 |
This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.
|
An abstract strategy game is a board or card game with perfect information, no chance, and (usually) two players or teams. Many of the world's classic board games, including checkers, chess, go, irensei, and mancala, fit into this category. Play is sometimes said to resemble a series of puzzles the players pose to each other. As J. Mark Thompson wrote in his article, "Defining the Abstract", "There is an intimate relationship between such games and puzzles: every board position presents the player with the puzzle, What is the best move?, which in theory could be solved by logic alone. A good abstract game can therefore be thought of as a "family" of potentially interesting logic puzzles, and the play consists of each player posing such a puzzle to the other. Good players are the ones who find the most difficult puzzles to present to their opponents."
Contents |
What counts as an abstract strategy game?
The most strict definition of an abstract strategy game requires that it cannot have random elements or hidden information. In practice, however, many games which do not strictly meet these criteria are commonly classed as abstract strategy games. Games such as Backgammon, Octiles, Can't Stop, Sequence and Mentalis could also be considered an abstract strategy game, despite having a luck or bluffing element. A smaller category of non-perfect abstract strategy games manage to incorporate hidden information without using any random elements. The best known example here is Stratego. The pragmatic definition seems to be that if a game is strategic and is abstract (as opposed to being a simulation), the term "abstract strategy" should be applicable.[citation needed]
Analysis of “pure” abstract strategy games is the subject of combinatorial game theory. Abstract strategy games with hidden information, bluffing or simultaneous-move elements are better served by Von Neumann-Morgenstern game theory, while those with a component of luck may require probability theory incorporated into either of the above.
In some abstract strategy games there are multiple starting positions of which it is suggested that one be randomly determined: at the very least, in all conventional abstract strategy games a starting player needs to be chosen by some means extrinsic to the game. Some games, such as Arimaa and DVONN, have the players build the starting position in a separate initial phase which itself conforms strictly to abstract strategy game principles. However, most people would consider that although one is then starting each game from a different position, the game itself still has no luck element. Indeed, Bobby Fischer promoted randomizing the starting position of a game of chess in order to increase the game's dependence on thinking at the board.[citation needed]
Comparison of abstract strategy games
As for the qualitative aspects, ranking Abstract Strategy Games according to their interest, complexity or strategy levels is a daunting task, and subject to extreme subjectivity. In terms of measuring how finite a mathematical field each of the three top contenders represents, it is estimated that Checkers has a game-tree complexity of 1031 possible positions, whereas chess has in the vicinity of 10123. This explains largely why computer programs, through "brute force" calculation alone, are now besting human players.[original research?] As for Go, the possible legal game positions range in the magnitude of 10170, partly the reason why, to this day, computer programs can only play below "Dan" level.[original research?] Go players and Chess players alike agree that Chess is a more tactical game as opposed to Go, which is a more strategic game.[citation needed]
See also
- List of abstract strategy games
- Connection games
- Game complexity
- Mind Sports Olympiad
- World Mind Sports Games
External links
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
