Ambition: The Official Blog

ISO NYC Python

2006-12-28T15:26:00.000-05:00

I'm looking to get in contact with every NYC Pythoner I can. Therefore, if you're competent in Python, or interested in learning it, contact me: ambition_game Shift+2 yahoo. (N.b. the project I have in mind has nothing to do with Ambition, so if you're not into card games, that's not a problem.)

Update

2006-10-08T02:38:00.000-04:00

Ambition will be launched online, with high probability, this fall. Beta testing is underway, and the pieces are rapidly coming together. I couldn't have done this without the help of Randy Ekl, so I want to publically thank him for his work on this project.

Remaining is the development of AI using some high-risk, high-potential-reward techniques including neural nets and, possibly, genetic algorithms. So far, we only have "dictated" AI: we tell the computer what to do using a nest of conditionals based on what we think is the right way to play. My goal-- and this is only the second time I've used advanced AI outside of school-- is, next, to develop "evolved" AI, with the potential to develop strategies and have "insights" that emerge without the influence of human expectations. Ahead is a very challenging and extremely exciting research project.

Note the 2d: I'm beginning development of a new boardgame-- a tile-placing game loosely inspired by the Efficient Market Hypothesis. (If this intimidates you, trust me that you need no financial or economic knowledge in order to enjoy this game.) It should be, for "heaviness" level, somewhere between Bohnanza and, the best boardgame of modern times, Tigris and Euphrates. (That's a wide interval, but this is a very new concept.) I'm looking for playtesters, so anyone who's interested in testing should contact me: mikechurch72 (72 as in Slam) at gmail.

I really can't say much...

2006-09-11T00:24:00.000-04:00

I have chosen, of late, to become a more private individual and avoid being a part of the "blog" scene. My other blog has been taken down, and I don't intend to resurrect it. The risks associated with personal blog activity do not, in any way, justify the improbable upsides.

However, there is a good chance that there will be an online implementation of Ambition very soon; the details are being worked out as I write this. When that is finished, I will let the world know.

Apology

2006-07-21T14:44:00.000-04:00

The "major" announcement I promised shall be held until early August.

3.5 and time to mobilize...

2006-07-10T22:19:00.000-04:00

Version 3.5, with very minor changes, is in the works for Ambition. This time, changes will be only to scoring and the winning/losing conditions; the essential character of the game will remain unchanged. However, I am likely to "fork" the game into two versions: a beginner's version, and a more skillful, but also more complicated, "expert" version. I will have this done by mid-August at latest.

I'm in New York and in the process of "mobilization"; that is, making the first steps toward realizing a permanent community of players for this game; while Ambition has been a success of design, it has been a promotional failure compared to its established potential. That I intend to change. I'll provide the details within the next five days.

I feel really left out, Kaavya...

2006-05-02T20:33:00.000-04:00

I won't fan the stink of "Kaavyagate" much more, only because I've said enough nasty things about Kaavya and, also, because I think she has been used, essentially, as a pawn. It's hard to feel sorry for her given her actions, but surely she didn't anticipate her present situation, and she's almost certainly not the sole person responsible. At this point, she's suffered enough international humiliation, but for a recap: she wrote a book called How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life, about a snotty New Money girl obsessed with Harvard, trying to get in. (Write what ya know.) This would be no crime, but she managed to snag an advance possibly as high as $500,000 from Little, Brown; this would be the largest advance ever awarded an unpublished author. [Wikipedia] The literary merit of her novel has been questioned, most notably on CNN International. [here] Perhaps not anticipating the scrutiny that would follow from such an advance, she plagiarized from several sources, including the novels of Megan McCafferty. [Harvard Crimson]

I've begun to feel bad for Kaavya, only because I think she's suffering a disproportionate share of the flak. She is a plagiarist, but certainly not the only person to have done wrong. It's possible that the "packager", 17th Street Productions, may have played a role in this debacle. Moreover, I would surmise that Katherine Cohen, CEO of IvyWise, played at least an indirect role. IvyWise is a consultancy that specializes in getting rich kids into top colleges, and the methods used to do this are absurd and highly unfair. For example, she advises that students seek internships with investment banks and "internationally prominent" museums-- in high school. [Harvard Independent] (In college? Sure, and many of my friends have. High school? Ridiculous.) Ladies and gentlemen: here is your XXI-c. analogue of "let them eat cake". Ms. Cohen has placed clients in such otherwise unattainable internships; she is, effectively, selling her own elite connections in order to give the already-privileged an additional advantage in the discredited meritocracy of college admissions. In short, she has no ethical principles whatsoever. (Oh, she's also uglier than tubgirl. Go here; work-safe but barely so.) Do I have special cause to believe that she played a role in Kaayva's decision to plagiarize? No, but it is evident that she played an indirect role in Kaavyagate; exposure to such a morally bankrupt person would've corrupted even the most innocent adolescent. Moreover, by having been the conduit through whom Kaavya received this outrageous book deal, with the intent of using it to get her into Harvard, Kat Cohen is even in that regard partially culpable for this disastrous fiasco. Of course, Ms. Cohen will nonetheless continue to distance herself from Kaavya, gleeful in the free publicity this scandal has given her. My personal belief is that Katherine Cohen, the puppet-master and reverse Robin Hood, deserves the bitch-slap de la saison; Kaavya's just a dumb teenager. But I digress...

On 23 April, Kaavya was discovered to have plagiarized Megan McCafferty's Sloppy Firsts and Second Helpings. As of 2 May, she has been alleged to have also plagiarized Salman Rushdie's Haroun and the Sea of Stories, Meg Cabot's The Princess Diaries, and Sophie Kinsella's Can You Keep a Secret?. [ New York Times Wikipedia] Quite possibly, several more "borrowed" passages remain in it, yet undiscovered. Indeed, the well-read (if chick-lit counts toward being "well-read") might consider treating Viswanathan's work as a sort of "find the salami" puzzle at this point.

Here I speak to Kaavya directly. I have, ahem, written a card game set (given favorable conditions) to become the definining card game of our generation, but I need all the help I can get, and that includes yours. Why, when you seem to have "borrowed" from everyone else, did you fail to plagiarize me? It would have given me exactly the publicity I would have needed. Were the game's rules not "packaged" well enough for your tastes? Ambition was right there in front of you, on the Internet, sitting pretty and ready to be plagiarized! You could've at least used a construction such as "four strikes and 170 points later". Why was I left out? Please let me know.

Version 3.0 now available at BGG

2006-02-25T15:55:00.000-05:00

Version 3.0 of the rules are now available at BoardGameGeek. In PDF form, they are here.

Rules document finished

2006-02-12T18:22:00.000-05:00

The rules document for Ambition, ver. 3.0, is now finished and available in PDF or Word form. It is just under four pages long and includes the (highly recommended) Nil-bidding mechanic. The rules as given are not exactly as given in my post on 31. January; minor "tweaks" were made.

To request the document, please email me: ambition_game AT yahoo dot com.

The appendices (which include auxiliary material not needed to play the game) still need further work, and I'm undecided as to what I shall include and what not. I should have them finished by 18. Feburary. Once I've completed this stage of the process, I will send updated documents to Pagat.com.

Version 3.0: Finished!

2006-01-31T15:52:00.000-05:00

I've finished drafting, play-testing, and refining the rules for Ambition, version 3.0. While I'm a couple months behind the schedule of my six-month cycle, alas, the creative process cannot be so easily regulated.

I'll admit that I've been slow to finalize this game. It has been over two years since I've conceived of the thing, and yet I'm still tweaking rules. I don't regard this as a bad thing, but eventually I will amass a player base that will demand stability. Now is the best time to change Ambition's rules, if doing so can improve the game, because less than 0.1% of those who will eventually play Ambition already have played it, much less heard of it. Once it develops a large play community, the game will be tougher to control.

The biggest changes were made to scoring; specifically, I revamped the point values of the cards. The red suits were too weak, under the original system, so I bumped red honors (J, Q, K, A) to 3 points a piece. I also gave the 5d (which replaced the 3d as initial lead) a 5-point value; the 2h, 7. In order to maintain the personality of the spade honors, I bumped the As to 10 points, and to keep the Kc strong, I bumped it to 17. Removing the 6-point 6c that existed in ver 2.0-- it's now a zero-point club, like the others-- this brought a total of 112 points. I removed the optional 6-point deduction for the person taking the last trick, which I had always regarded as a bit of "patch work"; my scoring revisions as put will tend to reduce the "end-load" factor.

These changes brought natural cause for revisions of Nil and Slam. Slam, I determined, should be set at 72 points out of the possible 112. The reward for a Slam is now 40 points, with the caveat that no points or strikes are given to other players-- Nils and understrikes that occur in such atypical rounds do not usually reflect upon the skill of the other players. Thus, the value of a Slam is increased, to a degree, but its difficulty as well.

Nil I have revised to 21 points, which is not a substantial bonus; Nil has been overvalued for quite some time. In the "double Nil" scenario-- that is, where two players achieve Nil-- each scores 14. In order to maintain some value to the Nil strategy, I added an optional (recommended) silent bidding mechanic that allows players to bid Nil and score additional points upon making it. Bid Nil scores 35 points, but 21 in the "double Nil" situation. If Nil is bid and failed, a player earns a strike and no points.

I decided to remove the "Hold" round in passing, it being more prone to hand-luck than the others. Therefore, the pass cycle is now Left-Right-Across-Scatter, repeating every four rounds.

The above comprise the revisions to scoring. I also decided to lengthen the game somewhat: it ends when one player takes 4, rather than 3, strikes. However, I removed the rule that prevents a player from striking out on an understrike; in my view, a strike is a strike.

I retained the "hard" limit on game length, revised slightly to 11 rounds. While three- and four-round games are unsatisfying (hence, my desire to alter the ending condition) I find it unlikely that anyone will complain that an 11-round game was too short.

I'll release an updated document in a few days, to fill in the details.

Rules update postponed to Feb. 2006

2005-12-10T17:01:00.000-05:00

While I intended on updating the rules document in November, I have of late been considering major changes that will require extensive playtesting over the course of at least a month.

Therefore, I will issue the next edition of the rules in ~~February 2006.~~ Sooner.

I will post details on the likely changes-- the design flaws they intend to correct, and my proposed solutions-- soon.

"The Secrets of Ambition"

2005-11-14T15:36:00.000-05:00

The latest Time features a cover story entitled "The Secrets of Ambition". Obviously, this has nothing to do with the card game, but I'm pleased with all the search traffic that will come from people looking for "The Secrets of Ambition" in the next two weeks.

The article was an alright read, though I wish they had done more with the topic. Motivation is a complex psychological topic on which there is plenty of literature, and so I wanted much more than I got from this week's issue, but for its size the piece was fine.

Maybe, when I get around to writing an Ambition strategy book, I'll entitle it: The Secrets of Ambition. It has a nice ring to it. To boost sales for literature on what will never be bigger than a niche card game, I'll hire some elves to sneak copies into the self-help sections of bookstores. Hahaha.

Minor changes in 23 Nov document

2005-11-08T18:22:00.000-05:00

I will issue an updated rules document for Ambition on November 23, 2005. It will include the rules changes given over the summer, on this blog, as well as the (optional) RFS scoring system, whose statistical properties make it more reflective of the skill level of each player.

More considerations

2005-07-28T01:14:00.000-04:00

So, after further thought and testing, I'm definitely revising Nil downward, most likely to 20 points.

Two other considerations lie on the board for me:

First among them is the Hold round, where no passing occurs. On the passing schedule given in Rules of Ambition, I have the 4th and 6th rounds set as Hold rounds. I'm considering getting rid of them. They're more chance-driven than the other rounds, and I don't see what they add to the game (if anything) justifies the increased role of card-luck.

Many of the early rules of Ambition were inherited from Hearts, and discarded when found not useful in the new game. For example, there was a originally a rule against playing the K♣, or spade honors (the 6♣ was not introduced yet) on the first trick. In November 2003, I discarded this rule. The analogous rule in Hearts was useful; in Ambition, it was not. Likewise, I feel that the Hold rounds are more useful to Hearts than Ambition.

If I'm going to remove the Hold rounds, the question remains: With what, if anything, shall I replace them? I'm in the process of testing out a "Request" mechanic, and may introduce that if successful.

My second consideration concerns Slam. I'm considering making an even more drastic scoring revision: Slam scores 25 points. However, other players score no points for the round (but no strikes). Since this eradicates any difference between a 57-point Slam and a 75-point Slam, the round might as well be ended (in this case) as soon as Slam is achieved.

This revision won't alter, by much, the value of a Slam to the Slamming player. What it will do is eradicate some of the pesky complications Slam introduces for the other players. Consider a round that splits 57-29-5-0. Three players get decent outcomes (36 for Slam, 29, 20 for Nil) and one gets the shaft: a 5-point understrike. We must ask the question: why does he (or she) get punished especially? After all, the Nil player contributed as much to the Slam as the 5-point understriker. My view is that, if a Slam is made, the three other players ought to share equally in the punishment.

It's not completely "fair" for a person to score an understrike during a Slam round. A Slam usually happens when, near the second half of a round, one player is able essentially to take total control of the round. This means that the understriking player failed to take enough points, but effectively had half a round in which to do so. Moreover, it seems dubious to reward Nil in this case, when it is (from this perspective) only the accomplishment of having taken no tricks in a partial round. For these reasons, I feel that those things happening in the round aside from the Slam, in truth, are not always representative of how well a person played.

A Slam changes everything about a round of Ambition: cards that might normally be end-of-round winners become losers, for example. This means that a hand that could usually be played for ~20 points can become a 5-point understrike. This adds to the risk of taking one's first points (and forfeiting any opportunity for Nil). So, the threat of a Slam encourages Nil. This is not what I want. That Nil facilitates Slam is desired; that aspect of the game seems to work as designed, but that Slam encourages Nil is somewhat problematic (for no other reason, because said Nil further facilitates Slam). For this reason, I feel that it's overall for the best that, in the event of Slam, players share the same outcome: a 25-point loss relative to the Slammer.

So I am likely to implement these changes in the future.

Results on Nil tweakage + miscellaneous prestige whoring

2005-07-23T16:11:00.000-04:00

So, after my post on 15 July, suggesting that Nil should be revised downward, I received several positive responses. I later determined 20 to be the appropriate value for Nil, based on two objectives. Keep in mind the concept of relative score, which is a person's score, for a round, minus the average of all four players' gains, and is the best measure of a good or bad round. My first objective was that, if Slam is not achieved by any other player, Nil should provide a positive (or zero) relative score. This is true if the Nil bonus is at least 20. The second objective was for it to be at least 3 points better, from a relative-score perspective, to take 11 points and stop a Slam than to make Nil and allow it. In a relative-score perspective, conceding 3 points is equated to losing 1, which means that, according to this objective, Nil should score no more than 20. So 20 seems to be the perfect value for the Nil bonus. It also played very well in some testing last night.

Secondly, yesterday I scored the most prestigious strike in known history. At the time, I was 20 points in the lead (0/79 to 1/59) after four rounds. I was playing the hand to keep Nil open, but holding the king of clubs in a 5-long suit with the intention of taking it if the opportunity arose.

In the middle of the round, the player at my opposite led the 6♣, followed by a ruffed A♠. Holding the five and king of clubs, I had the option of declining the trick, but knowing I probably wouldn't probably be taking any more, I figured it was safe. I followed with the K♣, knowing the ace and 2 had already been played, expecting a 0-point club to follow, giving me a solid, probably 24-point trick. Wrong. Matt Davis, on my left, had run out of clubs and ruffed the K♠.

The resulting trick, 6♣-A♠-K♣-K♠, was worth 29 points, the greatest total possible. There are six possible 29-point tricks, but this was the highest-ranking of them, making it the single most prestigious trick possible. I took no others that round, and still struck (the split was 29-26-19-11) because of it, but because I had not yet seen a 29-point trick, and because I'm a prestige whore who wanted to be the one getting the first 29-pointer, it was well worth the strike.

I did, however, lose the game because of this strike, with 1/136 against 2/139.

Some basic FAQs

2005-07-20T18:08:00.000-04:00

I'm going to take this time to answer some questions I regularly get regarding Ambition. Anyone with more questions should feel free to send them to me.

1. What happens when someone takes all the points/tricks?

This is very rare; I've seen it once. There are several ways I can see playing it. One is to give it an even higher bonus value (50, 60, or whatever). Another is to allow a player accomplishing this to negate a strike. I generally leave this to the discretion of the players, but when I saw it happen we counted it as -1 strike. I've also heard the suggestion that, since it results mainly from a lucky hand, it shouldn't be rewarded especially at all.

2. What about when someone gets a negative score, by scoring 5 or fewer points, then taking the -6 LT option? Does that count as a Nil?

Ah, you got me. This is the one thing I didn't address in the rules. It rarely happens. Yes, I would count it as a Nil.

3. Why is Nil worth 24 points?

Nil is intended to give a fairly average round to a player without other options. While 24 might seem to be an excellent round, consider that when 3 players split the 85 (or 91) points, it's quite likely that at least one non-striking player will exceed it. That said, I'm strongly considering reducing Nil to 21 in my next revision of the rules, which will be issued "officially" around 23 November. Of course, unofficially, you can play however you want.

Before Nil was introduced, there was too much of a luck element in the game: players could get stuck with weak hands that didn't allow them much control over anything. Thus, the Nil bonus was introduced. Originally, Nil was worth 11 points. This didn't make it much of a bonus, so I upped it to 28. This was too high, so I reduced it to 24 (and only 16 if two people get it). Now, I'm considering taking it down to 21 or even 18, undecided on whether or not to continue penalizing double-Nil.

In assessing how good a round outcome is, it's important to note that the nominal score isn't what's important; it's the relative score that counts. The relative score is a player's score, minus the average of all four player's scores. For example, if a round splits 33-26-21-5 (the corresponding scores being 0-28-21-6), the average of the four scores is 52/4 = 13, and the relative scores are -13, +15, +8, -7.

In a "normal" (no Nils, no Slams) round, the "model split" is something around 29-24-19-13. The player with 13 has a slightly negative round (-1), the other non-striking players get +5 and +10. We infer that an average "good round" is somewhere around +4 to +8. The model split for a single-Nil round is 37-28-20-0. Originally, Nil was set at 24 to give the player a middle position between the two non-striking players. That gives him a relative score of +6. In truth, I've come to feel that this overrates the accomplishment. Reducing Nil to 21 would scale the relative score back to +3.75, which seems more in line.

Nil is, I believe, still somewhat overrated as a strategy, only because of its obvious defects. (On the other hand, that is partly my fault as designer for over-rewarding it.) The biggest danger of Nil is that the strategy is essentially passive, leaving a player unable to clear suits, stop a Slam, or control the round in any meaningful way. It's also quite possible that the Nil will fail late in the round (a 6D against a 5D when two are out of the suit, for example) and leave the player with an understrike. Finally, Nil allows many more Slams to happen than otherwise would.

The other liability of Nil is that it becomes more difficult with another Nil player. This has not proven, however, enough of a drawback to act as a deterrent, as collisions between two Nil players happen quite often.

4.Why is 57, and not some other number, the threshold for Slam, and why is the bonus set at 36?

I think the biggest question I get in this regard is why Slam is a constant bonus, instead of increasing with higher Slams. The reason, simply put, is that often the 57- to 60- point Slams are more skillful and interesting than the 70-point Slams, which often just result from unusual hands.

As for the threshold, 57 is what I call a "research constant"; it seemed to work best according to playtesting, I like it, and I probably won't change it. 54 is definitely too low. I've considered raising it to 60 or 63, but am leaning strongly toward keeping it as is.

5. What's the highest-scoring game you've seen?

I've been in games that have approached 700, but the highest-scoring game I'm familiar with comes from Al Hahn. It was a 940-point game, in July 2005, where the winning player scored 257 (!) points.

How high- or low- scoring a game will be depends completely on the players; how often they aim for Nil and Slam. Some tables routinely break 600; other groups rarely get above 400.

The lowest-scoring game I've seen was a 120-point three-rounder. I won it with 70 points. However, this was in November 2003 before Nil was introduced. I doubt you'd see a game under 160 with the new rules.

6. What's the lowest overstrike you've seen?

24, mine. I believe the split was 24-23-21-17.

In 3-player games, I've seen splits of 29-29-27.

7. Has it ever happened that the strike-out player also had the greatest point total?

It's rare. I've seen it happen twice; both times, to me.

Once I was in a game where, after four rounds, I had a clear lead: 0/84. Second place was 2/22. I struck in each of the next three rounds. No one overtook me in points, but the third-place player managed to move up from 2/14 to 2/72 and win.

In a tournament last spring, which was played as an 8-person rotation game (with people rotating in and out of tables with each round) I struck out, in the final round, ending with 3/239. The winning player had 2/238.

8. How many people play Ambition, worldwide?

As the number grows, I have less and less track of it. I would estimate that between 500 and 3,000 people play it regularly, 2,000 to 10,000 have played it, and that around over 150,000 people have heard of it (but probably most of them know nothing other than that a card game with the name "Ambition" exists.)

The doubling time for Ambition's popularity seems to be about 9 months.

Nil tweaks

2005-07-15T12:47:00.000-04:00

First of all, I'm now in Madison, so anyone who's interested in setting up the Ambition scene in Mad-town should contact me.

I should admit at this time that I'm considering a minor, but important, change to the rules centered around Nil scoring.

Currently, Nil scores a 24-point bonus normally, but only 16 in the case ("double Nil") where two people achieve it. The "double Nil" rule was included to use Nil as a check against people going for Nil too often. The problem is that it didn't work as I expected, and therefore it's an extra rule that doesn't seem to do much good.

Instead, it seems better to revise Nil as follows: It's a 21-point bonus, in all cases. In the double-Nil case, this is still a pretty sorry round outcome (one opponent will always do at least 13 points better) and in the single-Nil case, it still does as I had hoped: provides a fairly average round outcome to the player achieving it.

Anyone with thoughts regarding this change should contact me: ambition_game@yahoo.com .

Punk and Gin Rummy scoring

2005-07-03T14:55:00.000-04:00

These posts are not related directly to Ambition, but to other games. Still, I receive a lot of questions on them, and should put them up there.

The first item is a card game I wrote, shortly before Ambition, called Punk. It's a fairly simple game, and I'm not sure how skillful it is, but it's fun and easy to teach. It was inspired by the Smallest Unique Integer (SUI) game. It's also adaptable to any number of players between 3 and 10.

The rules are available here: http://www.pagat.com/invented/punk.html

My Gin Rummy scoring rubric is a little more complicated. (For the rules of Gin, go here.) My opinion of Gin is that, while an excellent game, luck plays too prominent a role. I blame this on the scoring system. It tends to reward "early knock" hands, where one player is able to form a knocking hand (10 points or less of deadwood) within a couple turns, and the other is stuck with a high deadwood count (sometimes 50+). This isn't a skillful victory, but a lucky one, and yet it can award a player half the game (if played with a winning score of 100).

As a remedy, I developed what I call the "square root system" of Gin Rummy scoring.

In a knock (non-Gin) round, the knocking player scores for the round according to the square root (rounded down) of the difference in deadwood counts, with an upper limit of 5 points. Therefore,

* if his deadwood count is better by 1-3 pts, he scores 1 point for the round.
* if his deadwood count is better by 4-8 pts, he scores 2 points for the round.
* if his deadwood count is better by 9-15 pts, he scores 3 points for the round.
* if his deadwood count is better by 16-24 pts, he scores 4 points for the round.
* if his deadwood count is better by 25+ pts, he scores 5 points for the round.

In an undercutting round, the undercutting player scores the square root of the difference in deadwood counts, with a bonus of 3 points affixed. This means that an undercutting player can score anywhere between 3 and 6 points; the former in case of a tie, the latter in event of a 9- or 10-point difference between the scores.

In a Gin round, the Gin player scores the square root, rounded down, of the opponent's deadwood count, plus 4 points. The Gin player is thus guaranteed at least 5 points, and can theoretically score as much as 13 (if the opponent's deadwood count were to exceed 81).

The game ends when a player reaches a total of 20 points or more.

This scoring system has two marked effects on Gin Rummy, both of which I consider to be positive changes to the game. The first is that it increases the weight for Gin rounds (skillful) while decreasing that of early-knock rounds (lucky). Using this scoring system, any Gin is at least as good as the maximum score for a knocking hand. The second is that it increases the weight of small-margin rounds, which under the usual scoring system were practically insignificant. The longer a round progresses, the more likely the victory is to be skillful rather than lucky, but also the smaller the difference in deadwood counts will usually be. A round where the knocking player wins by a margin of 4 points is almost insignificant under the traditional method of scoring (4 points out of 100) while much more significant (2 points out of 20) under my system.

Having played using both systems extensively, my judgment is that the square-root system of Gin Rummy scoring simply plays much better.

2 June 2005: Tournament synopsis

2005-06-06T18:06:00.000-04:00

At the virtual end of my college career, in what might be termed my "last hurrah", I both lost and won at the same time. Overall, I'm highly pleased; the tournament was a massive success.

The players were: Tim Singer, my neighbor on Second Nourse, Sam Leichtling, a graduating senior from Milwaukee, Jonah Ostroff, a freshman who had been playing Ambition even before he got to Carleton, Paul Caine, who performed surprisingly well despite being completely new to the game, Jason Hitchcock, an aggressive player who took off his shirt several times during the tournament (for reasons unclear), Ben Faroe, a senior who grew up in Turkey, also a Bridge player, and Max Leibowitz, a freshman from Manhattan whose satirical college radio show was cancelled (a decision considered wrong, unanimously, by the student body) because he broke some hokey "professional code" that prohibited DJs from making fun of other programs. The eighth player was myself, Mike Church. I had originally intended not to play in the tournament, instead taking a strictly organizational role, especially given that there were cash prizes involved. However, my 8th player had to leave before the tournament had even begun; I stepped in to fill the void under the agreement that, if I won any cash prize, it would be bumped down to the next player.

The format of the tournament was rotation-attrition, the details of which I'll explain at a later time. Essentially, it works like this: instead of playing full games against each other (which would require a time-expensive bracket format in order to determine a champion) players are considered to be in a single game, but are assigned randomly in rounds against each other so that at no time does any player get (cumulatively speaking) more than one round over any other. For example, with 9 players, four would be assigned to play in round 1, four in round 2 (which would be played simultaneously). The last would get a bye, but be guaranteed to play in round 3. Players are eliminated upon three strikes, and the game ends when only 3 players remain. The winner (as in a regular game) is the remaining player with the highest score. If any player is short, in terms of number of rounds played, with respect to any other remaining player, an adjustment called the 1-up (explained in detail later) is applied.

Hour 1: With new players, the first rounds are often the most chaotic, and Slams are surprisingly common (once, last winter, I saw a game with four Slams in a row, three of which were mine). In this tournament, we had only one in the first hour, mine in Round 3. In round 5, Paul Caine accomplished not a Slam, but an even more impressive feat. The round split 48-43-0-0, Paul with 43 and the -6 LT option (not taken), Tim and Max earning the wretched double Nil. This was an example of "shadow play"; Jason's failed Slam attempt allowed Paul to safely take a large number of points. Max, perhaps a "Nilaholic", seemed intent on setting a record for double-Nils; he scored three in a row, and a fourth later in the tournament. At the end of 6 rounds, I was in the lead with 80 points, no strikes; Paul was close behind with 74 points, 1 strike.

Hour 2: Two Slams occurred almost simultaneously, achieved in rounds 7 and 8 by Max and Jason. In round 10, his next, Jason struck out. Tim (2/66) had to leave at this point and allowed Jason to continue to play in his place and, impressively, Jason would last until the final round, placing second. After ten rounds, I had a reasonable lead: 0/136, with Paul second at 1/122. However, around this point my game fell into a serious sandtrap. Round 12 was a ho-hum 15-point round, round 13 was a strike, and round 15 was an insufferable double Nil. Paul Caine, at this point, had earned a considerable lead over the rest of us; I had fallen into third place. Ben Faroe also struck out in (I believe) round 14.

Hour 3: Jonah was eliminated in round 16, leaving five players. Round 15 had been tense enough, so much that we grew silent, and tensions escalated throughout the rest of the game. My personal performance improved: I stopped a Slam (always the most fun aspect of Ambition), netted a 21-point round, and managed to score another 35 points by (unintentional) shadow play. This brought me back into the lead, 1/223. Closely following was Paul, at 2/204, but he earned his third strike in a subsequent round (18; in which I had a nearly strike-proof hand) and was therefore no longer a rival.

Hour 4: Four players remained, after 18 rounds: myself (1/239), Sam, at (2/200 + 15) Jason/Tim ("Jim", at 2/168), and Max (2/163). All of us had been through 11 rounds, except for Sam who had seen 10. In round 19, I made two harshly-punished tactical mistakes that led me to accumulate an unhealthy number of points: 31, which without a Nil player on the board (all had taken points) makes a strike very likely. I didn't want to lose my lead, so I played for Slam, knowing it was unlikely, but also knowing that a very decisive strike would provide a low scoring round. I took 53, Jason took 26, Sam got 8, and Max got 4. Despite my tactical mistakes, I consider this round a partial success because, once I realized the strike was unavoidable, I still managed to starve and frustrate two people at the table; they would have taken understrikes but already had two strikes. This brought me to 2/239, Sam to 2/208 + 13, Max to 2/167, and Jason to 2/194. Despite the somewhat embarrassing strike, I still had an 18-point lead. So I felt great going into round 20, the (probable) final round of the tournament. All I needed to do, I figured, was play as conservatively as possible and make absolutely sure I didn't strike.

Round 20: I've said before that a game designer is blessed, when playing his or her game, to have the worst luck imaginable. Losing players, one would assume, will examine a game more critically than those who win. Therefore, when the designer loses is when he or she will be best able to evaluate the game for bugs and design flaws. I've said that there are very few truly awful, or exceptionally good, hands in Ambition, and I stand by this assertion. However, fate dealt me a hand that was absolutely execrable. In the last round of what would probably be the last Ambition event of my time at Carleton, I was dealt an absolutely monstrous hand. Behold:

♦ : 8 J A
♠ : 10 J Q K
♥ : 7
♣ : 8 9 10 K A

Here's why it's such a terrible hand: safety, or the ability to dodge tricks when they are dangerous, is obviously a desired hand quality. With only one card below 8, and that a singleton, this hand has pretty much none. Yet by being off the 2♣ and the A-2♠ , it has almost no Slam potential. Moreover, it contains a straight-flush suit, which is horrid as it yields no options. That, and it's much easier to get rid of one problematic card than to lose three or more equivalent cards. Straight flushes blow.

The pass for this round was a Scatter pass, so I rid myself of the J♦ , 10♣, and J♠. This was probably not the best pass. There is a way to play this sort of hand, the no-safety hand without top power. This (thankfully rare) hand type is called the "phony Nil" hand. With it one, rather than being assertive early in the round, plays as if it were a Nil hand-- ridding oneself of power cards, losing tricks with the top card available. The Nil is almost certain to be unsuccessful, but it can make other players, early in the round, scared to play Nil and likely to hold some power, allowing you to escape the lead later in spite of your lacking safety. Moreover, the appearance of a Nil player increases the likelihood that someone will attempt Slam; despite lacking top power, the phony Nil hand often can stop the Slam attempt. If the Slam is busted at the right moment (say, after the Slam attempter takes 46 points, making it safe to take as many points as possible) the hand's lack of safety becomes an irrelevant concern. Played rightly, the archetypal phony Nil hand still strikes about 35% of the time-- it's still an awful hand-- but yields a successful round in most other cases. I, however, did not play that hand as what it was; I decided that I would try to play it as a Slam hand. Passed to me were the J, Q♥ and the Q♣. In other words, little help, and I lost the one good thing the hand had-- the singleton.

Since it was the final, pivotal round, I asked Jonah to scribe it and therefore know the hand of each player after the pass; I don't know which cards were passed, other than those I sent and those I received.

My hand, after passing:

♦ : 8 A
♠ : 10 Q K
♥ : 7 J Q
♣ : 8 9 Q K A

Max Leibowitz's hand:

♦ : 6 9 J K
♠ : 6 A
♥ : 4 6 2
♣ : 4 5 J 2

Sam's obvious Nil:

♦ : 3 5 10
♠ : 3 5 7
♥ : 5 9 10
♣ : 3 6 7 10

Jason's hand:

♦ : 4 7 Q 2
♠ : 4 8 9 J 2
♥ : 3 8 K A
♣ : void

Trick 1: Sam had the 3♦ and therefore, the opening lead. Jason followed with the 4. I didn't want to waste the 8, figuring that if Max could dodge it, he probably would. I played the ace, Max played the 6. I ate 5 points. (MC 0 -> 5)

Trick 2: Already desperate, given my hand, I led the A♣. After all, I had the king so there was little harm in doing it. Max played the 2, Sam the 10, and Jason the 7♦. (ML 0 -> 1)

Trick 3: Max led the 6♥. Sam followed with the 5, Jason with the 3. This was baffling: why would people waste their safety so early in a round? (In retrospect, looking at Sam's hand, his at least was clearly the right play.) I had no choice but to take the trick, either way, but I made an obvious wrong choice: 7♥. (MC 5 -> 9)

Trick 4: I led 8♦. Max followed with the 9. Sam: 5. Jason: 2, filling out a 4-point trick. (ML 1 -> 5).

Trick 5: Max led 4♥. Sam: 10. Jason: 8. With no meaningful choice, I won the trick with Q♥. As my point total started climbing prematurely, and my hand evolved, I started to believe that Slam might be possible; there was clearly at least one Nil player, and my hand did have some power. (MC 9 -> 14)

Trick 6: I needed to clear a suit. I tossed out the J♥. Following it were Max's 2, Sam's 9, and Jason's ace. (ML 5 -> 11)

Trick 7: Max led the 4♣, which Jonah and others have taken to calling the "junkfish". Sam played the 3, and Jason ruffed the K♥. I had no choice but to win the trick, and did so with the 9; clearly the wrong play, but I still believed in the possibility of Slam. (MC 14 -> 16)

Trick 8: I've never seen a round open with so little action; only 27 points in the first seven tricks. It appeared that Slam might be possible, because end-loaded rounds tend to award Slams to hands that don't otherwise deserve them. Still, at this point, I wanted nothing other than to be out of the lead. I led the 8♣, from which followed Max's 5 and Sam's 6-- not a card I wanted to take. Jason ruffed the Q♦ through his club void. This got me 8 points, the largest trick thus far. (MC 16 -> 24)

Trick 9: I was desperate at this point; I had two high clubs remaining, and three spades of which I was almost guaranteed to take a trick with one. There were 56 points remaining in the deck, however, so Slam became serious possible, especially given my control of the K♣. I led the Q♣, taking the jack from Max, 7 from Sam, and 4♠ from Jason, for a total of two points. (MC 24 -> 26)

Trick 10: Set on Slam, I led the K♣, thinking "no turning back now". Indeed there wasn't. Max gave me the J♦, Sam the 10♦, and Jason the J♠, for a grand total of 21 (!) points. (MC 26 -> 47)

Trick 11: I knew my spades were weak. I should explain now that I made a very costly miscalculation during play. For some reason, I thought the A♠ had already been played; I knew the 2♠ was still a worry. So, hoping to draw out the 2♠ from one of the Nil players, I led the 10♠. I didn't expect my plan to work, but Max followed with the 6, Sam with the 7, and Jason with the 2. "I'm letting you Slam", Jason said as he played it. (MC 47 -> 55)

Trick 12: There's nothing wrong with being slightly cocky if one can, pardon the colloquialism, back one's shit up. When one can't, as we shall see here, it's just embarrassing. Recall my having said that I believed the A♠ to have already been played. No matter what I had done from this point, there was no way I could Slam, but I didn't know it yet. I led the K♠ confident that it was the high card. "I'd be worried about the ace here," I said, thinking I had completed my Slam, "but it's already been played!" Whoops. Wrong. Max followed with exactly that ace, Sam with the 5 and Jason with the 4. Me = Pwned. (ML 11 -> 25)

Trick 13: Max led the K♦, which was the only card remaining of its suit. The 3, 9, and (my) queen of spades followed, giving Max a final 11-point trick. (ML 25 -> 36)

This, of course, led me to lose the round and, as we were all at 2 strikes by this point, I struck out, losing the tournament itself.

Sam and Jason got 16 points (double-Nil) while Max scored 36. Sam had accumulated, at this point, 224 points, but he had also played in one round fewer than everyone else. This entitled him to a bonus called the 1-up, whose value is one's average number of points per round, minus 5 for a person who has two strikes. (The reason for the -5 penalty in this case is to compensate for the decreased likelihood of striking out.) 224 points divided by 12 rounds is an average of 18.67 (19), so Sam's 1-up was worth 14 points.

This brought the final scores to:

1st place: Sam, 2/238
2nd place: Jason, 2/210
3rd place: Max, 2/203
4th place: Me, 3/239

Though it caused me to lose the tournament, round #20 will go down in history as one of my favorite rounds of Ambition, because of what it told me about the design of Ambition. Here I had a comically terrible hand, at a critical moment of the tournament, and lost. Yet, I can honestly say, in review, that I didn't lose because of hand-luck. I lost because of some very mistaken strategic decisions, and even while playing I recognized this (slightly after the fact, and therefore too late). Which is a sign of successful game design. The moral of the story, here, is that the player's loss can be the designer's victory.

Ultimately, the real success is that, through this tournament, I believe that I have safely planted Ambition into the culture of Carleton so that, even as I move on to Madison, the game will be remembered and frequently played in Northfield, Minnesota.

Games Journal update

2005-06-06T16:37:00.000-04:00

If all goes according to plan, I'm preparing Part II ("Part the second") of "Ambition: Motivation, Design, and Evolution" for the August 2005 issue of The Games Journal. The reason for August is that I will be on vacation for most of June, and the first part of July.

I will be posting a synopsis of Thursday's tournament soon.

Tournament revision

2005-05-30T02:15:00.000-04:00

Alas, it was necessary to reschedule the tournament. My original choice of date (29 May) was not optimal; the tournament will be held ~~around 9:00 pm~~ at 3:00 pm on Thursday, 2 June, same place. The rules tutorial will be from 3:00 to 3:20, and the games will begin at 3:30. Therefore, those acquainted with Ambition need not arrive until 3:30.

The latest rules document is online, in HTML here (possibly dodgy with non-Windows OS) and in PDF here (should be good for any OS).

More tournament info.

2005-05-25T05:22:00.000-04:00

Here's some information I sent out on the Ambition tournament on 5/29.

Time and place

The tournament will be held at 2:30 pm on Sunday, May 29, in Upper Sayles. I haven’t reserved any room in particular, but we shouldn’t have trouble getting one, and I will make it obvious where we are. You will know you are at or near the right place when you see a deck of cards placed demurely on a table.

Prizes

I managed to find a donor willing to give me $135.00 for prizes and food; I will contribute additional funding if needed. The donation allows me to support prizes with no entry fees. Prizes will be $50 for first place, $25 for second, and $10 for third. The remaining $50.00 will be available for equipment and refreshments.

Learning Ambition

For those who have never played Ambition and do not know how, I will be running tutorial sessions at the following times:

Thursday 5/26, 9:30 pm; First Nourse Lounge.
Saturday 5/28, 5:00 pm; First Nourse Lounge.
Sunday 5/29, 2:00 pm; Upper Sayles (immediately before the tournament).

In the event that we cannot use the location listed I will leave signs to indicate where to go. The tutorial sessions will be approximately 20 minutes and only one is necessary in order to learn Ambition.

For those who have played Ambition before, there have been minor changes to the rules throughout the past year, so the rules may be somewhat different from when you last played. You are certainly welcome to come to a tutorial session in this case, but do not need to; I will be able to brief you rather immediately on the changes. They are also included in the attached rules document.

Tournament structure

I expect the size of the tournament to be between 8 and 12 players, would be very pleased to break 16. As for capacity, there is a soft limit of 24 players, but I am amenable to increasing it according to demand. Because of the uncertainty with regard to number ot participants, tournament structure will be determined day-of and will be announced before play begins. I will be singularly responsible for setting the tournament’s structure, but will consult player consensus in doing so.

The expected duration of the tournament is largely dependent upon the number of players, and therefore unknown. Players should be able to stay until at least 8:00 pm (though the tournament may end before then and, in any case, many players will have been eliminated by that point). For dinner, I plan on ordering pizza and providing other refreshments, and of course Burton and the Snack Bar will be nearby. If it appears that the tournament is going to go beyond 8:00 pm, we may (depending on the wishes of the remaining players) decide to adjourn the tournament temporarily, and resume at a later date.

How to enter

I definitely prefer advance registration so I can anticipate the number of players. To register, please send an email to ambitiontournament2005@yahoo.com by 11:30 pm on Saturday, May 28, indicating your intention to come to the tournament. Players who register before this deadline have a very high likelihood of placement into the tournament, even if the “soft limit” of 24 is exceeded.

Players may register day-of-event simply by coming to the site (Upper Sayles) of the tournament between 1:45 and 2:30 pm. I will try to place as many as possible in the tournament, but reserve the right to turn people away in the event of overcapacity or otherwise according to the needs of the tournament.

If you haven’t played Ambition and wish to enter the tournament, you should seriously consider attending one of the three tutorial sessions as described above, or reading the rules document (attached) on your own time. The former is preferable.

New rules document

2005-05-23T23:03:00.000-04:00

I have finished the updated rules document for Ambition, Ambition 2.0.

It will be available on request ( ambition_game at yahoo dot com ) in Word and PDF form. The document has also been sent to Pagat.com.

Prizes for Ambition tournament

2005-05-21T22:38:00.000-04:00

Some excellent news is that, as of 19 May, I have $135.00 from an anonymous donor for the tournament on the 29th. Apparently the outside world is interested in Ambition. Yay.

This allows for prizes: $50.00 for first place, $25.00 for second, and $10.00 for third. The remaining money will be used for equipment and refreshments.

The time of the tournament will be 2:00 pm, next Sunday. Location: Upper Sayles, Carleton College.

Email ambitiontournament2005@yahoo.com to register.

S*, 23 May, and Madison

2005-05-05T21:52:00.000-04:00

One probably notices that I took an extended blog vacation during late March and April. This was unannounced because I didn't plan for it. I was very busy for a couple weeks, realized I hadn't posted to either of my blogs, and decided to declare it a blog vacation. I'm back now.

I have played the S* variant quite a bit, with various groups. I've actually determined that it's not the best way of dealing with the "luck" factor associated with table position. Changing all passes to Scatter passes had an unanticipated, but noticeable, effect on the game: it became much easier to pull off a Nil or Slam. When receiving three cards from one opponent, only one person needs to notice a Nilaholic or Slam-gunner to bust him. With scatter passing, two or three opponents need to notice. So, in my view, it takes too much away from Ambition to declare all rounds Scatter rounds.

Instead, I've decided upon a different method for neutralizing the luck factor associated with table position: after the 2nd, 5th, 7th, and 9th rounds, play orientation reverses. (This can be done by having players in two opposing table positions swap.) Later, I will justify this idiosyncratic rule in detail.

I will issue an updated rules document this month: my target date is Monday, 23 May. The document will be available in PDF form and will also be sent to Pagat.com. Rules changes will, ultimately, not be substantial. Ambition is rapidly converging upon its "final form".

This fall, I will be moving to Madison, Wisconsin, for graduate school. Contact me if you live in the Madison area and would like to co-organize games and tournaments.

Update (tournament)

2005-04-26T00:56:00.000-04:00

Unfortunately, the date of 30 April for the Ambition tournament will not be feasible. It will have to be rescheduled; the tentative date is 21 29 May 2005.

Double digits

2005-03-18T15:28:00.000-05:00

A rating from Switzerland on BoardGameGeek has placed Ambition into the double-digit club. There are now 10 countries in which Ambition has a verified presence, though probably many countries not on this list should be, as I'm including only verified places. They are: Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States.

There is further, but unconfirmed, evidence indicating a high likelihood of Ambition presence in six more countries. Some of this, however, is admittedly speculative (such as Mexico, included on account of the reported "Orange County cluster" of players in southern California).

Variant: Trippy Twos (T2)

2005-03-04T15:03:00.000-05:00

Trippy Twos is an variant of Ambition that developed, as a byproduct, of the design process. This version makes for some fun play, though the 2 becomes very unpredictable. So I wouldn't recommend T2 for the settling of epic disputes.

In Trippy Twos, the high property of the 2 is activated not merely by honors in the same suit, but also by off-suit honors. So, for example, the trick 9♥-6♥-K♠-2♥, which would traditionally be won by the 9♥, would instead be claimed by the 2♥ .

This version often occurs accidentally among players who learn of the game by word-of-mouth and don't catch all the details. They often comment on the colorful play thus generated. T2's not to be taken as seriously as regular Ambition, but can be quite fun.

Variants so-far blogged: S* - Trippy Twos.

Ambition: Motivation, Design, and Evolution, Part I

2005-03-01T04:16:00.000-05:00

Cross-posted to Mike Church's blog.

The first installment of "Ambition: Motivation, Design, and Evolution" has been posted here at The Games Journal.

30 April 2005: Ambition tournament in MN

2005-02-28T21:58:00.000-05:00

An Ambition tournament will be held on 30 April 2005, beginning at 7:30 pm. The tourney will be held at Carleton College in Northfield, MN, but is open to all.

If you need directions, please contact me and I will provide directions to the venue.

The Evaporation Problem

2005-02-27T03:11:00.000-05:00

One ugly difficulty facing game designers and organizers is what I call the Evaporation Problem: the miserable fact that, sometimes, players leave before the game is complete. When this forces the game to an untimely end, I call this evaporation.

Evaporation is obviously unpleasant: outcomes of partial games are not decisive. The untimely end is a general disappointment to players and, especially, the game's organizer, who may feel like a social failure for being unable to provide for her players a full game.

Causes of evaporation

Evaporation happens for a number of reasons, but most commonly:

Some players don't like the game, and see no cause to finish it. (Dissipation)
A player, or (more often) someone from without, suggests a different game or activity, which supplants the original game. Of course, to do this is seriously uncool. (Gamejacking)
Someone must leave on account of an emergency or personal commitment, and play cannot continue (or is significantly altered) with fewer people. (Exigent departure)
Someone leaves for "soft", negotiable personal reasons-- a favorite TV show, a head start on homework. (Nonexigent departure)

To a designer-organizer, dissipation is obviously the most hurtful. Even with great games, though, it will happen. There's also nothing the organizer can do; players vote with their feet. To minimize the risk of this occupational hazard, designer-organizers should try new, invented variants only with trusted players who will (a) be open-minded enough to play the game to completion, even if it seems complicated or difficult at first, (b) be candid if the game is just bad, and (c) provide insightful reasons behind their opinions (positive or negative) about the game.

Gamejacking is a special case of dissipation, but often has nothing to do with the quality of the game itself. A designer-organizer, in order to be able to play and test her games regularly, needs to maintain ties to diverse social circles, and also be willing to play with near-strangers. Realistically, the organizer probably doesn't have the social energy to maintain strong, influential, ties to all potential players. The gamejacker is usually a person with more social influence within the group, and probably unaware of the boorishness of his behavior. (This is no excuse, however. Gamejacking is a no-no and there are people I still don't talk to, because of this offense.)

As for exigent departure, there's also nothing the designer-organizer can do. All good things run the risk of interruption by more pressing matters, such as exams, scheduled meetings, and appendectomies.

Nonexigent departure as "spoiling" activity

Nonexigent departure, on the other hand, is preventable. In my opinion (and I recognize this as potentially controversial) nonexigent departure is a serious breach of the "magic circle", akin to spoilsport behavior. Even the threat of nonexigent departure can rupture a game.

Consider this scenario. It's eleven o'clock at night, one hour into a four-player board game, one player yawns and says, "if this game isn't over in half an hour, I'm going to bed." The game cannot function after his departure. He becomes the fidgety player who, by threat of leaving, exhibits an unfair "metagame" influence over other players. He might encourage others to play faster, becoming more prone to mistakes, while making his moves at normal speed. He will often, without conscious ill intent, tend to disrupt particular players (usually leading) with his threats.

The game's organizer is also placed at further disadvantage: she has an especial social investment in the game. Emotionally, she will likely feel like a failure if her game evaporates before completion, as if she were responsible for the disappointment of her player clientele. This emotional upset also disrupt her play, compromising the integrity of game outcomes.

In subjective terms, when the social and aesthetic value of games are considered, games are usually positive-sum. Winning is still better than losing, but the real payoff, in terms of emotional value, might be +3 for a win, +1 for a loss. When the game ends early by evaporation, however, the real payoff is strongly negative, even to leading players, and especially for the game's organizer (say, -10). Therefore, the fidgety player has a powerful weapon not provided by the game's rules. This is why fidgety behavior, comprised of nonexigent departure and the threat thereof, is extremely detrimental to games.

"Time stops in a game"

This is an informal rule of any game I organize, but one I take very seriously. Of course, there's nothing I can do about exigent departure: if the person must leave, that is non-negotiable and does not reflect boorish behavior on the player's part. By "time stops", I mean to exclude nonexigent departures and fidgety behavior, as I consider them a serious affront to the "magic circle" that games create. The paper not due for three days, an impromptu cell call from a significant other, or another nonrequired social activity do not represent valid reasons to breach it.

Of course, in practice there is no way to "enforce" this rule; if players leave, they do. But nonexigent departures often represent cause not to invite a person to future gaming sessions.

I expect the "time stops" rule to be controversial among some: it represents an effort to control others' time, to restrict their ability to leave a game at will. I agree. It does, but games' rules exist to restrict players' freedoms. A Bridge player surrenders the right to pass notes to his partner, a Soccer (Football, outside US) player rescinds the right to control the ball using her hands.

Likewise, I believe that all social games should include an implicit rule against nonexigent departure, and that such a rule is reasonable. Of course, an obvious exception occurs when a games takes inordinately long in comparison to the expected duration. To limit this as much as possible, organizers should quote accurate time estimates. Even this is, however, difficult: Ambition generally takes about 45 minutes per game, but among more advanced Carleton players, who tend to be deliberate, a single game can exceed two-and-a-half hours.

In practice, it is probably best for all players to agree, beforehand, on a "rain check" time after which, if the game is not complete, they may suspend the game and resume it later. After all, sometimes games just end up being much longer than expected.

Not Ambition, but...

2005-02-07T13:23:00.000-05:00

The Punctured Magic Circle

I found this MSNBC article, by Tom Loftus, on Slashdot. According to him, "Digital sweatshops, businesses where Third World laborers play online games 24/7 in order to create virtual goods that can be sold for cash, are [...] on the rise." He further discusses the very realness of so-called "virtual worlds"-- "virtual goods", or coveted game components, sell for real currencies. Resulting behavior is not always desirable: this Wikipedia article describes the emergence of gangs, which employ collusive behavior to rob other players, among South Korean virtual-gamers.

This is one of the top ethical issues facing gamers and game designers in the 21st century: how much reality-- sociological, economic, and otherwise-- will we tolerate in our game worlds?

These "virtual worlds", some of which encourage realcommerce of game components, turn online role-playing games, literally, into a form of gambling. Input: time and money. Output: virtual capital, which can be sold on real markets. Elements of chance, skill, and strategy determine the success or failure of these investments, just as in any other gamble. The $150.00 battle axe might help a player vanquish bigger monsters and procure lucrative treasures... or it might be utterly destroyed in an unfortunate encounter with a Rust Monster.

I make no value judgment by invoking the word "gambling". For most participants, virtual economies are, in truth, harmless fun. All forms of recreation-- travel, sports, games, hobbies-- cost time and money, and on occasion pay off economically. Why should online role-playing games be different? Perhaps they shouldn't, but there will be debate. For example, should we prevent a 13-year-old RPG enthusiast from engaging in a virtual world out of the fear that he might be gambling, risking valuable time-- perhaps better-suited to education or social development-- in a premature chase for virtual and real power? Or should we regard this behavior as harmless play?

I don't have all the answers on these issues because, frankly, I don't know. Make no mistake, though: participation in a virtual economy is gambling, and we in the gaming and game design community need to recognize it as such. This doesn't mean it's wrong, doesn't mean it's bad, or anything of the sort. It does mean that these virtual economies have the potential to present some very real dangers.

"Game-like" economic transactions are heavily regulated, to ensure fairness. The use of shills in auction houses is illegal, as is collusion at the gambling table. Onlike poker websites employ sophisticated algorithms to detect collusive behavior. Those judged unfit to gamble (e.g. minors) are forbidden from entry in virtually all U.S. casinos. "Insider trading" on the U.S. stock market is a jailable offense. Virtual game worlds are not held to the same legal standards: they are controlled by a single company with nearly autocratic control of the game world, should they decide to use it. Many of these developers do self-police, to varying extent.

The ludologist's "magic circle", or the separation between a game world and "reality", with its gritty social and economic complexities, may be a relic of past millenia.

When I was eleven (1994) playing Magic "for ante" seemed so badass. Ah, the times...

Predictions:

2005: At least one major accusation of nepotism within a game world will be made before the courts; a person somehow linked to the developer is found to have been awarded favorable treatment that would have been judged unacceptable in a casino environment. Game developer's counter-argument: It's our world, we're free to do as we wish. Nasty, ugly legal case ensues. The debate may spill over, as well, into IP Law, especially as disenfranchised game-citizens begin constructing their own game-worlds with similarities to pre-existing ones.

2006: United States efforts-- federal and local-- to ban underage participation (18 or younger) in virtual economies, the argument being that this should qualify, legally, as gambing. Trading card games (e.g. Magic) that generate virtual economies may also be at risk of falling under this ban. Counter-argument: Low-stakes gambling (marbles "for keeps") is centuries-old among minors and mostly harmless. At the federal level, I expect the debate to cross-cut ideological and party lines: there will be bipartisan support, in the House and Senate, for both sides of the debate. If a US ban occurs, the European Union may follow suit.

2007: U.S. and international law schools begin offering courses in "Virtual Property (VP) Law", which will emerge as a lucrative subdiscipline.

2008 and beyond: Abstract issues of risk-- its inherent morality or immorality-- that are today considered peripheral and philosophical, will dominate political, economic, and social debate. Today's "Big Issues"-- unemployment, healthcare, environment, education-- will remain, but framed in a Risk Paradigm. Human behavior as observed within virtual worlds will be cited in policy decisions. Abstract risk debates, I predict, will cross-cut existing party and ideological lines.

Games Journal

2005-02-04T14:53:00.000-05:00

Most likely, my essay "Design Theory and Practice: Motivation and Evolution of Ambition" will be featured in the March 2005 issue of The Games Journal. Stay tuned.

Ambition S*

2005-01-30T23:05:00.000-05:00

This is a variant I developed called "Ambition S*". It may supplant standard Ambition among some players, because it's designed to further reduce the role hand-luck plays in the game.

It's no secret with Ambition that I had a specific aesthetic mission: to reduce the role of pure chance, in the form of hand-luck. I figure, based on some statistical analysis I've done, that hand-luck contributes to about 3-8% of the game's variance, most likely 4.2%, or 95.8% skill, strategy, and "flux" (more on flux later). Also, the 4.2% figure does not account for "strategic luck" (which is inevitable in strategy games of 3 or more players) nor table position.

While 4.2% luck may sound high, chess is about 1.7% luck if you randomize the white/black determination. It's very tough to get a game above 90% skill-and-strategy, without iterating it a bunch of times (e.g. Poker, which converges to 100% skill in the long long run).

Here's Ambition S*, or Ambition for the purist.

Ambition S*

This variant involves two alterations:

1. Randomized seating (*)

Seating arrangements change with each round, randomly. The deck is shuffled once or twice, then each person draws a card from the middle and places it face up. Cards are ordered by Rank (A high, 2 low) then suit (♠ > ♥ > ♦ > ♣). The person with the highest-ranking card stays put. The person with the 2nd-ranking card sits to that person's left, 3rd-ranking across, and 4th-ranking person sits at his or her right.

Motivation: Simply-put, table position matters a lot in trick-taking games. It's obviously not "hand-luck", but in trick-taking games, table position is an active source of "strategic luck". Being on the left of an aggressive player means that one will be in 2nd position a lot, and 2nd position is strategically much weaker than 4th position.

2. Scatter passes (S)

This follows, at least in an aesthetic sense, from the first alteration. If the standard passing cycle were used, one could possibly pass to the same opponent multiple times, and even in succession.

Scatter passes are used in every round of Ambition. For those unfamiliar with the term, a Scatter pass is a pass where each player sends one card to each opponent.

Motivation: Hold rounds, while challenging, add quite a bit of hand-luck to the game. My models (based on some research I've done on the game; I don't get much sleep) represent hand-luck as a normal random variable (in terms of contribution to relative score) with mean 0 and standard deviation around 1.5, but Hold rounds have a standard deviation of about 2.0, maybe a little more.

Also, there are rare "sure Slam" hands that are clear outliers to this normal model. These hands can become common after bad passes. For example, a person with 5 spades might be passed 3 more, by an opponent trying to clear the suit, leading to a slammable 8-card spade suit. This effect is partly "strategic luck" (seasoned players know mono-suit passes are a bad idea; poor players always add "strategic luck" factors to the game) but also part hand-luck. In fact, it's mostly hand-luck.

Finally, a common offender in terms of hand-luck is the usually abysmal "straight-flush" configuration, consisting of 3 or more cards of a suit in sequence (8-9-10-J♠). Some of these configurations are good (slammable) and others are harmless, but as a general rule, straight-flushes are bad: they involve a set of equivalent (for trick-taking purposes) cards that are hard to get rid of. We can't eradicate the straight-flush entirely-- sometimes it just happens-- but a common "screw-pass" will involve 2 or 3 cards in sequence, possibly creating a straight-flush in the passee's hand.

Scatter-passing also gives players more liberty in terms of their available pass options. For example, mono-suit passes are no longer dangerous, since the cards passed will all go to different opponents. It makes it "safe", in that regard, to clear a 3-card suit; on the other hand, it is more difficult to keep that suit cleared, since the cards received all come from different opponents.

Comment or write me: What do you think of this variant, Ambition S*? Good idea, or not so hot?

28 January 2005: Game Report

2005-01-29T02:23:00.000-05:00

I'm not going to post game summaries often, because so many games happen per month that this blog would drown in them, but here's one, from earlier tonight, that was quite enjoyable.

Before I begin, let me clarify some terminology. In email, someone pointed out that I had, in the past, overloaded the term "points"; I would use it to describe both "points" taken in a round (in tricks) and points scored in the round's resolution. We'll resolve this ambiguity by henceforth referring to the first sense of "points" as chips, since they are recorded publically, usually using chips. That is, you might take 34 chips in around, strike, thus score 0 points.

The players were myself, Peter Antonov, Zach Hyman, and a girl named Sky. We began around 9:45 pm in a coffeeshop called "Goodbye Blue Monday's". Zach and Sky were new to the game.

Round 1

This was my first strike of 2005, and boy was it painful. I was playing for Nil, but held on to some rooks (jargon for 9-J; in this case, 10♥, 10♠). I saw Peter (slightly crazy) as a Slam-threat, and kept those 10's for "just in case" counter-Slam purposes. This was a bad idea. I got stuck eating 3 chips on the trick, 10♥-9♥-7♣-2♥. (I led, having taken a 0-chip club trick. Under the latest rules you may take tricks and get Nil so long as you score no chips.) I got no more tricks and had a round score of 3, an understrike. This just shows that one cannot play to screw other people. (I could have totally Nil'd that hand, but I feared that Slam.) On top of that, Sky did a fine job of denying Peter his Slam, taking 22 chips which, along with Zach's 18, fed Peter the strike instead of Slam glory.

The scores: Mike, 1/3; Zach, 0/18; Peter, 1/0; Sky, 0/22.

Round 2

I was dealt a reasonably powerful hand. While Peter went Nil, Sky took 16 chips and I got 28. Zach struck. Sky had a 7-point lead over me, I was in 2nd place. Throughout the game, Sky played very well for a brand-new player, I was impressed.

The scores: Mike, 1/31; Zach, 1/18; Peter, 1/24; Sky, 0/38.

Round 3

Zach went Nil, the round itself was very tense. Peter opened aggressively, taking 22 chips in the first five tricks. He tried to work a red-suit Slam, getting up to 33, then losing the lead. I held the A, 2♣. Nil was not an option for me. I had about 10 points, feared a limp round and Peter's slam. Peter led the Q♣ and the 10 followed from Sky. I played the A♣ in third position. Zach played the jack, so I won another useless 0-trick. We all wanted to bust Peter's Slam (who doesn't?) so this meant Sky couldn't have had the Bad Boy, nor Zach. Peter had it; there were 5 clubs left, 3 in my hand. Adrenaline pumping, I led the 2♣ in the hopes of forcing the King. (The odds were in my favor, but my heart was racing.) I, indeed, took the King-- 13 chips for me, no Slam for Peter. Peter's reaction was priceless; he accused me of counting (guilty, but still lucky.) Sky had 28, and Peter, 33, so I just took everything and landed at 30.

The scores were: Mike, 1/61; Zach, 1/42; Peter, 2/24; Sky, 0/66.

Round 4

I made several errors of judgment. With the right pass, I could've had a Nil hand, but I had seen two Nils at the table already and figured they were in fashion tonight. So I kept the A♠ and A, 2♣ instead of passing them. They were both well-protected (3-5-7-A♠, 4-8-9-A-2♣ and I didn't see any harm in keeping the boys around.

My first mistake was to grab the King, with the 2, around the fifth trick, not seeing that the Six was in there as well-- 19 chips, bringing me to a very premature 24. On the tenth trick, I ate a 6-point red and had only two apparent ways out of the lead: the 4♣ and the 3♠. I also held the A♠ . If I had done my counting homework, I would not have led the 3, but I did. The 3 met the only remaining spade, the 2. I got screwed on the three of spades. (The ace, on the other hand, would have triggered the 2's high/low and fed Zach a hearty diet of chips.) Doomed at this point, I played the sure-winner Ace (it's always better to strike hard than strike soft; evenly-split rounds are the worst falls for the striking party) then lost the final trick on the 4♣; it turned out that 3 people had clubs. I ate a very bad strike: Zach got 19; Peter, 27; Sky, Nil for 24. My relative score (RS = personal score - average of all 4) of -17.50 tasted sour beyond description.

At this point, I was tied for a distant second place; Sky had a 29-point lead.

More specifically, the scores were: Mike, 2/61; Zach, 1/61; Peter, 2/51; Sky, 0/90.

This was a time for me to reflect and reconsider: I play unambiguously for 1st, and the only way I could see to a win was a Slam. With 2 of us "on the wire" (jargon for having 2 strikes) the game was almost over.

My counter-Slam efforts had ruined me in Round 1, reiterating the point that Ambition's not a game where one can play against a specific player. The game's designed to screw at least one person each round, but anyone who tries to exert control over who that person is, is playing with fire and often gets burned. Then I just totally botched round #4.

I resolved that, in the final round, I would play strictly for my bottom line. This meant I wouldn't give up a perfectly good Nil to play counter-Slam, as fun as it is to bust a Slam.

Round 5

I drew a no-brainer Nil hand and got two pawns (jargon for 3-5) in the pass (Scatter, this round). Peter, sending me the 3♣, told me he was giving me a card that reminded him of me. I don't know what he meant-- I'm not a Nilaholic-- but I didn't mind the gift in this case.

About 40% of hands can be played, with the right group of players, for Nil. Even still, I only play about the bottom 15-20% that way. Nil provides an average nonstriking round, but has several flaws: it's an inherently passive strategy, it facilitates Slam, and getting busted on a small trick just hurts.

If I'm going to set out for Nil, I pretty much need to know that I have the weakest hand, and be fairly confident that there won't be another successful Nil on the table. Double-Nil is the pits-- it's only 16 points when 2 people get it-- and it's also very easy for one of the other players to Slam (57, or 5/8 of the deck) when two players are racing for the bottom. Ambition's check against the overuse of Nil is Nil itself.

Zach was limping for a while, but in this case I knew I could out-Nil him. I had no power anyway, so Nil was about my only option. I just wanted him to eat something, to fail and let me have the Nil glory all to myself. He got a 4-chip diamond trick, and nothing more, taking an understrike.

The rest of the chips? Split 44/43, but Peter got (and used) the -6 LT which dropped him to 38. Sky struck, finally. I actually dropped to third place (from tie-second) but on much better terms. Peter, from last place, got a monster round-- relative score of +21.50, putting him 1 point from the lead.

The scores were: Mike, 2/85; Zach, 2/65; Peter, 2/89; Sky, 1/90.

[Ed. note: At the time, we believed Peter to be in the lead at the end of round #5, with 95. I miscalculated Sky, who struck, to have taken 45, in which case Peter would not use his -6LT. Later review showed that she had taken 43; Peter did need his -6LT after all.]

Round 6

Ambition is, always, anybody's game. It's 96% skill-and-strategy (about 4% of the game's total variance results from hand-luck; however "strategic luck" accounts for a bit more). Yet as late as game's end, every player has the chance to win.

Part of this results from Ambition's uncertain endgame: it's usually not clear until near a round's end that it is, in fact, the final round; the variable length of Ambition (game-ends-at-3-strikes losing condition) was built-in for exactly this purpose.

The 6th round sure felt like the end-- unless Sky struck, or someone Slammed, the game was over... and two opponents had a red trick's worth of high ground on me.

I wish I remembered more detail about this round: it was very intense. As for me, I was dealt a nice, 20ish hand-- a first-round blessing, an endgame nerve-wrecker. It wasn't a Slam hand (of course, I love Slamming, but I don't try with long-shot hands since I'm pretty risk-averse) and it wasn't a Nil hand (just as well; I like controlling the late rounds).

Any Nil intentions were shot by about the sixth trick: we'd all taken points. This was also good because it meant that Slam danger was low (Slamming w/ 3 competitive players is hard). At some point, Peter shot ahead into the teens or low-20s when I had a chance to drop the 6♣. I must've spent 30-45 seconds on the decision. I really wanted to save the Six for Sky, seeing her as more of a threat, also not wanting to end the game just then (I was behind Sky) but finally decided: OK, I'll let Peter have his strike. Some combination of my Six and other stuff got him to 31. Two tricks later, the round got to a point where I could take everything and still be OK, and this I tried (I'm pretty sure I lost the last trick; I don't remember). I got myself to 26. Zach got 19, and Sky, 15. (Sky didn't take any more chips; if I had saved the Six for her, I would've lost the game. Speaking of which... damn.)

The game-end totals were: Mike, 2/111; Zach, 2/84; Peter, 3/89; Sky, 1/105. Totalling 389, this was a relatively low-scoring game, but definitely one of my favorites.

Conclusion

That was the most fun game of my year. It re-iterated just what makes Ambition, in my opinion, so fun to play. It's almost purely a game of strategy and skill-- hand-luck doesn't dominate as in Bridge or Hearts, there are myriad strategies and every hand plays well for at least one-- but it's not rigid like some skill games. I consider myself a late-intermediate player (I don't know if Ambition has any advanced players yet) and can vouch that a group of 3 promising beginners gave me quite a challenge. Late-novice and early-intermediate players do beat me sometimes (my most recent loss, 30 Dec 2004, was a second-place finish; 146-145 to a late-novice).

Ambition's not a rigid pure-skill game so much as one of strategy, flux, and spirit. The interactions of players' objectives, the role of intuition about others' intentions, and the very human element of making costly mistakes, all create the uncertainty, notso much hand-luck. In my opinion, the psychological element of Ambition is as strong as that of Poker. As Ambition evolves and as advanced, World Series of Ambition type play emerges, I suspect that the psychological and flux elements of the game will be the most pronounced and decisive game aspects.

A concluding thought is this: there's something obviously very weird about any game that, while definitely one of strategy and skill, allows the lowly 6♣, in the 6th round, to decide the outcome.

Getting started

2005-01-28T17:30:00.000-05:00

Library

The most recent rules. (Post #5; cardschat.com)

23 Mar 2004 set of rules. (Out of date, but containing some cool variants/history. This is probably where most people hear of Ambition.)

Anatomy of the hand. (11 Sept 2004; still relevant-- no major rules changes. I intended to do more essays like this, but then the homework and the grad school apps invaded.)

Troll crossing. (27-28 Jan 2005. This is provided for amusements' sake; at least I found it funny when I first read it. Ambition is attacked by anon troll, defended by loyal-- in some cases, new-- friends.)

About Me

I am indeed Mike Church, a 21-year-old mathematics major at Carleton College. On the side, I do writing-- poetry, short story, faux-news. One of my 2,000 dream jobs, in high school, was one day working for The Onion.

I was an avid Magic player in middle and early high school. Some of the design in that game is beautiful, but the implementation is awful. Who can earnestly like a game where who has the most money is a decisive factor in available strategies and game outcomes?

Among my favorite teas are English Breakfast, Darjeeling Bop, and Cherry Vanilla. My favorite macro beer is probably Newcastle Brown Ale or Yuengling, but the Appalachain Brewing Company (PA microbrew) makes some amazing stuff.

My favorite band, currently, is probably the Finnish rock group HIM; they've produced some of our generation's best music and are huge in Europe, yet unheard-of in the U.S. (Figures, huh?)

I developed Ambition in late September 2003, to play with friends during the Budapest Semesters in Mathematics program (which I highly recommend). It grew out of Hearts, but I could quickly see that it was an entirely new game, and developed it as such. My aesthetic mission with Ambition was to create a trick-taking game where hand-luck played as small a role as possible. I believe I have been successful; Ambition's very instructive; every time you strike, you know you made a strategic mistake, and normally where that mistake was made. I taught the game to some Budapest expats and Hungarians who, apparently, still play the game.

In March 2004 Ambition was published in Japan's Nikoli magazine. Since then, Ambition has traveled to (at least) the following countries: Australia, Canada, France, Hungary, Japan, United Kingdom, United States. I could not achieve this without ample support and assistance, so I issue thanks to all of you who have helped me along the way.