Human beings are never more ingenious than in the invention of games.
A clever game AI that doesn’t express itself in a way that reveals its design is little better—and may be worse—than one based on virtual coin tosses.
I get more upset at losing at other things than chess. I always get upset when I lose at Monopoly.
It’s easy to start building a model with a vague idea of what you want, and then sharpen your focus as you proceed. It’s impossible to complete an adequate model unless you have developed a precise idea of what you want it to do.
In order for a game to be elegant, you need to approach it calmly and without stress. You also need to work on it consistently, without stopping.
In addition, you always have the feeling that a game is never quite ready, and a game that takes a long time to design usually has problems, because it often suffers from what I like to call “Designer’s Burden.” This happens when a designer puts a lot of unnecessary things into the game because he wants to make it bigger and better.
If you want to succeed, you have to put chess first in your life. But that is not enough—you must also put it second and third.
"War-gaming destroyed itself,” says [Jason] Matthews, who watched his beloved hobby confuse complexity for historical accuracy, scaring away potential new players.
A certain amount of histrionics is doubtless a necessary price for authentic role-playing, and within limits it should probably not be discouraged.