Judder Man wrote:
I thought Wilkins analogy of the two codes was very good. Comparing Union to Chess (More technical, slower, specific roles) and League to Draughts (More Open play and faster).
I couldn't disagree more. The key thing about chess whilst in application it appears complex, the rules themselves are actually relatively simple and there's only limited technical structure: It's the combination of single moment simplicity into almost infinite options over time (with multiple moves) that creates true complexity, from human choices in this pretty unstructured environment. This is exactly like League, which is an options game rather than a routines/process game.
Union on the other hand has more in common with a highly complex, structured rules-based game like Dungeons & Dragons. The surface complexity and ongoing need for an outside reference or judgement as a result (the referee's interpretation of a myriad of technicalities) actually reduces the ability of the human actors to make choices, and create a complex hard-to-read outlook of future options.
Nobody would argue chess players are less intelligent than people who play Dungeons & Dragons. The same's true for League players - they need to be much more creative, planning moves multiple stages in advance, with multiple layers of options available at each stage. I wish people like Wilkin would make this point instead.
