Game review
Dieter Stein's games Polar and Urbino both originated in 2017. Polar is a game played on a squared board with black and white pieces. Polar is one of those games with rules that are so basic that you wonder why no one has thought of it before. Polar plays very well as it is. However, Dieter Stein developed Urbino on the basis of Polar. Urbino has various piece types, a different scoring system, and a clever way to restrict the movement options each turn. Urbino has complex tactics and some clear strategic choices. I have played both games, and I prefer Urbino, even though it lacks the complete simplicity of Polar.
Polar is played on a squared board of maximum size 13x13. The players use black and white stones, and Polar could best be played with a 13x13 Go set. Orthogonally connected pieces, possibly of one or both colours, is a group. A section on the other hand, is a connected group of pieces of the same colour. The core idea of Polar, and also of Urbino, the foundation of both games, is that any group can only have two sections, one of each colour. Polar finishes when no more stones can be played, and groups with two sections score for the player with the larger section. The score for each such section is a triangular number: 2 stones scores 3, 3 stones scores 6, 4 stones scores 10, and so on.
The core idea of Polar is brilliantly obvious, once you see it, although it took Dieter’s skill to bring it to light with a playable game. Polar is a good game, which works perfectly. I suspect Polar does not have a great deal of tactical complexity, and therefore strategic complexity, although I admit I do not know the game really well, and I may be wrong.
Urbino, on the other hand, is certainly complex tactically and strategically. The Urbino board is restricted to 9x9, and now instead of having uniform stones, the players have three kinds of pieces each, Houses, Palaces, and Towers; worth 1, 2, and 3 points, respectively. Palaces can never be placed adjacent to Palaces of either colour; similarly, Towers can never be placed adjacent to Towers of either colour. Urbino keeps the core idea of Polar, that a group can have no more than two sections; a player wins a group if his pieces are worth more points; a winning section scores the total of its points; groups with one section do not score.
The biggest change from Polar, however, is the use of two new pieces, the Architects. Buildings can only be erected on spaces that have open sight-lines to both Architects, without intervening pieces. Each move consists optionally of repositioning one of the two Architects to any vacant space and then erecting a building on one of the spaces with sight-lines to both Architects. You must erect a building, and you must reposition an Architect in such a way that you can erect a building. If there is no way to reposition an Architect to erect a building, you must pass. If both players pass in succession, the game finishes, and the scores are calculated.
The addition of the Architects transforms the game. Restricting the available moves with the Architects adds considerable tactical complexity, and the tactics in turn suggest strategic options. In my view, Urbino is a much better game than Polar. The mechanism where one Architect is repositioned each move means that the two Architects seem to dance across the board in succeeding moves, with new buildings placed with open sight-lines to both.
The mechanism of the Architects is unusual. Dieter’s game Fabrik (2017) uses something identical to the Architects, for an alignment game, but without the key idea of only one section of each colour in a group. Tumbleweed, also in this issue, uses sight-lines for placement, but it has nothing like the Architects of Urbino. Likewise, Mirador (2010) by Andrew Perkins and Network (1969) by Sid Sackson also use line-of-sight, though without an Architect mechanism. There are probably other games like this.
Players new to a mechanism such as the Architects may find it difficult to plan ahead and analyze. After all, theoretically, an Architect can be positioned to any one of the empty squares on the board. The proviso that repositioning an Architect must leave an option to place a building certainly restricts the number of choices. Nevertheless, at least in the beginning and middle game, a player typically has a large number of options for moving an Architect and placing a building. It is very difficult for a human player to look several moves ahead and plan strategically, at least in the opening and middle game.
One way of approaching the Architects is to look at the options that each one will have after your move. Remember, only one Architect can be repositioned each move. Therefore, if you leave a position where both Architects point to a good next move for you along their lines of sight, your opponent typically cannot sabotage both. Likewise, if you leave a position where neither Architect points to a good move for your opponent, typically he will not be able to construct a good move. Considerations such as these are the beginnings of analysis of Urbino positions and the basics of Urbino tactics: reposition the Architects to maximize your own options for good moves and minimize your opponent's options for good moves.
The requirement that only one Architect can move at a time is also the basis of Urbino strategy, at least as I understand the strategy so far. Once you are ahead in the game's scoring, it is a good idea to shut the game down so that it ends quickly with you ahead in the score, before your opponent can catch up. As buildings start to fill up the board, site-lines for the Architects become restricted, and the board becomes divided into separate areas, with few sight-lines between these areas. If both Architects are located in one of these restricted spaces, your opponent can only move out one of them—can only provide a good move for himself, potentially, with one of the two Architects and not both. There may be no options to move even one of the Architects out of a restricted area if there are few or no sight-lines out from the Architect that remains in the restricted area. Even if your opponent does manage to move one Architect out of the restricted area, you can just move it right back with your own next move! Eventually, the restricted area will fill up with no more move options, and the game will end.
The strategy of closing the game down when you are ahead accomplishes the tactical goal of restricting your opponent's options for good moves, while increasing your own—where your own good moves will include no move, if you want to close the game down! However, the tactical manoeuvring now serves a strategic goal.
Of course, it is still difficult to look very far ahead with Architect placement with any accuracy, particularly at the start of the game. The key with the shut-down strategy is to get ahead in the first place, and the opening is unpredictable. I commented to Dieter Stein, "The positioning of the Architects almost seems chaotic to me. A way to control the game is to shut it down, but I can't help thinking there's more flair in letting the Architects roam freely." He responded, "In the beginning there's much room, but soon you learn how to place them in a way that they play for you. Being able to move only one of them is crucial." Getting the Architects to "play for you" means, I think, increasing your own movement options while restricting your opponent's, in line with my discussion of the tactical possibilities of the Architects.
An opening strategy must aim at getting ahead in points, and then you can utilize the shut-down strategy. Therefore, I will tend to place my Towers, worth 3 points, early. An opponent’s piece that connects to a Tower cannot be another Tower, and so if an opponent does connect to my lone Tower, I will have the scoring group. As soon as you are ahead, try to pull the Architects behind a wall of your own buildings, and close the game down! Of course, there may be quite other strategies out there—I hope there are!
Urbino as a game is complete. However, the Monuments variant introduces certain arrangements of buildings that have an increased score. I have not played enough of the Monuments variant to determine whether is substantially better. However, Dieter himself and some other experienced Urbino players I have encountered strongly recommend Monuments because it further increases the tactical and strategic options. In my limited experience, I think Monuments does this in a good way, without distorting the original Urbino. The tactical and strategic choices I have discussed are still present, but players have the option to aim for higher-scoring structures, or at least to threaten to achieve higher-scoring structures. Perhaps Monuments should become the default version for serious play of Urbino, but I am really not sure. The original game is quite challenging enough, and perhaps more transparent than Monuments.
Urbino is very interesting game that is much improved from Polar by restricting the movement options available. Setting aside the differences of scoring, piece types, and so on, the major innovation of Urbino is the Architects. At first thought, you might suppose that decreasing the number of moves that can be made on a turn would constrict the tactical and strategic choices. However, clearly this is not always the case, and Urbino is good example in this regard. Restricting the moves available in Urbino, by means of the Architects, opens up a whole a new world of tactical and strategic choices.
The topic of limiting the move options and thereby transforming a game to make it better—even to make it playable at all—is very interesting. The same drive to reduce move options is present in the two games by Larry Back, presented in this issue for the Unequal Board Spaces Game Design Competition, Tip-Top-Toe and Hox. Both games use different types of board spaces to limit the possible moves. In this way, Tip-Top-Toe becomes a very playable Super Tic-Tac-Toe game, whereas Hox transforms Hex, making of it a completely different game with tactics quite unlike those of Hex.
For Urbino, lastly, I should mention that the game is produced in a very beautiful edition by Gerhards Spiel und Design, as shown in the image above. The experience of playing this game is greatly enhanced by the gorgeous hardwood pieces and board. Urbino is playable remotely at Dieter's website, spielstein.com or at boardgameplay.com.◾️
Polar is played on a squared board of maximum size 13x13. The players use black and white stones, and Polar could best be played with a 13x13 Go set. Orthogonally connected pieces, possibly of one or both colours, is a group. A section on the other hand, is a connected group of pieces of the same colour. The core idea of Polar, and also of Urbino, the foundation of both games, is that any group can only have two sections, one of each colour. Polar finishes when no more stones can be played, and groups with two sections score for the player with the larger section. The score for each such section is a triangular number: 2 stones scores 3, 3 stones scores 6, 4 stones scores 10, and so on.
The core idea of Polar is brilliantly obvious, once you see it, although it took Dieter’s skill to bring it to light with a playable game. Polar is a good game, which works perfectly. I suspect Polar does not have a great deal of tactical complexity, and therefore strategic complexity, although I admit I do not know the game really well, and I may be wrong.
Urbino, on the other hand, is certainly complex tactically and strategically. The Urbino board is restricted to 9x9, and now instead of having uniform stones, the players have three kinds of pieces each, Houses, Palaces, and Towers; worth 1, 2, and 3 points, respectively. Palaces can never be placed adjacent to Palaces of either colour; similarly, Towers can never be placed adjacent to Towers of either colour. Urbino keeps the core idea of Polar, that a group can have no more than two sections; a player wins a group if his pieces are worth more points; a winning section scores the total of its points; groups with one section do not score.
The biggest change from Polar, however, is the use of two new pieces, the Architects. Buildings can only be erected on spaces that have open sight-lines to both Architects, without intervening pieces. Each move consists optionally of repositioning one of the two Architects to any vacant space and then erecting a building on one of the spaces with sight-lines to both Architects. You must erect a building, and you must reposition an Architect in such a way that you can erect a building. If there is no way to reposition an Architect to erect a building, you must pass. If both players pass in succession, the game finishes, and the scores are calculated.
The addition of the Architects transforms the game. Restricting the available moves with the Architects adds considerable tactical complexity, and the tactics in turn suggest strategic options. In my view, Urbino is a much better game than Polar. The mechanism where one Architect is repositioned each move means that the two Architects seem to dance across the board in succeeding moves, with new buildings placed with open sight-lines to both.
The mechanism of the Architects is unusual. Dieter’s game Fabrik (2017) uses something identical to the Architects, for an alignment game, but without the key idea of only one section of each colour in a group. Tumbleweed, also in this issue, uses sight-lines for placement, but it has nothing like the Architects of Urbino. Likewise, Mirador (2010) by Andrew Perkins and Network (1969) by Sid Sackson also use line-of-sight, though without an Architect mechanism. There are probably other games like this.
Players new to a mechanism such as the Architects may find it difficult to plan ahead and analyze. After all, theoretically, an Architect can be positioned to any one of the empty squares on the board. The proviso that repositioning an Architect must leave an option to place a building certainly restricts the number of choices. Nevertheless, at least in the beginning and middle game, a player typically has a large number of options for moving an Architect and placing a building. It is very difficult for a human player to look several moves ahead and plan strategically, at least in the opening and middle game.
One way of approaching the Architects is to look at the options that each one will have after your move. Remember, only one Architect can be repositioned each move. Therefore, if you leave a position where both Architects point to a good next move for you along their lines of sight, your opponent typically cannot sabotage both. Likewise, if you leave a position where neither Architect points to a good move for your opponent, typically he will not be able to construct a good move. Considerations such as these are the beginnings of analysis of Urbino positions and the basics of Urbino tactics: reposition the Architects to maximize your own options for good moves and minimize your opponent's options for good moves.
The requirement that only one Architect can move at a time is also the basis of Urbino strategy, at least as I understand the strategy so far. Once you are ahead in the game's scoring, it is a good idea to shut the game down so that it ends quickly with you ahead in the score, before your opponent can catch up. As buildings start to fill up the board, site-lines for the Architects become restricted, and the board becomes divided into separate areas, with few sight-lines between these areas. If both Architects are located in one of these restricted spaces, your opponent can only move out one of them—can only provide a good move for himself, potentially, with one of the two Architects and not both. There may be no options to move even one of the Architects out of a restricted area if there are few or no sight-lines out from the Architect that remains in the restricted area. Even if your opponent does manage to move one Architect out of the restricted area, you can just move it right back with your own next move! Eventually, the restricted area will fill up with no more move options, and the game will end.
The strategy of closing the game down when you are ahead accomplishes the tactical goal of restricting your opponent's options for good moves, while increasing your own—where your own good moves will include no move, if you want to close the game down! However, the tactical manoeuvring now serves a strategic goal.
Of course, it is still difficult to look very far ahead with Architect placement with any accuracy, particularly at the start of the game. The key with the shut-down strategy is to get ahead in the first place, and the opening is unpredictable. I commented to Dieter Stein, "The positioning of the Architects almost seems chaotic to me. A way to control the game is to shut it down, but I can't help thinking there's more flair in letting the Architects roam freely." He responded, "In the beginning there's much room, but soon you learn how to place them in a way that they play for you. Being able to move only one of them is crucial." Getting the Architects to "play for you" means, I think, increasing your own movement options while restricting your opponent's, in line with my discussion of the tactical possibilities of the Architects.
An opening strategy must aim at getting ahead in points, and then you can utilize the shut-down strategy. Therefore, I will tend to place my Towers, worth 3 points, early. An opponent’s piece that connects to a Tower cannot be another Tower, and so if an opponent does connect to my lone Tower, I will have the scoring group. As soon as you are ahead, try to pull the Architects behind a wall of your own buildings, and close the game down! Of course, there may be quite other strategies out there—I hope there are!
Urbino as a game is complete. However, the Monuments variant introduces certain arrangements of buildings that have an increased score. I have not played enough of the Monuments variant to determine whether is substantially better. However, Dieter himself and some other experienced Urbino players I have encountered strongly recommend Monuments because it further increases the tactical and strategic options. In my limited experience, I think Monuments does this in a good way, without distorting the original Urbino. The tactical and strategic choices I have discussed are still present, but players have the option to aim for higher-scoring structures, or at least to threaten to achieve higher-scoring structures. Perhaps Monuments should become the default version for serious play of Urbino, but I am really not sure. The original game is quite challenging enough, and perhaps more transparent than Monuments.
Urbino is very interesting game that is much improved from Polar by restricting the movement options available. Setting aside the differences of scoring, piece types, and so on, the major innovation of Urbino is the Architects. At first thought, you might suppose that decreasing the number of moves that can be made on a turn would constrict the tactical and strategic choices. However, clearly this is not always the case, and Urbino is good example in this regard. Restricting the moves available in Urbino, by means of the Architects, opens up a whole a new world of tactical and strategic choices.
The topic of limiting the move options and thereby transforming a game to make it better—even to make it playable at all—is very interesting. The same drive to reduce move options is present in the two games by Larry Back, presented in this issue for the Unequal Board Spaces Game Design Competition, Tip-Top-Toe and Hox. Both games use different types of board spaces to limit the possible moves. In this way, Tip-Top-Toe becomes a very playable Super Tic-Tac-Toe game, whereas Hox transforms Hex, making of it a completely different game with tactics quite unlike those of Hex.
For Urbino, lastly, I should mention that the game is produced in a very beautiful edition by Gerhards Spiel und Design, as shown in the image above. The experience of playing this game is greatly enhanced by the gorgeous hardwood pieces and board. Urbino is playable remotely at Dieter's website, spielstein.com or at boardgameplay.com.◾️