home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!pioneer.arc.nasa.gov!nicholso
- From: nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH)
- Subject: Re: defects in abstract games
- Message-ID: <1992Dec28.224523.28467@news.arc.nasa.gov>
- Sender: usenet@news.arc.nasa.gov
- Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035
- References: <1992Dec22.143005.11060@ll.mit.edu> <kleber.725061503@husc.harvard.edu> <1hie51INNnvd@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
- Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:45:23 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- I'll probably regret entering this discussion, but I do have a candidate
- for a 'defect free' game. First my characterization of what constitutes
- 'defect free' status.
-
- 1: state should be limited to position of pieces on the board and whose
- turn it is, with no reference to 'previous board positions' and other
- phenominon which must be tracked
-
- 2: the rules should not admit special cases and be symmetric to all
- peices and positions
-
- 3: the rules should be stable in a concise way, and not too numerous
-
- While I agree that defect free status isn't all that wonderful of a
- thing (as someone pointed out, tic-tac-toe is quite 'defect free' in
- this since, but in general is a lousy game), I do sympathise with the
- aesthetic quality the original author was trying to put his finger on.
-
- The only interesting games (above the tic-tac-toe level of complexity)
- which I can think of the meet this criterion are Abalone, Reversi, and
- Dots. There has been enough talk about the games that I don't feel I
- need to repeat their rules, but their simple accounting of score and
- very simple rules which belie their complexity is quite inspiring.
-
- Mel
-
-
-
-