Stone Placement (and maybe Movement) Games

(An early piece trying to cover types of games that are played with stones and a grid board. Might be better off done as a live catalog of such games.)

Abstract strategy games pride themselves in their relative simplicity, even if such a game were to be embellished in its packaging, it would still be the same as if it were played with household items on a board drawn on the floor. Aesthetically, these games are packaged in the plainest of designs, a bare bones approach to the game where distinctions stay on the text as much as possible.

Equipment for such games need only be made distinct and assigned its task, whatever it looks like is anyone's game. Chess pieces have their roles carved onto them, colors imply ownership if not attribute(for games that use a common pool). One of the simplest yet is a pile of stones distinguished only by color and stones of a like color are owned by one player.

As with every abstract game, it is important to set the terms a bit. In general abstract parlance a stone is a piece that is played by being placed on the board and possibly moving it afterward. A board must consist of cells where a stone must be placed onto, any of that dilly-dally halfway crap is not allowed. Stones of one color are practically indistinguishable from one another and everything that pertains to a stone's capability applies to every other stone bar geographic rules.

Gameplay must involve stone placement, with or without movement. Any starting stones placed on the board are allowed if they aren't the only ones that will be in play. Some would argue that strictly placing stones should be covered here, but this is for the purposes of putting a game where placement and movement happen somewhere.

The most ubiquitous of this form of game uses a Go board and stones, but we can keep the stones and change the board a bit for each example, but that doesn't mean every game listed will work with any type board, e.g. Square grid games have rules that don't work on a hexagonal grid. The game types listed will also be limited, or I'll be here all day splitting hairs.

From Point A to B, or the other one

One of the easiest goals for an abstract strategy game is forming a line between two sides of the board, the sides need not be parallel as long as the only ways of forming the connections are nontrivial. This genre generally splits into two versions, either you try to connect the sides you own or connect any sides that fit the condition.

Cameron Browne has a book on this that I haven't read so I can only give some observations that may or may not have been dealt with in the book.

The purest form of this game is Hex, where players try to connect their two parallel sides of a hexagonal grid rhombus by placing stones on cells. That's it, but some analysis has been done with this game that one of these days we'll find the perfect strategy.

Games of this nature are always designed to achieve no draws by design. I have spitballed about this here, but the way this no-draw thing is done is through:

1. The board geography.
2. The rules of placement. Some placements are banned or can cause changes.
3. Obliging moves. If passing is rarely an option either player has a chance to shoot himself in the foot.

An interesting subset of connection games has appeared where the design goal is to try to make a connection game work on a square grid. Square grids are notorious for their eight-direction connections that either force paths to intersect each other, or forsaking diagonal connections not allowing any connection at all. 

The shape created by two stones of different colors crossing each other in a checkerboard patter is called a crosscut and any purely orthogonal connections are immediately severed once this shape comes into play

From downright banning crosscuts, adding connection rules, allowing captures and whatever could work, the connection game genre has flowered in tougher landscapes.

Not that other board shapes had not been used, but as with the case for hexagonal grids, there's little need to meddle with it except by having some fun with the rules or using a different layout. Practically, regular tilings are already there ready for use, but connection games are a breeding-ground for funny geometries that other game types don't have a demand for.

Ding Ding Ding Ding!

Much simpler is to extend the premise of the classic game Tic-Tac-Toe and have games where the goal is some stones in a row. Obviously the goal is to line their own stones before the other can.

Gomoku is the simplest of this wider generalization, although this has fallen out of favor as being first in turn is too much of a headstart. Attempts to level the balance are solidified in Renju.

Pente has given the whole n-in-a-row game a new twist with its capture rule, even ensuring that the game doesn't devolve to mindless capturing by practically limiting it as a win condition.

This is My Claim

When it comes to games where stones are placed to demarcate territory there's no arguing over Go, but this doesn't mean that other ways to play territory are no longer up for grabs, just a bit unnecessary given that none of them can ever be a contender.

Unsurprisingly, language of games that revolve around stone placement use the language of Go to explain things, even using similar equipment. We'll stick to them as long as there are no equivocations.

Practically, some of the games that Luis Bolaños Mures have designed use territorial concepts but rely on it being a connection game. Whether such games work in a territorial sense (from most enclosed spaces to most stones placed on the board) is yet to be tested, though the bigger the territory the more likely you can build a bridge on it.

Counting score in Go may take a while to learn, but in essence a shortened form of counting spaces claimed by placing stones on every point. Simplified scores(as befits the game) include counting groups of stones, counting the largest group or even going back to raw stone count. Mixing these criteria does happen and you get wild equations to reach a score.

One can also win these games by being the last player to move, which, depending on the size and gameplay, good luck. 

While this may be considered a voting game, Majorities does have a mechanic where a majority-claimed row/direction counts toward a player's vote count, and this also gives a better demonstration of how small moves affects the whole game.

There will be more games with these items that will be made, new mechanics, geometries, concepts. After all, how can you go wrong with such simple pieces? It's as simple as it can get.