Author |
Topic: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games (Read 522380 times) |
|
MarkSteere
Forum Guru
Finite games rule
Gender: 
Posts: 289
|
 |
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #765 on: Dec 19th, 2011, 10:22pm » |
|
on Dec 19th, 2011, 9:50am, christianF wrote:
So I'll sharpen my powers of provocation |
|
You can use my nail file.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #766 on: Dec 20th, 2011, 7:47am » |
|
1.
on Dec 19th, 2011, 9:50am, christianF wrote:| On the one end there's the Pro-Human Association arguing that games must go through a long process of modifications and finetuning to become reliable. |
|
Is this true? Not convincingly so, I'd say.
Chess has gone through a long process of evolution and still bears the scars of modifications that wear their purpose on their sleeves, like castling and en passant capture.
In a wider context, it developed from Sjatransj which in turn developed from Chaturanga. That may be called a long process of modifications and finetuning.
Draughts? We're in the process of writing On the Evolution of Draughts variants. That should answer the question.
Mancala's come with decidedly different rulesets. The various branches that have developed from times immemorial doubtless underwent many modifications before they came to their current form.
So the Pro-Human argfument certainly holds for these families of games. But there are also counterexamples.
Go didn't change all that much, and it rivals mancalas in ancienty. Nine Men's Morris may wel be the oldest game in the world - for compelling evidence have a look here - and all the while it didn't change except for a variant called Morabaraba, where diagonals are included. Considering the suggested minimum age of the game, some ten thousand years, that's not a whole lot of modifications and finetuning.
But hey, says the Pro-Human League, could anyone have predicted that? I'd say yes, at least to a degree, based on the structure of the games. The point being that they are right for some games, sometimes, not for all games all the time.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #767 on: Dec 20th, 2011, 10:29am » |
|
2.
on Dec 19th, 2011, 9:50am, christianF wrote:| On the other hand there's the Church of Hard Finitude. They argue that modifications and finetuning aren't necessary if the "architecture" is right. And the architecture is right if and only if the game is finite, drawless and balanced. No need to check - we're a church, believe us. |
|
Is this true? Not convincingly so, I'd say. Which games for one, according to this criterion, would have to be excluded before Hex arrived on the scene? All games. Right, thank you. So this is either nonsensical or revolutionary and the question would be why any inventor would restrict him or herself this way in the first place. The answer is given implicitly: good "architecture" is necessary and sufficient to guarantee a great game. And making a system finite, drawless and balanced is necessary and sufficient for good architecture. Simple as fruitpie.
The "necessary" implies that not only the traditionals have bad architecture, but even games like Othello, Twixt, Havannah or Sygo, that are all hard finite but on rare occasions allow a draw. It would seem that their rejection is based on irrational grounds. Apart from that kind of religious fundamentalism, there's nothing wrong with wanting to invent finite and drawless games if you feel that way, in fact it's more of a challenge than allowing for cycles and draws, because it's more restrictive and it may make it harder to handle turn order imbalance. Because any move in any position in a drawless games can only be winning or losing, and that includes the first move. Without a certain bandwidth for draws, this may lead to a more acutely felt advantage for one side, and a balancing mechanism may (and often will) be required.
So it's probably harder to work within this framework. The question remains, are the games better? If one rejects all games that do not comply, the answer is implicitly yes. But why would anyone do that? Many feel that to make a great game it is neither necessary nor sufficient to implement hard finitude and exclude draws. Great games that don't comply are all around them to prove it. There's also a fair amount of crippled games that do comply.
There are most likely great new games that are finite and drawless and balanced, but in that case they don't have the means to prove it yet. Here's the catch with comparisons: all ancient games have long histories, and one doesn't have to employ any visionary powers to see what they're about because it is common knowledge among experts and thus eventually among laymen too. New games don't have all that. This lack of knowledge is what the Pro-Human Association is pointing at. That's why inventors like to view a new game in a hypothetical setting, where it has a history, a large playerbase, a substantial library and an assorted selection of grandmasters to back it up. If only. So predictions are difficult, yet not as baseless as the PHA suggests. Though one cannot predict all aspects of all games, one can predict some aspects of all games and all aspects of some games. But not right now, later. 
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MarkSteere
Forum Guru
Finite games rule
Gender:
Posts: 289
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #768 on: Dec 20th, 2011, 11:38am » |
|
on Dec 20th, 2011, 10:29am, christianF wrote:
[Inventing finite and drawless games is] more of a challenge than allowing for cycles and draws, |
|
Yes, Christian. Exactly. You heard what Nick Bentley said in rec.games.abstract.
"I think the concept [of Rive] is awesome, especially knowing how hard it is to make a good heavy cycling game (it's a task at which I've failed miserably a schmillion ways),"
You don't just say, "I know. I'll pound out a pseudo cyclic stone placement game." Unless you're me.
There can be only one.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #769 on: Dec 20th, 2011, 11:49am » |
|
awesome...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MarkSteere
Forum Guru
Finite games rule
Gender:
Posts: 289
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #770 on: Dec 20th, 2011, 3:55pm » |
|
You don't have to like it. You only have to admire it.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
SpeedRazor
Forum Guru
Skepticism is the Immune System of Science
Gender:
Posts: 72
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #771 on: Dec 20th, 2011, 5:42pm » |
|
on Dec 20th, 2011, 7:47am, christianF wrote: Chess has gone through a long process of evolution and still bears the scars of modifications that wear their purpose on their sleeves, like castling and en passant capture.
|
|
A little over 500 years ago an accepted castling rule-set was codified and that is what we use today. (I think it was the Italians' version?) I think that they only got it half-right, though. For symmetry, it seems to me that the queen should be able to castle too! Did they mess up?
I've been studying chess openings using the Queen • Can • Castle • Too rules for a couple of years now, and I've noticed something interesting. Some of the broken openings - not all - are fixed! Broken opening in the sense that black can almost guarantee a draw.
An example is the Queens Gambit Declined (Lasker variation). 1. D4 D5 2. C4 E6 3. NC3 NF6 4. BG5 BE7 5. NF3 H6 6. BH4 0-0, and now Q-Q precludes the Lasker variation (7. ... NE4 and two pairs of minor pieces are exchanged, etc.). I've found an amazing amount of other examples...
Queen • Can • Castle • Too just seems more elegant and maybe, even more organic. Maybe it might one-day be implemented.
Hope I didn't digress too far from your excellent treatise Christian.
Edit: I just noticed that I didn't explain what Q-Q means. Just like O-O means that the king castles to the short-side, and O-O-O means the King castles to the long side, Q-Q and Q-Q-Q mean the same thing for the queen.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 20th, 2011, 8:52pm by SpeedRazor » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MarkSteere
Forum Guru
Finite games rule
Gender:
Posts: 289
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #772 on: Dec 21st, 2011, 2:24am » |
|
Christian, you've steadfastly condescended to my architecture centric design philosophy as "hunting", etc. But now that architecture is all the rage, suddenly you're waxing authoritative on the subject. Your tragic circus of tapdancing, handwaving and backpedaling only reveals your profound ignorance.
Newsflash, Christian. From the perspective of a true architect, you don't know jack!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #773 on: Dec 21st, 2011, 5:21am » |
|
on Dec 20th, 2011, 5:42pm, SpeedRazor wrote:
A little over 500 years ago an accepted castling rule-set was codified and that is what we use today. (I think it was the Italians' version?) I think that they only got it half-right, though. For symmetry, it seems to me that the queen should be able to castle too! Did they mess up?
I've been studying chess openings using the Queen • Can • Castle • Too rules for a couple of years now, and I've noticed something interesting. Some of the broken openings - not all - are fixed! Broken opening in the sense that black can almost guarantee a draw.
An example is the Queens Gambit Declined (Lasker variation). 1. D4 D5 2. C4 E6 3. NC3 NF6 4. BG5 BE7 5. NF3 H6 6. BH4 0-0, and now Q-Q precludes the Lasker variation (7. ... NE4 and two pairs of minor pieces are exchanged, etc.). I've found an amazing amount of other examples...
Queen • Can • Castle • Too just seems more elegant and maybe, even more organic. Maybe it might one-day be implemented.
Hope I didn't digress too far from your excellent treatise Christian. |
|
That's too much praise really, I'm just trying to finetune my thoughts on the 'predictability' aspect. That was more or less the theme of the thread, initially, and there has been some serious criticism worthy of consideration.
As to the Queen castling, I should first and foremost repeat that I'm not good at Chess. Actually even that is an understatement, so any amount of examples is more or less wasted on me. But from an inventor's point of view your suggestion is interesting in that it expands opening options on both sides, and that the rule would appear more 'generic' and less a means to an end.
The argument that Black can less easily go for a draw has two sides to it - what if white can go more easily for a win? That might influence balance. I'm not saying it is, and on intuition (what else would I have) I'd say it isn't: black's options are equally extended.
Fritzlein has more than once touched on this: it is extremely hard to predict what the effect of rules or rulechanges in chessy systems, including Arimaa and Grand Chess, will have in the long run.
Another notorious example is Draughts. The official rules were established, more than a century ago, and they were magnificent, opening an unparalelled world of mindboggling combinations. Few could have foreseen the Swamp of Draws it would end in a century later, at least at top level match play. And top level match play is the crown jewel for media attention. Draughts is terminal and in denial of it.
If they had implemented the rule that is now proposed by the Killer Draughts proponents, Draughts might not have had the same problems. Of course that rule, demotion of kings after capturing the last piece (actually even somewhat stricter) is also a clear means to an end. Dameo is essentially build on the same ruleset, but doesn't have the same problem due to its orthogonal orientation.
If anything, it proves that the Pro-Human Association has a point and that some games may be in a continuous proces of evolution. But, I must tread carefully here, not all games.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
froody
Forum Guru
I <3 nurpinar
  
Gender:
Posts: 103
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #774 on: Dec 21st, 2011, 5:21am » |
|
Remember to add 'IMHO' before and after everything Mark says. You'll be fine. Sticks and stones can break my bones...
|
|
IP Logged |
“Arimaa holds its master in its own bonds, shackling the mind and brain so that the inner freedom of the very strongest must suffer”
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #775 on: Dec 21st, 2011, 5:46am » |
|
on Dec 21st, 2011, 5:21am, froody wrote:| Remember to add 'IMHO' ... |
|
Consider that to be the case by default. For instance "Draughts is terminal and in denial of it" ... imho. 
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Eggman
Forum Full Member
Arimaa player #6816
Gender:
Posts: 15
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #776 on: Dec 21st, 2011, 6:03am » |
|
on Dec 21st, 2011, 2:24am, MarkSteere wrote:Christian, you've steadfastly condescended to my architecture centric design philosophy as "hunting", etc. But now that architecture is all the rage, suddenly you're waxing authoritative on the subject. Your tragic circus of tapdancing, handwaving and backpedaling only reveals your profound ignorance.
Newsflash, Christian. From the perspective of a true architect, you don't know jack! |
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MarkSteere
Forum Guru
Finite games rule
Gender:
Posts: 289
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #777 on: Dec 21st, 2011, 9:34pm » |
|
I don't get butthurt, Yoda. I give it.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
froody
Forum Guru
I <3 nurpinar
Gender:
Posts: 103
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #778 on: Dec 22nd, 2011, 1:38am » |
|
In terms of trollwarz this was a tactical error, Mark.
|
|
IP Logged |
“Arimaa holds its master in its own bonds, shackling the mind and brain so that the inner freedom of the very strongest must suffer”
|
|
|
Eggman
Forum Full Member
Arimaa player #6816
Gender:
Posts: 15
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #779 on: Dec 22nd, 2011, 5:48am » |
|
on Dec 21st, 2011, 9:34pm, MarkSteere wrote:| I don't get butthurt, Yoda. I give it. |
|
The only time I've ever seen anyone as butthurt as you was when my little niece figured out she's not really a princess.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print