Single Comment

I'm starting this thread to discuss general ideas of game design and evaluation.<p> I would start by saying that Mark Thompson's concepts of depth, clarity, drama, and decisiveness are excellent criteria for evaluating a Chess variant. See his <a href='http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/DefiningtheAbstract.shtml'> <i>Defining the Abstract</i></a> article from The Games Journal (July 2000).<p> I particularly note that depth and clarity are in a reciprocal relationship, as are drama and decisiveness. A game with infinite depth will have no clarity and a game with perfect clarity will have no depth.<p> A good game will be balanced at points on these continuua where the players can experience the satisfactions of all four of the crtieria.<p> I think these the criteria may be sufficent as first-order design criteria. I would be interested in hearing if there are others that should be added to the list, and what second-order design criteria might be useful to implement them.<p> For example, (IMO) George Duke's beloved <i>Piece Type Density</i> is not a first-order criterion, but is a useful second-order criterion: a high piece type density reduces clarity and increases depth. Whether this is good or bad depends on a game's balance at a lower piece density.