Talk:Race game

Untitled

Would this be notable enough with stub status and the expand tag? ViperSnake151 03:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would be. What's your problem? Bacchiad 03:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who CSD'd it. I am not questioning any notability, however I am questioning the fact that this article does not seem to be encyclopedic. The CSD can be removed and an AfD discussion be opened, if you really disagree with the CSD nom. Do you? - Rjd0060 03:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. See Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. 1.2.1: "No context. Very short articles with little or no context for their statements. Example: "He is a funny man with a red car and makes people laugh."" I'll allow that this article can use a lot more work, but it is not at the level of contextlessness to merit CSD. Bacchiad 03:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

AFD has been opened. - Rjd0060 03:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Closed as keep. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The major revision of Dec 19 was by me. I did not intend to edit anonymously; something timed out and didn't attribute it correctly.Phil wink (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Conspirateurs et al = race game ?

The article seems to put forth a mighty definition (what is "not" a race game, etc.). But it isn't that clear cut, unless one piles on exceptions. For example, Chinese Checkers is a race without captures, the first to get one's pieces somewhere. But there is no "track" w/ associated "finish line", instead a "home" (designated destination). Ditto Halma and Conspirateurs. The race game definition in this article should allow one to be able to determine if "race" catagory includes them. (Does it?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe I'm speaking to your concerns here, but if I've misread them, please let me know...

I don't accept the premise that the existing definition ("Race game is a large category of board games, in which the object is to be the first to move all one's pieces to the end of a track.") "isn't that clear cut". The objection seems to be that this definition fails to include Chinese Checkers, Halma, and Conspirateurs. But these are not race games; they are "Games of Alinement and Configuration" (Murray 1951; categorizing Halma), or "Games of Position" (Bell 1960; Halma), or "Space Games" (Parlett 1999; Halma & Chinese Checkers). (All three of these categories are essentially synonymous, and are distinct from all three authors' "Race Games" categories.) Ihardlythinkso correctly notes that Halma et al. don't have tracks; so the above definition correctly excludes them from the category.Phil wink (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, Halma and Chinese Checkers are configuration games, having piece-fitting considerations at their "home" destinations, whereas pure race games have only "finish line". I'm not sure there's a universally agreed definition of "race game" beyond that, however, specifically a "track" (one-course defined pathway to destination). (I can accept that definition okay, I'm just not sure it is a universally-held def.)

For example, for Conspirateurs, even though there is no single finish line, there are no configuration issues at the home desginations either (simply getting there is enough). So that game seems to have multi-finish lines for the multiple homes, yet of course, no single-path defined track. (But there's very little info on the game, so, no one is calling it a race game. Okay!)

For Christian Freeling's Breakthrough, being first to get a piece to the back row wins, and the first thing Freeling says about the game: "Breakthrough is a race game."

For Eric Solomon's Billabong, both BGG and GameCabinet.com describe the game as a "racing game". There is a finish line and the board even looks like a racetrack, but again, no single-path course.

For Robert Abbott's Epaminondas, like Breakthrough, the object is to be first to get a piece to the back row. Zillions-of-Games puts the game into a game category "Breakthrough / Race".

V. R. Parton's game Racing Kings is another one (objective get the piece to the back row first, no one-path defined course), Parton describes the game as a "racing contest".

I guess my point is, these games don't have home configuration issues like Chinese Checkers, etc., and have finish lines, but don't have single-path gamepiece routes, but are commonly sometimes thought of or spoken about as "race games" (so, if the definition isn't worldly defined, and these uses are common, then perhaps the def in WP can relax the requirement for single-path, or if not that, then games like these without single-path raceways perhaps should probably be mentioned in the article sec "Not race games", to avoid confusion, since they're oftentimes called that elsewhere).

Just an idea. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have revised the article a bit (though not my stance). See what you think. Unfortunately, a universally-agreed-upon board game category definition is a fantasy... and "Race" is probably the closest to being universally-agreed-upon! Sources such as Zillions of Games and GameBoardGeek cannot be relied upon to provide well-reasoned and consistent categorizations. For that, we need to rely on established sources, and in this case, I see half a century of surprisingly close agreement, which I think we transgress at our peril.

I do find one of the above games in Parlett: Epaminondas, which as expected he categorizes as a "Space Game". (He also discusses a "Breakthrough" but it is clearly a different game than the one you've referenced above.) He does somewhat anticipate your argument, saying "They [games like Chinese Checkers and Epaminondas] also resemble race games, in that the object is to get 'home' first, the chief difference being that they are played on two-dimensional grids and are games of perfect information, movement being determined by strategy rather than lot." Cheers.Phil wink (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem w/ your text addition. But for me it'd never cross my mind that Hex, Agon, & Tic-Tac-Toe were anything other than connection (Hex) and configuration games (others). (It seems unwise of de Voogt to broaden "race" to include connection/configuration, e.g. Havannah/Lines of Action, because what happens then to configuration/connection as true categories? Nearly all games possess a "first to do" element [e.g. chess = first to mate your opponent], so personally me thinks de Voogt's umbrella-ing config is circumspect and perhaps confuses.)

Q for you: How would you categorize Billabong, Racing Kings, Epaminondas, and Freeling's Breakthrough? (I assume they're all the same cat. They have perfect info, pure strategy, no linear track, and "finish lines". And maybe Conspirateurs also falls in the same group.) The reason I ask falls to my orig concern, viz, will a reader be confused when reading the article if he is thinking re any one of those games? (Was thinking the article might want to specifically exclude games of that type, or whatever.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

De Voogt's classification is the most principled I have seen, meaning it starts with few a priori assumptions and proceeds with a rigorously logical classification of the most essential game elements; however, his main taxonomy results in only 3 types, so it is of limited use to anyone who likes finer distinctions (as we both do). Please understand that there are no "true categories". There are only definitions that specific games either fit into or not. De Voogt puts forth a definition of a type of board game "won by reaching a position sooner than the opponent" and for his purposes labels this type "Race Games". My point in including this broader definition was to state explicitly that there is a very large bunch of games in which one is trying to get from here to there, but only a subset -- those played on linear paths -- are given the label "Race Games" by what I believe to be our best authorities.

As a Good Wikipedian, my answer to your specific question would be that it doesn't matter how I -- or you -- would categorize the games you mention; it only matters how the most reliable sources categorize them. (I've tried to make the article even more explicit on this topic.) I take it that Parlett (to whom we should all genuflect ceaselessly) would classify these as "games of attainment and traversal", which are a subset of his "Space Games". But since I am only a somewhat good Wikipedian I'm happy to give you my opinion. I agree with what I take to be Parlett's stance, that no matter how "racy" the game (and there is absolutely no doubt that the games you mention are "racy"), when a second dimension is added to the game the playing dynamics, strategies, and "feel" tend to change enough that it makes more sense to consider these games along with their other 2-dimensional buddies -- and as distinct from the linear race games. (Consider the nearly universal use of lots among linear race games, and their almost total absence from 2-dimensional "racy" games. This is not happenstance, but in my opinion a sign of deeply divergent structure.) Personally, I think "Linear Race Games" may be a better label for the category I'm talking about here and in the article proper, but my opinion must yield to decades of consensus among the pros. Phil wink (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)