This document covers the criterion by which a game is accepted by IAGO and considered an abstract strategy game. This document is currently a work in process. It is based upon the work by a J. Thompson and the basis of his definitions of abstract article.
The predominate games of IAGO are combinatorial in nature (perfect information, no chance, and playable by two players), along with some other factors.
To sum up, standard abstract strategy games for IAGO are based around combinatorial game theory, and other related factors that are described below:
1. Perfect information all the time. Game does not require memorization, or induction or deductive reasoning, to figure out or understand any aspect of the play environment. Memorization may be used, as in the case of chess, where people recall prior lines of play to evaluate current positions.
2. No chance element introduced (no use of dice, cards or dominoes drawn).
Definition of chance has to do with any element not controlled by players in the game. Chance elements here besides the expected, EXCLUDES randomized layout of player pieces that are symmetric in layout. In cases where randomly generated asymmetric layouts of the board and starting arrangement of pieces is asymmetric, then this position, in accordance with 2b below, is treated as a known unbalanced position.
2b. In cases where sides are known unbalanced (and known to be unbalanced), non-random methods for side determination is to be used. This method can include playing all sides of the same position (in tournaments where a game is played multiple times) or use of a pie rule (one player makes the first move and then the second player decides which side to play). Another example of pie-rule usage would be for the start player to handicap one side or the other on time, and the other player then picks sides. These are a few examples, and do not exclude other methods may be used that are not random for determining which sides are played by players and turn order.
3. Only two teams or players. No more than two sides (either teams or players).
4. Skill at a game depends only upon a person's cognitive skills. Elements such as the ability to read people, physical dexterity, being political, size of vocabulary, or verbally articulate are irrelevant to success or failure at standard abstract strategy games. Cognitive skills involves such things as creativity, recall prior games with similar positions, mental endurance, developing strategy, and deciding which tactics are best. If a game requires any other elements besides basic cognitive skills for mastery, then it isn't considered a standard abstract strategy game.
5. Simplicity of rules. 1 pages maximum size for rules, with diagrams.
5a. All rules involve the play mechanics and none of the rules in the game are to account for chrome or theming. The extent of chrome or theming may involve the game objectives, or the name of the pieces. In other words, every rule for the game is for game play purposes, and none for theming purposes.
6. Typically abstract strategy games involve pieces on spaces or in a tiling manner (game such as Hive), and their relationship positionally to one another is a basis for the play area. In other words, all pieces are able to occupy discrete spaces that remain consistent throughout an entire game (even if the space isn't visible or on a board. While this is not a hard rule for acceptance as an IAGO abstract strategy game, most games will conform to this, however this is not reflected in the IAR.
Note, at this present time, a game can be accepted into IAGO, as a non-standard (non-combinatorial) abstract if has an IAR of 3 or less. If a game has an IAR higher than 3, it is not an IAGO recognized abstract strategy game (standard or non-standard). Below is a list of categories that cause a game to increase its IAR rating. While this criterion is somewhat arbitrary, it is needed. This is to prevent too much deviation to cause too much watering down of IAGO represents. Here is a list of the categories of deviation which can cause the IAR rating to increase:
1. Hidden information (Fog of War): This is for games that involve imperfect information. Games where conditions of the play environment are known to exist, but their attributes are not known. For a game to be here as an exception, the only hidden information has to do with the attributes of pieces in play. This includes nature of a piece in question (Stratego) and/or its location (Kriegspiel). No other form of hidden information is accepted. In this also, at least one of the players in the game must know the nature of the pieces in play, with the exception of games where players randomly draw and place pieces onto the board strategically. This last exception fits into the random category (this last category would mean no other form of hidden information is to be combined with it).
2. Randomness: This has to do with an unpredictable element that no player controls and is part of the game. These are the only standards by which randomness is permitted for an IAGO approved game (as a non-standard abstract):
a. Initial set up of board configuration (Through the Desert is an example of this and/or pieces (Chess960 or Checker randomized 3-Move opening are examples of this). In cases where players control the configuration of the board layout in a fair manner, before sides are selected, it is not considered a random board configuration.
b. Determining turn order at start of game. Turn order throughout game is either fixed or determined by some non-random method during a game.
c. Selecting which piece a player may either move or place on a board (random draw), in cases where the positions may offer a side a large advantage.
d. Selecting how far a piece may move (as in backgammon).
e. In rare exception, non-deterministic results of a player's action.
2b. Unfair balance from either static or randomly determined set up: In these cases, the preferred method to resolve this is to have a non-random method of resolving this, by a form of pie-rule or having players play both positions (or all positions in case of a game with more than 2 players).
3. Multi-player: Games with more than two players or teams. This is for games such as 4 player Blokus, or 6 player Star Halma (Chinese Checkers)
4. Beyond strategic and tactical cognitive skills required: Game depends on other things besides a person's ability to practice masterful strategy and tactics. Such skills must be derived from a person's mental capabilities. Included in this would be potential to persuade politically in a multiplayer game. Any other skill must be language independent to allow for players of different languages to still be able to compete. On this note, a game requiring mathematical skill would be permitted, but one requiring proper spelling of words or knowing the meaning of words is not allowed. Physical dexterity requirements to play competently and beyond legally being able to move pieces, doesn't count here either.
5. Exceptional rule length: Rules are longer than the standard 2 pages maximum size for rules, 3 with diagrams (on an 8 1/2” by 11” piece of paper with standard font size). This is arbitrary, but a good rule of thumb. Anything beyond 2-3 pages (single sided) ends up working against the simplicity that abstract strategy games are noted for. Excluded from this rule length are rules that contain variants or strategy tips.
5a. Chrome: Game had added rules that give the game theming that is detectable. This is allowed provided that there is no deviation in any other category. This deviation could lead to games being longer than 2-3 rules. Examples of games that fit having Chrome, yet met other criterion are 2 players Imperial and 2 player Shadow of the Emperor (if play of pieces is considered positional).
6. Turns are either real-time or simultaneous: If everything else is standard, outside of turns being sequential, then a game is allowed either to happen real-time (players all move at same time), or writing down moves and have them happen concurrently.
Not related to acceptance, but of the mark of quality in an abstract strategy game:
1. Depth: Game is capable of being played at many different levels of expertise. The best moves should not be completely solvable.
2. Clarity: Players can form a judgment about what is the best move in a given situation, without the game requiring a career devotion to the game.
3. Drama: It should be possible for a player to recover from a weaker position and still win.
4. Decisiveness: A player can achieve an advantage from which the other player can't recover.