From: thornley@nano.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.games.strategic - how about perfect-info
Keywords: checkers, shogi, othello, hex, etc.
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:18:14 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

In article <a_rubin.714854536@dn66> a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes:
>In <1992Aug25.182038.27357@news2.cis.umn.edu> thornley@nano.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
>
>>In article <a_rubin.714754810@dn66> a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes:
>>>In <1992Aug25.082405.25272@ucthpx.uct.ac.za> tonyp@ucthpx.uct.ac.za (Tony Putman) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>[Suggests that the "strategy" games listed are games of perfect information
>>>> and no chance elements, and recommends the name rec.games.perfect-info.]
>>>
>>>[Sounds like a defineable difference that might be useful.]
>
>>[Many wargames are "games of perfect information", so this is a bad
>> criterion.]
>
>Isn't the initial setup in some wargames face down?  That would be sufficient
>to make it not a game of perfect information.  Simultaneous moves
>(sizors (sp!), paper, stone), are also not games of perfect information. 
>I was just agreeing that it was a definition, not that it was the desired
>definition.

I'm arguing the practicalities.  You can split games up in an incredible
number of ways, but few of them will be useful.  The perfect-information
split will not satisfy the factions.

Personally, I don't have a problem with r.g.b as it exists, and will not
support any proposal that causes me a problem.  Another faction has
a problem and will not support any proposal that doesn't fix it.

After the split, I want (for my own selfish reasons) the following all
in the same group:  1830, Merchants of Venus, World in Flames, Advanced
Squad Leader, SPQR, Star Fleet Battles, Magic Realm....  Some of these
are games of perfect information, some aren't, and some wargames can be
either depending on which rules are used.  One characteristic they all
seem to share is that they attempt to simulate something (not necessarily
something real or possible), and therefore would all be in rec.games.
simulation and would all be excluded from rec.games.abstract.  Therefore,
I will support the creation of r.g.simulation or r.g.abstract.

The other folks want a group that contains checkers, Nomic, Nine Men's
Morris, and other games and does *not* include my favorites.  Their games
are all abstract, making no effort to simulate anything.  Therefore, they
would be perfectly happy if we created r.g.simulation and went away, or
if they created r.g.abstract and went away.

Rec.games.perfect-information would separate Star Fleet Battles and SPQR,
while putting SPQR and Owari together, and this satisfies neither me nor the
splitters.  Rec.games.war would leave Merchants of Venus with shogi rather
than with World in Flames, again satisfying neither.  Rec.games.strategic
means two different things to two different groups, and would effectively
result in World in Flames and multidimensional Tic-Tac-Toe grouped and
Advanced Squad Leader in another group, plus plenty of flame wars over the
definition of "strategic".  Rec.games.avalon-hill will group Magic Realm
and a version of owari together, and apart from Star Fleet Battles and
checkers.  For these reasons, I will vote against all of these proposals
that have been made, and I suspect the current splitters will do likewise.

I will vote for rec.games.simulation or rec.games.abstract (and also
rec.games.diplomacy, if that comes to a vote).

DHT