Game Types

DRAFT - I am refining my ideas as I write this . . .

Abstract games can be put into groups according to common facets of how they play . . .

• Combinatorial Games
  Combinatorial Game Theory is now a mature and growing branch of Mathematics and Computer Science.  I wish there had been courses on it when I was at university in the early 1970's!  Its essence can be found in Winning Ways where the topic is introduced via the simple pencil and paper game Hackenbush and covers many/most abstract games including Chess and Go.  See the Wikipedia article for details.
  However, I am using the term Combinatorial (I can't think of a better word) in a much narrower sense for abstract games that appear to have little or no strategy element.  As a human, early in a game, there seems to be no reason to make one move rather than another.  Then suddenly, the end of the game tree comes into sight and the game result is known!  Between 2 humans or 2 computers, the result might feel like tossing a coin.  However, computers are better at looking deeply down a game tree, so a computer will likely win against a human.
  Examples: - Sim, 1-D Phutball, Transposition, L Game, Clobber, Bagh Chal, Qyshinsu, Coffee, Gate,  . . .
   
• Strategic Games
  I really like the strategy element in all games.  The best examples I can think of are hex wargames, which are not abstract!  Not only do they have a theme (often a historical simulation of a real war), but the results of combat between units is often decided by reference to a Combat Resolution Table and the throw of a die.  It is this random element that prevents analysis of the game using tree search techniques as in abstract games.  However, strong units are more likely, but not certain, to beat weak units, so the deployment of one's fighting force has to be judged rather than calculated.  Shall I attack on the flank or the centre, or shall I build up my force before attacking, and so on . . .  
  Returning to abstract games . . . I am most familiar with chess.  I am of an age that followed the development of chess computers with great interest (and spent more money than I should have buying them!).  Theoretically, a chess program could calculate the entire game tree for a game and know with certainty who should win.  In practice, the size of such a tree is far to large for the time and memory constraints of even modern computers.  To beat an early computer program, as long as you were tactically careful, strategic ideas such as 'weak King position', 'pawn majority on the Queen's side', 'doubled rooks on an open file', 'passed pawn', 'control of the 7th rank', etc. would be enough to win.  That is not the case anymore, as computers are so fast that they can calculate the game tree deeply and quickly enough to defeat grandmasters. Mere flesh and bone chess players are often categorised into tactical or strategic players.  The tactical player is likely to make a bold sacrifice for a decisive attack on the KIng.  The strategic player accumulates small positional advantages to exert pressure for the eventual win.
  In abstract games without sufficient depth, there is little room for strategy.  I like games where the game tree is complicated enough to prevent brute force search being enough to win.  Short term tactical skirmishes may well play a significant part, but long term strategy underlies the play.
  Examples: - Hex, Amazons, Push Fight, Cannon, Ponte del Diavolo, Entrapment, . . . 
   
• Racing Games
  I really like racing games.  However, they are very thin on the ground for abstract games.
  When young and having no friends available on a boring day at home during a school holiday, I invented my own 'game(s)', racing the suits of a standard deck of cards.  This largely meant just observing the vagaries of a random process - Spades were my favourite.  (Strange boy!)  This did give me a useful intuitive feel for statistics when studying at university.
  Waddington's Formula 1 then became a loved game (and still is).  Individual car dashboards that allowed you to control the speed of the car were a great idea - no luck involved.  However, not an abstract game.  Apart from the clear theme, dice were used to determine brake and tyre wear when cornering too fast and there were some hidden Tactic and Pit cards.
  Hare & Tortoise was a family favourite (and still is).  Again, no luck in determining how far your piece could move on a turn.  The theme is minimal (tongue in cheek rather than real life) and full information for all players, so it is abstract - apart from occasionally 'jugging the hare', but this could be banished.  It is not easy to see who is winning, which detracts from it being a race somewhat.
  Flamme Rouge has a Tour de France theme, but takes most of the random movement out of the game as each player starts with an identical set of movement cards.  However, at each turn a player only has a subset of those cards (at random) and these are hidden from the opponents.
  Boardspace (and others) classification of racing games include games where the object is to get to the other side first, for example Halma / Chinese Checkers, or Hex.  These do not feel like racing games to me.  Yes, the players are trying to get somewhere first, but every game has the object of getting to the victory conditions first!
  When young, I liked playing the pencil & paper Racetrack Game on graph paper, but it did have a lot of counting of small squares and had the potential for disagreement on whether a point was inside the track or not.
  I have only recently discovered Racing Kings, a chess variant that can be played on Lichess.  Fun, but it doesn't quite feel like a true race.
  I have purchased (but is has not yet been delivered) Lotus.  This does seem to be an abstract race game - we shall see when I get to play it . . . 
  Examples: - Hare & Tortoise, Racetrack Game, Racing Kings, Lotus
  Challenge to all those clever games designers out there . . . Design an abstract game that has the real feel of a race and is fun to play.
   
• GIPF Games
  This grouping is a different kind of selection, but I didn't know where else to express my views!  The GIPF Project is a series of seven abstract strategy games by designer Kris Burm - see Wikipedia GIPF article.  I must note my possible prejudice at this early stage - 'I am what I am' (Popeye).  I was off put by GIPF before I played any of the games.  The games felt hyped in what I read on the internet and there seemed to be a smugness about the project (or maybe just its followers).  Dr Dave and I tried playing them on Boardspace, but I found them over complicated and tricky to pick up.  Maybe if I persevered I might see their appeal?  However, I do not see any USP that gives me the motivation.  These games are often amongst the most popular on Boardspace, but I can't see the attraction!  The games are not variants of each other and I do not know of any other series of connected abstract games.  They remain a mystery to me.
  Games in the Project: - Gipf, Tamsk, Zertz, Dvonn, Yinsh, Punct, Tzarr, Lyngk.
   
• Observational Games
   
• Who is winning? 
  Examples: - Othello, Lasca, . . .
• . . .