Talk:Abstract strategy game

message: We have so many of these, wouldn't it be worth making a subcategory of :Category:Board games called :Category:Abstract strategy games?  Especially since some of them such as Connect Four are currently in no categories at all.  —Blotwell 07:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think this makes sense. Andreas Kaufmann 15:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: As the lead section itself bolds abstact strategy game and the article mainly discusses abstract strategy games (as in "what counts as an abstract strategy game"), the title of this article, IMO, would be much more accurate as Abstract_strategy_game. What do you think? Fetofs Hello! 14:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. Current name "Abstract strategy" doesn't have much sense. Andreas Kaufmann 20:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have moved the page. Fetofs Hello! 11:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This is the definition used in the sv:wp article! I also suggest a renaming to Complete Information Strategy Game. Moberg (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

text: (see Perfect information and leave a comment) Moberg (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming proposal 

message: I don't even remember clearly it's name, I played it a long time ago... But it's a nice game... If anyone knows it, it'd be good to make an article... There was 3 squares in center of each other, and four radial lines making a cross, linking them... But the middle lines didn't went inside the inside-most square... Each player start with three 'pawns' in opposite sides... And moved it one line per turn... The objective being reaching the other side with all three pawns... If you never remove one of your pawns from the starting position, your opponent will never win, but so won't you... There's no capture nor stuff... Only moving and trying to get past the opponents...
You're probably thinking of Nine Men's Morris.
Markwpalko 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three man something 

message: The section listing favorite games is a bit odd. Obviously, chess is far mor popular than most (probably all) games on the list; most chess players just haven't rated the game on those internet sites. If the lists are relevant at all, I think they should be presented with more reservations about what they really mean.--Niels Ø (noe) 19:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list should be deleted. It contains too many games that are not abstract strategy games at all, using rankings that are of questionable relevance and accuracy.   — Aldaron • T/C   22:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Favorite abstract strategy games 

message: The two sections "what counts as an abstract strategy game" and "favorite abstract strategy games" are pure original research and should be deleted. Any arguments in favor of preserving them?   — Aldaron • T/C   19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete "what counts..." and "favorite.." sections? 

message: The articles stated in a comparison: Emanuel Lasker, world chess champion from 1894 to 1921 and inventor of the game Lasca, once said that "If there are sentient beings on other planets, then they play Go". His namesake, Edward Lasker clarified this thought later in a book he wrote about Go called The Game of Go: "While the Baroque rules of chess could only have been created by humans, the rules of go are so elegant, organic, and rigorously logical that if intelligent life forms exist elsewhere in the universe, they almost certainly play go."Sensei's Library: Great Quotes....
It is hardly relevant to the article in the first place. A reference for supposed Emanuel Lasker quote is missing. Apparently, Emanuel Lasker never said so, it was just attributed to him by people who confused the two Laskers. -- Zz (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They were relatives and Edward was master strength if I correctly recall, The quote seems very relevant in that it helps illustrate the definition of abstract in regard to games. --I (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Laskers 

message: #A comment in that section describes Go as "strategic" and chess as "tactical."  These are, in this sense, technical terms that someone needs to define in the article before using them.
#Who says that checkers, chess, and Go are the "top 3 contenders" for anything?  That statement needs to be sourced.
#Most importantly, all the refs given in that section (and, indeed, the only refs in the entire article) are references to other Wikipedia articles.  That is entirely unacceptable.  Other Wikipedia articles may never be used as sources; see WP:SPS.  If you want to cite something, go to those articles and find the sources they cited; don't cite the Wikipedia article itself.
It has already been suggested above that some sections be deleted, and if this section isn't cleaned up soon it will have to at least be commented out.  —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 16:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits in [[Abstract strategy game#Comparison of abstract strategy games|Comparison of abstract strategy games]] 

message: I moved the giant list to List of abstract strategy games. —Politizer talk/contribs 17:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: The above discussion is old and unwieldy enough that I'm making a new subsection to revive it, but IMO the issues it deals with are still problematic. As it stands, the article's definition of "abstract strategy game", particularly its insistence on no non-deterministic elements or hidden information, 1) does not align with the underlying meaning of the component words, 2) rests primarily on a single essay written by an individual (J. Mark Thompson) as source for the general usage of the term, and 3) does not even interpret that source correctly (if you read the article carefully, you will see that he links the "perfect information" component specifically to the word strategy, whereas this Wikipedia article links it to the word abstract.
Furthermore, some of the other pages used as sources for this article (some of which are now defunct, though still accessible through archive.org) admit much more disagreement and debate over this term's usage than this article allows. For all of these reasons, I believe the article should be revised to clearly reference its sources (e.g. "J. Mark Thompson proposes" rather than "[It is generally agreed") and not go beyond what they say (e.g. suggesting that "abstract strategy games" differ from other "strategy games" in having perfect information).
JudahH (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition still problematic

message: 1)This section is still lacking in references added a paragraph on reference in competitive usage.
2)Moved computer theory paragraph into complexity section as it was closer to complexity than what is considered an ASG
3)I have changed backgammon to continuo because I could not find a reference that categorises backgammon played with dice as an ASG, continuo uses a shuffled deck and there are places that count continuo as an ASG.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetron76 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: What is condsidered an abstract game

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Abstract strategy game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150418185838/http://iagoweb.com/wiki/game-genres to http://iagoweb.com/wiki/game-genres
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100507004847/http://iagohalloffame.com:80/ to http://iagohalloffame.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified