DARLING: Here is a multiplayer game with no luck and no hidden information: pick up sticks.
BILL: For Clyde's class that not a game.
DARLING: Why not? Its alot more fun than NIM!
Help me answer my darling. What makes something a game rather than a sport? Not sure pick-up-sticks is a sport either.
Lets try to get NATURAL examples of each category: One issue- the terms are not that well defined so you may disagree with some of these. We break it into two basic categories (for a better picture of the results goto here.)
1) Complete Information
- 2-player, no luck. Go, Chess, Nim: Nim has had some nice math associated to it. Chess and Go have inspired very nice computer techniques (was alpha-beta pruning developed for chess originally?). There are some recent techniques for GO which I will talk about in a later posting.
- 2-player, some luck: Backgammon, Can't Stop (a natural game but not that well known). Sorry! (that's not be apologizing, that's the game Sorry!). Parcheesi.
- Multiplayer, no luck: Chinese Checkers. I do not know of ANY other examples.
- Multiplayer, luck: Monopoly (and similar games).
- 2-player, no luck. Stratego, Battleship: These are debatable. In fact, it may that that if defined carefully this combination is impossible.
- 2-player, luck: Gin and most 2-player card game.
- Multiplayer, no luck: Clue where each player only moves 5 squares per turn, so dice needed. One of Clyde's students families plays it this way, hence it is a natural game.
- Multiplayer, luck: Poker. Most multiplayer card games.
QUESTION: Many games are hard via complexity theory. For example, GO and CHESS are EXPTIME complete (see here). Do these results tell us things about real games?