Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
"My style is somewhere between that of Tal and Petrosian" (Reshevsky)
Vanilla 1.1.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I am just curious here. If you compare Rock Paper Scissors to the IAR, it comes up a 3. This means 2 for hidden information, and 1 for simultaneous play. Since there is no reference to game equipment, or positional play, as a measure (it was argue a more pure abstract strategy game doesn't use equipment). It is currently within the bounds of IAGO. Rock Paper Scissors doesn't really fit into any other category either. Is it really a party game?
What are people's thoughts here?
Is there any game that isn't within the bounds of IAGO?
Well, my 2 wargames and the pirates game I mentioned aren't IAGO games. I'd prefer that Paper, Scissors, Rock is not an IAGO game, but without some mention of board or pieces, it seems to just sneak in under the wire. Now, while 2 of the 3 non-IAGO games I've mentioned are themed, one wargame is so weakly themed and abstract that what keeps it out is Mark's "1 page of rules" criterion. Otherwise it gets a 3, and just makes it, as interpreted by the IAR. I think the page length rule is an excellent idea. I also think an IAR of 3 or less is an excellent idea, because some of my chess variants would be excluded by that same page length concept, and I don't feel legit chess variants should be excluded. So, what criteria can exclude PSR without killing what most agree are legit IAGO games?
Oof, I should probably write these things when I'm more awake - good night, all.
Mark, we have a list of genres that are excluded now. This includes the non-abstract strategy games you find here:
http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/game-genres
IAGO includes games that fits under the Mark Thompson criterion, and anything in the IAR 3 or less. It so happens now that RPS, is a game that has a three rating and sits right on the cusp. This is because of the voting against IAGO covering games that have a play area that can be manipulated. It was said that "more pure abstract strategy games don't use pieces" or something. End result is you have RPS as a game that could be in IAGO. It doesn't fit any other genre besides abstract strategy games. It is not a party game. It is not a filler.
RPS is actually more of a play mechanism that is referenced when discussion game theory and strategy. It is a totally unbounded environment where everything is based on what players do and nothing else. In this sense, the person arguing it is a "more pure abstract strategy game" would be correct.
My take here is, unless someone tweaks the IAR's values or adds a criterion for pieces in a play area (as I had originally), or totally change the acceptance process, there is no way you can say no to RPS. This is particularly true also, if you are going to allow games with RPS elements in it. Cases where players pick A, B or C option, and A beats B and B beats C and C beats A. Even if you had the boardgame based on RPS.
So, again to sum up, I see people have these options (feel free to list any I miss):
1. Accept RPS.
2. Show that RPS is something other than an abstract strategy game (another genre). This could mean adding another genre, and this doesn't mean one called "Misc." which is undefined but for people to subjectively add whatever they don't want in IAGO.
3. Show that under current IAR conditions, RPS has a score greater than three.
4. Show how the IAR can be rationally tweaked to make RPS have an IAR score greater than three. This could mean adding another category that limits IAGO games to manipulating pieces and/or a play area (board) which have relationships to one another.
5. Say games with an IAR rating of 3 or higher (not just higher than 3) are to be excluded from IAGO.
6. Totally come up with a new acceptance criterion that makes sense, works, and excludes RPS from it. This new approach must reasonably manage everything we have done so far.
These are the options as I see it. You can accept RPS, or you can do one of the five other options. I will let people mull over this awhile.
Says more about the IAR, doesn't it?
Rock-Paper-Scissors has only simultaneous moves, by the way. Simultaneous moves are equivalent to hidden information, but since you made that a different bullet point it's unreasonable to put RPS in both (unless you're going to put all simultaneous move games in hidden info as well).
It shouldn't be necessary to say, but RPS is not a game of skill either. It's a solved game, like tic-tac-toe. Only since it has hidden info, the optimal strategy is probabilistic rather than deterministic.
Add a 2 for skill
2, something other than mental skill is required for superior play at a game, e.g., physical dexterity, singing, etc. …
The something is luck, there are no 3 time world champion for RPS, and yes there are competitions with prize money.
http://www.worldrps.com/
Ok, so then RPS has an IAR of 1 then for hidden information, and then 2 (if you like) for other skills. It is still a 3. And it does say something about it. Luck has been pretty much defined here as elements plays have no control over.
Also, we don't have a ban on luck or perfect information. Also, RPS represents one aspect seen in games, that being the whole A beats B, B beats C, C beats A element. Stratego even has this. It is a loop around of values where everything can beat everything. You also see this in Stratego.
I am curious how one says whether or not a game is solvable if it is probabilistic, rather than deterministic. One could argue that about backgammon also, which fits on the IAR fine also, and has general been suggested as acceptable.
If you want it out, changes in the acceptance criterion need to be made so it is. This mainly is tweaking the IAR (or whatever else I said). I say it has to do with the board.
Now, let's say there is a RPS boardgame run like Stratego. You have 10 R, 10P and 10S units. They work the way RPS works, The object is to eliminate all units of one type of an opponent. With Stratego being in, then this game should be also, right? The units are hidden in the game, just like Stratego.
This sounds ok to me. Now, if this is allowed, then the only way you can have RPS not be in is if you contain yourself to games that actually have a play area and equipment (this knocks out Nomic). You have it either as a hard and fast rule in the abstract strategy genre definition, or make the IAR have a category for game equipment. Someone here argue that, "Oh we can't have positional play, because a more pure abstract strategy game doesn't use equipment". While theoretically a nice argument, it doesn't work practically.
So, do people feel that we should have abstract strategy games genre have a reference to pieces and a play area, or some other document in the acceptance process, to say that we uses pieces in a play area. RPS would then be out, but a game with pieces in a play area that uses RPS determination could be in. You can find it here:
http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/acceptance-process
Ok, you lose RPS, Nomic and the theoretical Glass Bead Game, which someone argues is the "purest possible abstract strategy game ever". But practically? When I originally had criterion for equipment in the IAR, it was done so that you could block possible oddball games like RPS, and have something solid. In reality, as I see it, pieces in a play area are the way you are able to manage strategic and tactical thinking while having perfect information. Pieces in a play area lay everything out in the open, which is perfect information.
And you loose Mate. Too bad. Something must be very wrong.
omweso, "piece" can be defined to included cards and have a relationship to another. Do people want IAGO to have games that actually use equipment of some sort, or do you want to hold out for some theoretical Glass Bead Game that doesn't use any equipment at all, and can change, like The Glass Bead Game by Herman Hesse? RPS doesn't use equipment of any sort. There is no equipment players can use to store game states. Mate has this.
Please review the IAR and decide here. Also, track down the original thread that discussed removing reference to equpiment as a criterion for the IAR (I can't find it). I believe we may need it back it. Please comment. And this can be accounting for games that use card and Mate.
How about ridicule points? Like how much IAGO, a purported abstract games organization, will be ridiculed for even remotely associating itself with Rock-Paper-Scissors?
The more this objectifying process is refined, the more futile it becomes. Every time you tweak IAR to include games you want, you're going to inadvertently include games you don't want. And every time you tweak it to exclude games you don't want, you're going to inadvertently exclude games you do want. The overarching criteria that seems to be revealing itself here is "games that you want", a subjective evaluation.
I think a little logic is in order here. This question of "How are we going to be able to objectively identify the games that we want?" is a pointless one. If you already know what games you want, then you don't need any kind of evaluative procedure to tell you what games you want. I really think that ultimately games are going to have to be evaluated subjectively. Whether that's done by Rich or by a committee doesn't really matter, but IAR has to go. Just outline some general genres and decide on the games that seem likely choices.
Mark, if the IAR gets booted out, then we are back to my categorization approach that has combinatorial and non-combinatorial abstract strategy games in it. If this is acceptable, we can go with this.
The IAR is supposed to be a last stop anyhow. It is supposed to be if a game is in any other genre (this means word games) it is not in IAGO. Then if a game is a combinatorial game it is in. After this, you then allow a defined set of differences here, and that is it. It was originally mine that it could deviate from one of the Thompson criterion and still be in. But the IAR is what people wanted to go with.
At this point, what we will likely end up having everything get regulated here by what is or is not in the IAGO World Tour. Once backgammon is in, then games like backgammon are allowed.
Anyhow, I wouldn't completely throw out the IAR. I still believe it is a useful tool, but it is not the end all and be all.
What I will say here is, can we come up with the right phrasing that an abstract strategy game by IAGO needs to involve game equipment in a play area? Even if it were cards as pieces, so be it. If a game doesn't involve this, it is not in. This means any athletic game would be out. As would RPS, and anything else.
Ok, I added this to the game genre Wiki doc:
In abstract strategy games, the objective of each player is to make game conditions more favorable while making them less favorable for their opponents. From an IAGO perspective, this is done by players manipulating pieces (pieces here can refer to actual pieces, or tiles or possibly cards). These pieces relate to one another and are used to represent game states that is a way to provide perfect information to all players in the game. If a game doesn't involve this, it is not considered an abstract strategy game from an IAGO perspective. Because of this, games like Nomic (or the theoretical Glass Bead Game or Rock, Paper, Scissors are excluded from IAGO). A game like Mate could be included, eventhough it is card based, due to it having perfect information, and no luck.
I am sorry for the person who thought that abstracts are more pure, because of the lack of equipment. Game equipment is referred to here and does refer to cards. The wording may need to be different. The equipment in there was essential to prevent oddball things happening. Feel free to comment here on this. Unless there are strong objections, this is staying in. End result will then be RPS is not in IAGO as an abstract strategy game, as neither is Nomic. IAGO covers games that involve play equipment in a play area. If you disagree, please speak up.
I disagree !
In Zertz, just pieces don't represent game state. You had to know who had to play. There's the same idea in go with ko-rule.
Why don't you say : "a human player can beat random" ?
If random is a good strategy, it's not a game, it's just a dice !! Playing RPS random is as good as you. That's the real problem.
Shoot, I hate to defend a game like RPS but yes, it is a game. Paradoxically the tactic is to simulate true randomness in your plays, making it difficult for your opponent to guess what your next play will be based on your prior sequence of plays, wins, and losses. Plus there's the physical element of controlling your tells.
In Zertz, the pieces record exactly the game status, and all related game information is out on the open. In Zertz, there is also offensive and defensive play also, right? Can you say that about RPS? Well, knowing your opponent is an essential element to a lot of games. It is what makes something a game, instead of a puzzle.
As of this point, I don't see where RPS would fit IAGO. Do people want IAGO to do RPS tournaments?
No.
I can see a BOARDGAME based around RPS with the pieces being RPS possibly. But there is no positional play or long-term strategy or relevant tactics with RPS. Well, that is my take on it at least.
Do we all agree now no RPS?
I agree, no RPS. I agree because it's too simplistic, a mere comparison of states chosen separately and effectively randomly from a population of 3 states total. There's very little "game" there. ;-)
Games where humans can currently play perfectly should never be considered for competitive play. This is the case for RPS (optimal strategy is to play randomly, this was proven by Nash in 1951), tic-tac-toe, the L game, tiny-board varieties of Go and Hex, traditional Gomoku (without the various exception rules), and quite a few "Mathemathical games" such as those collected by Martin Gardner. No matter how pure and elegant, these games will score big on Mark Steere's "laugh factor" if you ever do a tournament in them.
So no human-solved games, please.
"Human-solved" differs from mathematically solved?
Checkers is said to be "solved". I would assume you were excluding that.