Not Bad in the Abstract

Patrick beat me at Hive this afternoon. He's getting very good at the game, and I'm surprised how much I like it, given that it's an abstract strategy game.

In game theory, an abstract strategy game is a game with no chance and perfect information. No chance eliminates any games with suffled cards or dice. Perfect information means that nothing is hidden -- both (all) players know where all of the pieces are. Examples of games with no chance but hidden information would be Battleship and Stratego. Chess, checkers and Go would be good examples of abstract strategy games -- having no chance and perfect information.

Why don't I like abstract strategy games? I think that the main reason is that I have a really bad memory, which seems to be a requirement for being a strong player. First, good players need to memorize standard openings and defenses. I probably could do this, but that wouldn't solve the mid-game problem. At some point in the middle of any abstract strategy game, players need to start analyzing potential moves. Anyone who's played chess knows the process: "If I move my knight here, he could move his queen there, in which case I could move my pawn forward. Or if he moves his bishop over there, I could counter with my bishop taking his knight." I suppose that I could "train" my brain to be better, but I'm generally lost after three levels of recursion, and can rarely remember which move I started the analysis with. The Wikipedia entry on Abstract Strategy Games suggests that chess has 10^123 possible board situations. Checkers is much easier, only having on the order of 10^31 possibilities. I am proud of the fact that at least I'm willing to admit that it's my mental shortcomings that sour me on these games, unlike many who want to write off the games themselves as being uninteresting. Since Hive only has 20 pieces (10 on each side), the mid game seems more managable to me. I still lose, but at least I don't have a headache at the end of the game.

A secondary reason is that most abstract strategy games lack a theme. (As a side note, Steve Krebs argues at BoardGameGeek that when gamers use the term "theme," what they really mean is "setting." I think he's right.) I enjoy learning something about a topic I'm interested in when I play a game. If I'm playing something from the Ticket to Ride series, I won't really learn anything about running a train network, but I do learn some geography from the mapboard. On the opposite end, I've learned a lot of history from the GMT card driven games, such as The Napoleonic Wars and Here I Stand. I remember that I wasn't through my very first turn playing Japan in a game of Axis and Allies (in 1985) when I understood the strategic importance of the Solomon Islands (and thus Guadalcanal). Checkers and Go have no pretense of a theme, and it would be a real stretch to argue that chess in any way teaches about military tactics. As it is, Hive has no real theme; that is players learn nothing about insects.

So, who is Hive good for? It's good if you want an abstract strategy game with fairly nice pieces, a short playing time and few enough pieces that someone with a bad memory can enjoy it.