 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||
| |||||||||||
King? edit
How does one identify the king? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.130.136.162 (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Oops, nevermind. I see now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.130.136.162 (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- OK! :) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Graphics? edit
The rules section could use more images visually detailing the movements of men and kings, orthogonal capture, and majority capture. Aleh Tapalnitski has some fantastic images in the Meet Dameo book in the references, but I'm new to this and couldn't upload them and don't have permission. I'm also not great with creating graphics myself, but I think they would go a long way towards clarifying the rules. T0afer (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Added pictures of example tactics, but better graphics would still be preferable. Just replace the pictures with graphics. T0afer (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- T0afer, it's been awhile, but are you still interested in graphics (green & beige & red & white; easy to do) to replace those photos? Or are you content at this point w/ those photos? Ok, --IHTS (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ihardlythinkso Yeah I still think the green and beige with the red and white checkers, especially the ones that denote the kings, would represent the positions much better T0afer (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Notes Section edit
"...known for openly criticizing the game's well known flaw..." This part of Christian Freeling's quote could use a note referring to the Draw rate in professional matches. It could be something like 'He is referring to the very large margin of draws between players in professional international draughts matches'. This would clarify what exactly the "well known flaw" he's referring to is. I tried adding a note myself but couldn't figure out the source editing and didn't want to jank up the formatting. T0afer (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Recent Edits edit
Snowfire, some of the edits you are were fair, but the sources for a lot of these things were not checked properly. Freeling never estimated dameo's draw margin, that data is sourced from an ai analysis program report feature and it never linked to Freeling saying that this was his opinion of the draw margin. Also, the article relies on primary sources largely in the history section where its proper given that the creator has written relevant info on how he views it. Ideally we can find more third party sources, but the primary sources are not irrelevant. His opinion on whether the game is important to him or not is also relevant, so long as it references the fact that it's his opinion. It was not worded to imply that his opinion is an objective fact, but simply something he considers as part of his magnus opus. T0afer (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look. Okay, I agree that primary sources can be relevant (I've certainly done this before for games), but there's almost no independent secondary sources at the moment. This is a major problem! WP:RS is a requirement, not a nice-to-have. Is it possible to find some more reliable sources on Freeling's games?
- For the individual issues - the draw margin is currently sourced to http://mrraow.com/uploads/AiAiReports/Dameo/Dameo.html , which is entitled "Full Report for Dameo by Christian Freeling". I don't disbelieve you that Freeling came to the conclusion with an analysis program, but programs are written and run by people, and can be adjusted and run many times until the "right" response pops out. It's still a biased source that absolutely must have its source directly attested to if included at all - obviously the game designer is going to want to trumpet statistics that make their game look good. This isn't some boring claim like where Freeling lives, this is a claim that would require outside analysis - imagine asking the inventor of chess what rate they think high level games will end in a draw.
- I really don't see the importance the creator attaches to the game as relevant, especially since he has so many favorite games that all happen to be created by him. Maybe, maybe if he said this was his favorite game and was a known auteur. But look at the reception section of a movie - Jaws_(film)#Critical_reception talks about how much critics like the film, not how much Steven Spielberg liked the film, because Spielberg's opinion isn't an "interesting" source - of course he's going to like it. Game creator likes game he created, news at 11.
- Also, at https://www.nickbentley.games/organicity-in-abstract-strategy-games/ Bently calls Freeling "one of his game design mentors" which sure sounds like a friendship to me. Maybe he was just being polite, but they're on good enough terms that Bently lets Freeling post on his own blog.
- I hope I don't come across as too negative here, but all of the articles on Freeling's games are very precarious at the moment (see Talk:Christian Freeling) - I think many/most of them could potentialy be AFD'd. To be clear, I hope that does not happen, but to stave that off, they need some cleanup and better sourcing - replace links to BGG threads to independent, third party commentary and the like. And if the third party commentary doesn't exist, then maybe best to just merge them into some "List of games by Christian Freeling" article or the like and cut down the content to just two paragraphs. SnowFire (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- So the title to the analysis is misleading. It means analysis for Dameo (by Christian Freeling), in that the game is by Christian Freeling. I believe the report was run by Dr. Eric Silverman through Steven Tavener's AIAI reporting programing which is automatic and gathers similar statistics through all the games run through his database. I don't think Freeling was involved in it at all except possibly by asking Ateven Tavener to implement Dameo in AIAI, and I'm not certain he did that even.
- As for Nick Bentley I'm not entirely sure how he should be represented on this. I think he's taken inspiration from Freeling's game designs before and that could be mentioned, but I'm not sure their relationship is exactly a friendship. Some public conversations between them seem to imply a sort of "in the same industry" relationship rather than mutual support of each other's game designs and Freeling has decried Bentley for emphasizing commercial aspects in abstract games. (Overall I I thought it was more relevant that he's notable for designing blooms and bug and some other BGA abstracts than being inspired by Freeling). The source itself was put in the trivia section because it indicates the viewpoints of semi-notable game abstract game designer.
- Most of Freeling's other games I would agree. I tried to find everything I could on them. Other than Dameo, only Symple has sustained coverage by David Ploog (if I recall correctly) in the New Abstract games magazine. I don't speak dutch or german however and I believe that's where some of the discussion has taken place for them. T0afer (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- If you read the top and then also scroll to the bottom here it notes that most of the reports are either generated by Steven Tavener himself or by Dr. Eric Silverman, but the data itself is how the AiAi program estimates the data by playing against itself repeatedly. T0afer (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, fair point, that title can be read two ways. Unfortunately, that's a bit of an "out of the frying pan, into the fire" type situation - while Freeling might be a biased source, he's also an undoubtedly relevant source. This means we're stuck essentially saying "According to Some Website, the draw margin in Dameo is..." with no guarantee said website is a reliable source. It's an apples & oranges comparison to the Real Chess Draw Margin based on tons of high-level games.
- I still don't see Freeling praising the game as relevant even in trivia. Same with wild claims about replacing checkers in international competition. Again, almost every author likes their own books, directors like their own movies, game creators like the games they created. They all want to see their product succeed and become a big deal. Only if it was surprising - perhaps if Freeling declared he was disowning Dameo and it was a big mistake - would it be worthy of inclusion. If nothing else, let's at least see third party notice that Freeling's praise is relevant - i.e. not links to mindsports.nl directly.
- Nick Bentley is still not a great source - I still don't see why he's a "notable" source. He is better than a BGG thread at least though, so he has that on some of the other sources currently used. SnowFire (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- If you read the top and then also scroll to the bottom here it notes that most of the reports are either generated by Steven Tavener himself or by Dr. Eric Silverman, but the data itself is how the AiAi program estimates the data by playing against itself repeatedly. T0afer (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- The website is the AiAi report page section. AiAi was Developed by Steven Tavener and Cameron Browne (the inventor of the ludi software which in turn invented yavaleth) for a PhD program on Artificial intelligence to design a generalized game program. AiAi was modified based on this original project.
- https://www.abstractgames.org/interviewst.html
- And here's info on Cameron Browne
- http://cambolbro.com/
- AiAi might not be correct in its estimate, but I don't know if its fair to call the reports a random webpage. Its more relevant than if Steven Tavener or Dr. Eric Silverman just wrote a blog post on what they felt the draw margin would be after a few plays. The data is obtained by the AiAi artificial intelligence program playing against itself thousands of times, and then collecting the data into a report. It represents how a semi-generalized ai program sees player advantage, draw margin, computational complexity and other data by analyzing the statistics gleaned through play. It includes other information that program grabs from elsewhere, like BGG reviews, but as for game analysis it gets them from playing the game and recording the results.
- And I still say bentley is a notable source because he's a notable designer of abstract games, fairly well known if you're involved in the community. He's achieved some success both in and outside the abstract game development sphere. So while he may know freeling its because they're both notable within that abstract game design community. His game blooms was featured in the New Abstract Games Magazine.
- And he's won several community awards for his work.
- And the Editor of the New Abstract Games Magazine, Kerry Handscomb describes his success in the article on blooms
- "Blooms is a game by Nick Bentley, who is one of the very active modern abstract game designers producing highly original new games. His first big hit was Catchup, which was implemented on Little Golem in 2010. Catchup has attracted a consistent following, with regular tournaments and a number of very strong players. Several other of Nick's games, including Circle of Life and its successor Bug have attracted much attention, and Circle of Life, as well as Blooms, is playable on BoardGameArena.
- Thibault has admirably pointed out some key features of Blooms that demonstrate how interesting and original it is."
- -Kerry Handscomb New Abstract Games Issue 20 Blooms
- I would say Bentley's opinion on the value of Dameo is notable for his success in designing similar games, if somewhat "minor." Which is why I put it in the trivia section. It's not particularly important to Dameo's history or rules, but is the recognition of its "value" (ie the opinion of someone in the abstract games community) by someone who has had success in abstract game design. Dr. Eric Silverman on the other hand, who wrote an analysis of Freeling's game Symple and generated a lot of the AiAi reports on his computer by letting the program run, actually dislikes Dameo.
- https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2584939/article/36836125#36836125
- T0afer (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at this article for the first time, I have made some minor edits. There are a number of sources external from the game’s creator describing the game, so the primary sources tag isn’t relevant. For discussion about a Draughts variant which could very well be a good solution to the low depth and drawish nature of checkers, I set the bar for what constitutes a reliable source much lower than, say, a source containing a WP:BLP concern. The sources are third party independent of the subject, so there’s some significant third party interest in this game among the small “abstract games which aren’t Chess/Go” community. Samboy (talk) 10:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)