Editorial
Initially the plan was to announce the winner of the Unequal Board Spaces Game Design Competition in the next issue. We planned to write about several of the entries in the current issue, and the rest in the next issue with the results of the judging. However, AG22 is a bit delayed, we have all the votes in, and AG23 has a long way to go. Therefore, I am going to announce the winner here, which happens to be a game that we had planned to describe in this issue anyway. In AG23, we will continue with the plan of presenting the remainder of the games, but also give some more substantive discussion of the judging and the winner.
⚫️⚪️⚫️ The Winner of the Unequal Board Spaces Game Design Competition is Dag en Nacht by Chris Huntoon. ⚫️⚪️⚫️
Dag en Nacht collected more points than any of the other games in the voting, and several judges specially commented about Dag en Nacht and its quality. Dag en Nacht is a clear winner. Congratulations to Chris Huntoon!
The rules of Dag en Nacht are here in this issue. Dag en Nacht [Day and Night] is an alignment game, like Gomoku, Renju, Connect 6, and the rest. The author was inspired by the woodcut engraving Dag en Nacht, by Maurits Cornelius Escher, from 1938. The aesthetics of Dag en Nacht, with black and white stones on black and white spaces, is genuinely reminiscent of Escher's brilliant design. Dag en Nacht is an alignment game that perfectly utilizes the checkered pattern on a squared board.
The Unequal Game Design Competition was a success. Thank you to all of the designers, the judges, and advisors. Special thanks are due to Stephen Tavener, who implemented all the entries to the competition on Ai Ai. The ease of being able to test these games in Ai Ai was key to ensure that the judges were able to make good decisions. A big thank you also to Dave Dyer, who has already implemented Dag en Nacht on Boardspace.net.
Someone mentioned to me that the topic of this competition, games with boards with variable spaces, would produce games that were naturally opaque, meaning that it is difficult to see what is going on in them and make meaningful moves. I do not think this is necessarily the case. The winner, Dag en Nacht is surely no more "opaque" than other alignment games. Christian Freeling's article about clarity in the current issue, is relevant in this regard. According to Christian, the difficult concept of "clarity" in board games comes down to familiarity: "Clarity is familiarity," he concludes.
I agree with Christian. Perhaps Zola, for example, seems initially opaque; but if you play a few games, heuristics will develop, and Zola will make more sense—this is becoming familiar with Zola. (See also David Ploog's article about heuristics in this issue.) To an extent, clarity versus opacity might be influenced by a game's complexity, and variable board spaces may mean an additional layer of complexity. However, opacity does not necessarily rise with increasing complexity.
Arimaa is a relatively complex game compared with the minimalist abstracts to which we often give coverage. We write about Arimaa in the current issue. Arimaa is a game with variable board spaces because of the traps. Arimaa is a game that I find difficult to get to grips with, and if it wasn't for the Arimaa literature, two excellent print books and an extensive Wiki Book, I might well give up on the game. Nevertheless, Arimaa theory is highly developed, and the literature provides important and fascinating insights into the game. In other words, the Arimaa literature cuts through Arimaa's fogginess to provide us with some clarity about the strategy and tactics of Arimaa. The literature makes it much easier to see what is going on in a game of Arimaa. I suppose this is clarity through familiarity at second hand, in which the authors of the books pass on their hard-won insights to the rest of us. Arimaa's relative complexity only affects its clarity when beginning the game and before you start to learn the strategy and tactics.
Perhaps as a whole, the entries to the competition are relatively more opaque than games without variable board spaces. Nevertheless, I think it would be misleading to state that all games of this type are opaque. There are other factors involved, such as Christian's notion of familiarity and the various techniques that we can use to become familiar with a game, whether through playing the game a lot or by taking a short cut and reading books about the game.
We will wrap up the competition in the next issue, with descriptions of the games that didn't fit into this issue and additional commentary about the judging. At least two other games deserve special mention in this respect. And then, of course, we should look towards the next game design competition. We have some ideas but would really appreciate suggestions. ◾️
The rules of Dag en Nacht are here in this issue. Dag en Nacht [Day and Night] is an alignment game, like Gomoku, Renju, Connect 6, and the rest. The author was inspired by the woodcut engraving Dag en Nacht, by Maurits Cornelius Escher, from 1938. The aesthetics of Dag en Nacht, with black and white stones on black and white spaces, is genuinely reminiscent of Escher's brilliant design. Dag en Nacht is an alignment game that perfectly utilizes the checkered pattern on a squared board.
The Unequal Game Design Competition was a success. Thank you to all of the designers, the judges, and advisors. Special thanks are due to Stephen Tavener, who implemented all the entries to the competition on Ai Ai. The ease of being able to test these games in Ai Ai was key to ensure that the judges were able to make good decisions. A big thank you also to Dave Dyer, who has already implemented Dag en Nacht on Boardspace.net.
Someone mentioned to me that the topic of this competition, games with boards with variable spaces, would produce games that were naturally opaque, meaning that it is difficult to see what is going on in them and make meaningful moves. I do not think this is necessarily the case. The winner, Dag en Nacht is surely no more "opaque" than other alignment games. Christian Freeling's article about clarity in the current issue, is relevant in this regard. According to Christian, the difficult concept of "clarity" in board games comes down to familiarity: "Clarity is familiarity," he concludes.
I agree with Christian. Perhaps Zola, for example, seems initially opaque; but if you play a few games, heuristics will develop, and Zola will make more sense—this is becoming familiar with Zola. (See also David Ploog's article about heuristics in this issue.) To an extent, clarity versus opacity might be influenced by a game's complexity, and variable board spaces may mean an additional layer of complexity. However, opacity does not necessarily rise with increasing complexity.
Arimaa is a relatively complex game compared with the minimalist abstracts to which we often give coverage. We write about Arimaa in the current issue. Arimaa is a game with variable board spaces because of the traps. Arimaa is a game that I find difficult to get to grips with, and if it wasn't for the Arimaa literature, two excellent print books and an extensive Wiki Book, I might well give up on the game. Nevertheless, Arimaa theory is highly developed, and the literature provides important and fascinating insights into the game. In other words, the Arimaa literature cuts through Arimaa's fogginess to provide us with some clarity about the strategy and tactics of Arimaa. The literature makes it much easier to see what is going on in a game of Arimaa. I suppose this is clarity through familiarity at second hand, in which the authors of the books pass on their hard-won insights to the rest of us. Arimaa's relative complexity only affects its clarity when beginning the game and before you start to learn the strategy and tactics.
Perhaps as a whole, the entries to the competition are relatively more opaque than games without variable board spaces. Nevertheless, I think it would be misleading to state that all games of this type are opaque. There are other factors involved, such as Christian's notion of familiarity and the various techniques that we can use to become familiar with a game, whether through playing the game a lot or by taking a short cut and reading books about the game.
We will wrap up the competition in the next issue, with descriptions of the games that didn't fit into this issue and additional commentary about the judging. At least two other games deserve special mention in this respect. And then, of course, we should look towards the next game design competition. We have some ideas but would really appreciate suggestions. ◾️
World Championship of Abstract Games for National Teams
As this issue is published in late September, 2021, You may still register for the World Championship of Abstract Games for National Teams. The website is here, for information and registration. It may yet be possible to participate with your national team.