What if chess was new??

Imagine that the game of chess did not exist. Not so easy, but required for this thought experiment. Next, imagine that everything else about the state of board games -- and abstract strategy games (ASG's), in particular -- was exactly the same. As chess is the most influential and popular ASG of all time, this is not easy to imagine, but necessary to pose the question that I wish to consider. ...

So, chess does not exist. There are other ASG's and they are played by the sorts of people who like them at the same rate as they are played now in reality.

Now, imagine someone invented chess today -- exactly as we now know it. But, it's brand new. No one has seen it or played it before. No openings have names. There was never a Fischer or a Kasparov. There are no books on strategy. There are no computer programs that can play it.

That's the set-up. Now here's the question: would this strange, new game called "chess" become popular? Or, would people just not like it? Or, is there a middle ground where it achieves popularity only after many years, even decades, of players slowly discovering its unique qualities?

This is the question that haunts me. The predominance of internet play in ASG's has been a great thing for chess, I believe. But, as I've discovered the wealth of other ASG's, many invented recently, I think I've discovered a negative dynamic where the best games get less interest and play! Ultimately, depressingly, I don't believe that chess could succeed in today's environment.

Chess has a "depth", let's call it, that means that an experienced player of average skill will nearly always beat a beginner -- even a very bright beginner. There are so many nuances to the tactics and strategy of chess that it requires a great deal of practice against good opponents -- and even study -- to achieve even modest success in the game. In my opinion, this depth is one of the great things about chess. One can always get better and learn more. Or, to take a page from video game jargon, you could say it has infinite replayability.

Chess, however, has a huge player base. It's easy to find opponents of your own skill level, even for a beginner. If you enjoy the game, there's always fair competition to be found.

So, let us return to our thought experiment. Here, the player base of chess is nearly zero. Only the inventor and some of his friends even know the rules. Would a game player who found chess like it? I propose that the newly invented chess would have a very difficult time in breaking out as a popular game. There are two reasons for this. The first is that the rules are relatively complex. Compared to other classic ASG's, say Go or Reversi, the rules make an extra barrier to entry for new players. (I feel like this is the only small flaw in chess, an otherwise perfect game. *) But, that is a small matter besides the bigger problem of its great depth. ...

As I said, I feel depth is a huge positive for a game. However, for a new game, it has a big drawback. A few players will like the game, play it a lot, become good, and then easily crush other, newer players who are just trying to learn. In a game with such a steep learning curve -- both in the rules and in the strategic depth -- new players would tend to become discouraged and give up the game. Furthermore, I think I see this dynamic playing out in real life on Board Game Arena (BGA). There are some really fascinating new games available on the site that I think are great that just can't get much traction (where "new" means the last decade or two). They seem to support the theory: a small number of experienced players tend to dominate new players who are seeking to learn.

So, there's the question and my own depressing answer. I believe that if chess was released as a brand new game today, it would fail and fade into obscurity. My only laboratory to test the theory against is BGA. I propose as my examples of this phenomenon 2 games that I believe are truly great games and display a chess-like depth: Circle of Life and Ponte del Diavolo. Both have been available there for around 5 years. You can easily calculate their average daily games played from the game info pages on BGA, where you can find the release date and the total number of games played. As of this writing, those numbers stand at 11.5 games per day for Ponte del Diavolo and 13.1 for Circle of Life, which is well below average.

In all fairness, I must also present a couple of counter-examples that can be found on BGA: Quoridor and Hive. Both of these games have been available on BGA for about twice as long as as those previously mentioned (around 11 years). Their game per day statistics are an order of magnitude higher than the first examples: Quoridor averages 291.5 games/day and Hive 234.8! Although, I do feel these two counter-examples have an extra advantage that is difficult to account for. They were both invented quite a few years before BGA started (2010). Quoridor was released in 1997 and Hive in 2001. They both had some success in sales of physical game sets. So, I believe they both were bringing an established player base from real life play into the internet release of the games. Whereas, Ponte del Diavolo was released in 2008 and Circle of Life in only 2015.

These counter-examples could support either of the alternate theories: 1) chess would become quickly popular, or 2) chess would become popular only slowly after decades of players discovering its richness. However, the thought exercise is not about these example games. These games really are new and will have one of the three outcomes at some point. The question is firstly about the brand new game of chess. Chess has stood the test of time and fascinated players for hundreds of years. With such a variety of good ASG's available to players instantly on the internet today, could the newly invented game chess be successful in this world? ... We'll never know, of course. But, one must wonder.

Finally, I have to mention the point of the entire exercise. If we doubt that chess would succeed in this present environment, then what other equally fabulous games may be getting overlooked and forgotten right now?? Is the next great ASG being slowly lost to us? ... I pray not. But, don't take a chance. Head over to BGA and play a game of Ponte del Diavolo right now!

Circle of life piece names!

My modest proposal for the desired piece names for the new, smash game "Circle of Life" that can now be played at Board Game Arena.  ...  I am putting all of the stress on size and shape and mapping that to well known animals.  Whether the predation scheme makes sense or not, I'm much less concerned about.  Although I think it does for the most part.  Also, notice that all of the 3 or less hex pieces are a sort of insect and all of the tetrahexes are higher life forms.  I thought that would be important and helpful.  ...  If you like abstract strategy games, you should give this one a try.  Very interesting so far!

Edit:  I've continued to play this game many times since writing this post.  The piece names are very useful to give some actual words to certain tactics and strategies that you wish to remember.  (The other night I was playing on my tablet in the den and yelled out "Oh no, he's going to lemur my squirrel!"  My wife thought I'd finally lost all of my marbles.)

But, there was one big issue with the original scheme.  I couldn't remember which was the caterpillar and which was the centipede!  They both have 3 hexes and they both start with a "c".  That's not helpful at all.  Therefore, I wish to rename the straight-3 piece to "mantis".  Enjoy.  ...  And, try not to let anyone beetle your mantis!  :p  

Blokus Solitaire Success

Yes, it can be done.  The rules of the excellent game Blokus describe a solitaire version where you play the game with all of the normal rules, except one person is playing for all four colors and is attempting to get every single piece onto the board.  It is a difficult task to complete.  I'd tried it and failed at a least a couple of times before I succeeded.  Naturally, I took a picture in case there are any skeptics out there.  And, yes, I did manage to place the "dot" piece last for all four colors.

Knowing how hard it is, I went in to this exercise slowly and as I placed pieces, I tried hard to imagine what other pieces I would later place between them.  So, you can see that the corners are tightly packed where my plans worked well, but it got much messier as things moved into the middle.

I think that Blokus solitaire can retain the all important re-playability.  What I suggest is that once you've solved it starting with one particular piece, you try it again starting with another piece.  Therefore, this is my "Z" solution, since I used the Z-piece to start off each color.  (...  Of course, you could start the different colors off with different pieces, but that will make it quite a bit more difficult.  One step at a time.)

Update:  A cleaner image of this solution:

Kia Epic contest

Well, I don't even dare to imagine that I was one of the first five to finish the final puzzles and win a car. (See One Epic Contest.) But, after missing the Super bowl while trying to win a car doing these puzzles, the world must know that I persevered and finished all 10 tortuous levels!


... Damn, there'd better be a consolation prize!

(Update: If you want more info', Kia has a facebook page for the Optima that talks about the contest. But, as of Monday night, no winners have been announced -- they're still verifying.)

Next Board Game

I'll make this short -- since I have yet to actually play the game Carcassonne live against human opponents. So, I couldn't reasonably review it. But, I think I'm going to get it soon and I've taken it upon myself to read the admirably short rules (PDF). Then, I went a step further and found JCloisterZone, a free java version of the game which will allow you to play against your computer.

Here's what I like so far:

• Takes from 2-5 players.
  
• Isn't very long
• Well regarded, very successful game
• Relatively simple rules
• Fairly complex/interesting strategy

Those last two are key. The perfect game is the one with the combination of the most simple rules and the most strategic depth. This is not "the" perfect game. But, for what appears to be a light, sociable game, it is outstanding in both of those areas.

For anyone who wants still more information, the Carcassonne page on BoardGameGeek should be helpful.

Update:

I've played the game several times now, and it is as great as it looked! It's easy to learn and easy to play. It plays pretty quickly; there's not the huge amount of computation needed that cause some games to be slowed down by a lot of thinking. A really great aspect of Carcassonne, is that it plays pretty much the same way whether you have 2 or 5 players (or 3 or 4). That's a huge, and rare, advantage for a multi-player game. There is an element of luck (in drawing good or bad tiles), but it's not as large as you'd expect and, at any rate, perfectly acceptable if you just take this as a lighter game, which can be enjoyed with non-hardcore gamers and serious gamers alike.

BoardSpace: the Lost Games

Last Friday was the one year anniversary of my registration with the games site BoardSpace. I didn't really know what I was getting into! I love strategic board games (chess, go, etc.) and this site has nothing else -- 32 of them as of this writing. As the year has gone on, I've repeatedly discovered another game there that I like, and then another. You can play any of them live against another person and, for most games, against a computer opponent as well.

What's fascinating about BoardSpace is the selection of games. They're all lesser known games, some of them pretty obscure. But, it's not just an arbitrary mish-mash. The site owner makes sure to select good games.

Even after a year, I still haven't tried all of the games there. I haven't even tried most of them. That's mostly because I prefer to spend my time playing the games I've already learned. These are the games I'm enjoying and playing the most now:

• Santorini: This is my favorite game at BoardSpace. It's a remarkable game. The rules are so simple yet the play is very complex. (That combination is my primary criterion for a good game, "go" being the exemplar.) It has a chess-like feel to it, in spite of the fact that the players have only two pieces each, and on a 5x5 board! It packs a lot of strategy into a small space and a short game. A player's first few games will be "interesting" because there are several traps and gotchas that one will probably run into (also like chess). ... The computer opponent is a great trainer, but has stopped being interesting for me. I really want to find a good human opponent and see if this game holds up well under serious analysis. I think it will.


• Dvonn: My most recent discovery there and I can't stop playing it. It's radically unlike any other game I've played before. It's challenging and requires a lot of foresight and calculation. The rules are few and straightforward, but I won't repeat them here. See the official site.


• Tablut: This is a really cool game. First, it's asymmetrical. One side is trying to get the flagship off the board and the other side is trying to capture the flagship. All of the pieces move like rooks in chess. It's based on an old Viking game.


• Warp6: This is a racing game, with dice as pieces. The bit of chance introduced by the dice should not usually determine the outcome. It's like backgammon in that way. (It could be called "Space Backgammon". ... "Spacegammon"?) It's a fun, lighter game.


• Cannon: This game only came to the site a couple of months ago. It really got me started playing a lot on BoardSpace again. It's a great capturing game with the interesting mechanic, as the name suggests, of being able to capture pieces at a distance if you have three pieces lined up in a "cannon". As the summary at BoardSpace notes, it's "a very tactical game."


• Medina: I've only played this game once, but am anxious to try it again. It's a multi-player, requiring 3 or 4 players. The computer opponent can only fill one seat, therefore you always need at least one human opponent to have a game. ... The rules are a tad more involved than I normally like, but it seems to be well worth it to learn.


• Hive: This is the most popular game on the site. It has a broad appeal. It's fun and easy to learn. It just seems like everyone who tries it likes it. It has no board either! You simply place or move the hex pieces and the pieces themselves sort of become the board.

You should give this site a try. Anyone can play anonymously as a guest to check it out. But, it's good to register and get a rating and picture. And, here's a quick tip for new players: When you're trying a new game, play an unranked game against the computer before you start playing regular games.

Blazing good game

(I wrote this review on some game site because I really, really enjoy this game and it hasn't gotten the love it deserves!!)
This game has been a very pleasant surprise. My son bought it on a lark while we were out looking for one of those other $50 "A" games.

The first thing to be aware of about this game is that it is a challenge.
I like that in a video game, but young children would probably become frustrated with a game this difficult. Of the 20 missions in the main campaign of the game, there were many that I had to play multiple times to complete. The missions are challenging from the beginning and, still, they get harder and harder, so that the game remains engaging even after you have acquired some skill in it. Several missions introduce new skills and challenges, like landing a disabled plane or a high speed chase through a narrow crevasse. The campaign was just great and took me many hours over a couple of months to complete. (Granted, I have a job!)

Even once you've finished the campaign, you will want to go back and replay missions. One reason for this is that if you do particularly well on a mission you get a medal. All of the medals seem to be real historical American or English medals. I really liked that and the many other historical aspects of the game. All of the campaign missions themselves are historically based and in chronological order, and all begin with a short movie that has narration while showing an animated map of the main action. All of the planes are historical as well and include brief descriptions of the plane's reputation. Most of the planes are unlocked by advancing in the campaign. And another part of the fun is replaying the early missions with a later, more advanced craft.

In addition to the main campaign, there are the ace duels, arcade mode, and the mini-campaigns, each of which give various upgrades to the planes when completed successfully. And, of course, there is the head-to-head mode where you can dog-fight another player! (Split-screen, not on-line.)

There are many other great aspects to this game, like the wing-man commands, the follow camera, the ing and rocket missions. One thing I never tried is some of the alternate controller configurations -- some of which appear to be more realistic and maybe more difficult, but with better control I expect. For example, you can't really do barrel rolls with the default "arcade" controller configuration.

I like everything about this game. But I've got to reiterate the important thing: it is just plain a blast to play. ... And chase, and run, and blow up lots of stuff!

Stra! Tee! GOOO!!

Stratego! The post title recalls the Stratego television commercial jingle of my childhood. Great commercial. Really great game. I got it for Christmas. You didn't. :P

So, I just played it again today for the first time in very many years. I beat a ten year old. And, I mean I wiped the map with him. I want you to know that I read him the strategy tips in the instructions. But, he wasn't listening much at that point. Big mistake. So, he made the rookie error of locking all of his highest ranking pieces on the back rows. I sent in a Major -- a mere major! -- and cut him to ribbons. He's moving all these pieces around trying to get a colonel out to stop me. Where could he move them? Right into Major Meatgrinder -- there was no other place to go.

I suppose I could have taken it easy on the child; at least let it be close. But, that's just not me. I feel like integrity demands that you give every opponent your best game in every contest. (And, my fragile, battered ego refuses to pass up any victory, no matter how small.)

Anyway, the boy is a good sport and he's ready to go again tomorrow. He's definitely internalized the strategy tip of keeping some firepower on the front.

I might try an older opponent. Then again, I may build my confidence first by whipping up on the ten year old a few more times.