strategy, tactics and hidden information

Rock Paper Scissors is the ultimate hidden information game... but strategy is something I think it doesn't have. Sure, I like to boast my "Fist Full of Confetti" strategy (Paper Scissors Paper) is unbeatable... but it isn't strategy any more than a "system" for roulette. I have no better odds of winning with that.

In order to have strategy, you need to know what your opponent is doing. At some point, the hidden information must be revealed - in whole or in part. It is what information you reveal to your opponent that governs strategy, not what you keep hidden.

Foresight relies on the known, the expected, and the suspected. Too much hidden information can eliminate the known almost entirely, and too broad a pool of options can eliminate the expected. This leaves little except suspicion, and this isn't enough to base a strategy off of.

I disagree with the analysis you've quoted as being almost completely backwards. The depths of strategy is not reached, as it seems the author's point is, by circumventing the ability of the opposition to react. The deepest strategy relies on openly building a framework for success in such a way as to be deceptive through feint and misdirection. Hidden information, in this case, is restricted to the grand designs of the players, not their means to achieve those designs.

By the time the push to victory is begun, the strategist has prepared the ground before themselves, and in this way has bypassed the opportunity to resist. Only after the game has developed is it too late. The ignorance of the opposition is a self-inflicted condition, in a sense, as there was every opportunity to develop an appropriate response.

Hidden information tends to skew a game toward the tactical, rather than the strategic.

Suppose you played Rock Paper Scissors with someone, and you used this variant. Player 1 must write down his three moves, in order, on 3 pieces of paper. Player 2 then chooses thier move for round 1. P1's first move is revealed, and we see who wins. Now P2 chooses his move for round 2. P1's pre-chosen move is revealed and we see who wins. Finally, P2 chooses his move for round 3. Again P1's pre-chosen move is revealed and we see who wins.

Is this any more or less random than regular RPS? Does the 'hidden infomation' of P1's predetermined moves change P2's play at all, or is it completely random every time?

I don't really think there's any connection between strategy and hidden/open information games. Also don't confuse hidden information with randomness, or with player interaction coupled with fuzziness.

You don't know how a game of Yahtzee will play out because there's a lot of randomness. You don't know how a game of Chess will play out because there's player interaction. Fuzziness is when there's so many possibilities that the human mind could not possibly look ahead far enough to calculate all the possibilities and their outcomes. That's why Chess (or Go, or Checkers, etc) stays an interesting game, and Tic-Tac-Toe does not.

Any game where you can formulate a plan and there is randomness or fuzzy player interaction has a strategy. If there's too much randomness or fuzziness formulating a plan might seem pointless. Which is why these games are often dubbed "chaotic" or "purely tactical". This is not always true.

For example, "Lost Cities" is a game with a lot of randomness, but I feel there's quite a bit of strategy there. Ditto for "Ticket to Ride". On the other hand, games with little randomness and hidden information such as Puerto Rico or Chess can also have a lot of strategy.

So, hidden information doesn't promote strategy nor does it make a game less strategic, it is just one of the hurdles that a player has to overcome and has to take into account when formulating his plan.

My thinking ws that the more information that is hidden, the more difficult planning becomes. As foresight shortens, players must rely ever more on short-term reaction to events as they emerge. Most games, being limited in scope, eventually reveal more information than they hide, and strategy prevails in the end as a result. But if the hidden content stays constant, the players are more likely to keep to a tactical approach.

This may take the form of defensive, seige-mentality play, or it may take the form of wild, crap-shoot riskiness. But both cases are placing a lot of emphasis on the current situation, not the situation they foresee developing in the future.

Using Chess as an example is somewhat useful, but Shogi or Go work better here. In these games, the careful framework of the strategist can be easily disrupted by wild, chaotic play, the kind new players are more likely to use. Most experienced players will actually have a surprisingly difficult time with this simply because it is so disruptive. The "hidden information" is implicit in the sheer randomness of the opposing moves. Each reveals nothing about the opposing plan, in this case becasue there may not be one. The strategist must hunker down and weather the storm, weakening the weaker player as they over-extend themselves, or strike out as chance permits, exploiting a dire mistake more experienced players would not have made.

Clearly, then, strategy is not really in play, and, in this case, may not be needed.

Similarly, if Checkers were to be played with pieces that had a random value from 1-6, and the higher-value piece survived jumps, there would be no strategic need to save higher or lower pieces until the endgame, if each piece had an entirely random value, and this value was reset whenever it was revealed. Your opponant could have all 6's for all you knew. You'd have to rely on very short-term planning, since you'd never know more about the opposing forces.

If, however, the value of opposing pieces were fixed, and reveled with interaction, you could deploy your forces in response. If each player had exactly two of each value piece, your strategic planning would expand by many orders of magnitude, since you could plan ahead with confidence, and know your opponant would be doing the same, thus making intelligent, and foreseeable moves because there really would be a best move in given situations.

Thus, I stand my my thinking that hidden information skews games toward the tactical.

General - I disagree with the quote you originally posted. Ultimately, I feel that games without hidden information can be as strategic as games with hidden information.

Emphasis mine.

I feel these two statements are misguided.

In the first, it is assumed that the players just don't know how to counter a strategy. What if the people playing chess are both veterans of the game? When I play my grandfather (not to say that we are grandmasters), when one of us wins it is'nt because the other didn't understand something, or had a lack of experience - instead it is because one player was able to handle the wealth of information better than the other, and was able to think ahead and capitalize on the information at hand.

In the second statement, it is assumed that in the secret game it is more strategic because one can catch the other opponent unaware. Rediculous. In your example (calvary? infantry?), your strategic thinking is really more of a game of chance. You take a chance if you leave yourself undefended - whereas you play it safe if you defend. Strategically, it is smartest to make the defensive choice.

The only difference between the two is this chance. In chess, you can make a strategic decision with confidence. In stratego, you can make strategic decisions with uncertainty.

But I digress. I don't know why I am arguing this. Open games (like go, or chess, or connect 4) can be just as strategic as closed ones (like stratego, poker, or pen and paper RPS). One type isn't more strategic than the other. Its like arguing which is more fun to play.

Don't let me dissuade you, I'm a fan of both types - I just don't agree with the quote. I'd say that hidden information it actually moves the needle from 'skill' to 'chance,' though how much will vary from game to game (chess on one extreme, RPS on the other).

Games that have hidden information have a benefit over games that don't: excitement. The social aspect of bluffing your opponent is something that you just can't do in chess and checkers. For this reason, I do prefer secretive games.

By all means, put it in your game.