Snakes and Ladders

[javasaurus]

Re: Snakes and Ladders, from an article about abstract games.

There are many ways to categorize games. For example, there are outdoor games involving athletics; but worthy as these are I have nothing to say about them here. There are games in which an element of chance is decisive, such as roulette or Snakes and Ladders: these games are appropriate only for children (if they are complicated) or for gamblers (if they are simple). Roulette, for example, is so simple it would have no interest unless money were involved. On the other hand, Snakes and Ladders is so complex it cannot interest an adult, even a gambler, who would correctly perceive it as a tediously complicated way of flipping a coin. Still, it has value in showing children what a game is and how to play: there are rules that must be followed, there is a winner and a loser, if you lose it doesn't matter much because you may win another time. In fact a strong element of chance is desirable in a game for children because without it they would have no chance of winning when playing against their elders, and so would not learn the attraction for games that every civilized person should feel.

Here's a link to the full article: Defining the Abstract

Comments

[orkney.livejournal.com]

This reminds me of a course I once took regarding positive and negative reinforcement. One of the parents came in with a story about a six-year-old who threw tantrums when he lost at a game. It was suggested that he be given something simple that he liked, e.g. a piece of gum, when he lost gracefully. The following week the parent reported no improvement whatsoever. It turned out that the gum was given only when the child won.