In 2000, J. Mark Thompson, in his article “Defining the Abstract” laid out his criterion of what qualifies as an abstract strategy game. His article is one of the best definitions documents for what would be considered a “pure” abstract strategy game. The article can be read here: http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/DefiningtheAbstract.shtml
This document is a short-hand summation of the attributes that would make what is considered a “pure” abstract strategy game and a major basis for what is considered a standard abstract strategy game with IAGO. IAGO differs a bit in what it considers to be a standard abstract, from this document, but it seeks to close to what is Thompson laid out.
Thompson lays out two main criterion:
1. Game has no theme or where theme is not important to the experience of playing. Chess is an example of a game with an apparent theme where theme doesn't matter.
2. Games seek to minimize chance:
A. Perfect information.
B. No chance element introduced (no use of dice, cards or dominos drawn).
C. Move are alternatively, rather than simultaneously.
D. Only two players (not more than two so it leads to temporary alliances and based around politics).
E. Not all luck can be removed, as there is a human element of people playing and evaluating poorly.
F. Game based on logical thought, and can be thought of as a “family” of potentially interesting logic puzzles.
Thompson also lays out criterion of high quality abstract strategy games:
1. Have 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.