouldn't in Richard Hutnik Chess either... Even if it did, does it belong in an abstract game?
vintermann, as I see it, if whatever is involved depends completely on the skills of a player, then it should be considered. Such things are better than perpetual draws, or having some randomizer decide things. In the case of the "chicken" element to when someone might fold, such isn't the same as rock-paper-scissors. For one thing, you can look at the board environment and tell where you stand.
What one is faced with is the issue of how do you make abstract strategy games more appealing to people who don't play them, to get interested in them. Do you keep doing what you are doing, which hasn't shown itself to work, or do you try something different?