An independent research research group exploring how board game rules shape strategy, cooperation, and decision-making under uncertainty.
Explore the research agenda↗Our programmes treat games as formal systems and social environments. Each starts with a question, defines an observable measure, and makes its assumptions explicit.
We compare seat order, opening constraints, and resource compensation in two-player, perfect-information games.
Seat-swapped matches · win-rate intervals · opening diversity
We vary clue budgets and shared information to study coordination, inference, and the cost of ambiguity in cooperative games.
Controlled rule variants · decision logs · team error analysis
We map legal actions and reachable states to distinguish a large decision space from meaningful strategic variety.
State-space enumeration · search depth · branching profiles
A winning percentage alone is not an explanation. We connect formal models with controlled play, then ask where the model stops describing the table.
Define players, information, legal actions, and payoffs. Document every rule variant.
Use paired conditions, swap player positions, and keep the evaluation budget fixed.
Test alternative explanations. Report limits alongside results, including where agents differ from people.
First-player advantage is a property of a game under stated playing conditions — not a universal constant.
Working notes from our research programmes. Read the abstracts for proposed methods, assumptions, and questions for further investigation.
A protocol for paired games, seat reversal, and uncertainty reporting.
The proposed study uses matched player or agent pairs under a fixed ruleset. Each pair plays both seats; opening conditions are recorded before outcomes are compared. The analysis reports uncertainty and separates exploratory observations from confirmatory tests. This working note sets out the study protocol; empirical results will be reported separately.
A framework for separating rules complexity from decision complexity.
The proposed framework records rule count, exceptions, legal actions per turn, and the number of strategically distinct continuations. These measures are evaluated separately: more legal moves need not imply more meaningful choices. The next step is a controlled comparison of a base ruleset and one explicitly defined variant.
PlayTheGame brings a research perspective to tabletop systems: mathematical structure, computational analysis, and human behavior. Our work focuses on fundamental research, transparent methods, and productive dialogue between researchers and game designers.
↑A worked example of experimental design. Before calling a game “unbalanced,” we need to decide what we are measuring — and whose play we are observing.
Choose one ruleset and two fixed agents. Keep search time, opening positions, and stopping conditions identical.
Play each opening twice: A moves first against B, then B moves first against A. Treat these games as a matched pair.
Record wins, draws, and losses. Report uncertainty at the pair level, then repeat with a different agent strength.
First-seat score: first-player wins plus half the draws, divided by all games. A score of 0.5 is an equal split of points, not proof that every position is fair.
A result for two agents does not establish optimal play or predict human performance. The conclusion must stay attached to the tested conditions.
A seminar programme connecting formal theory, game design, and observation. Each session is built around a problem to examine, with time for discussion and protocol review.
Compare dominance, best responses, and equilibrium using small payoff matrices before applying the ideas to a full board game.
Turn a designer’s observation into a falsifiable hypothesis. Define the comparison group, the measurement, and the stopping rule.
Examine how private objectives and limited communication change coordination. Separate intended uncertainty from avoidable confusion.
Sessions combine close reading, protocol review, and structured play analysis. Contact the research group to discuss a seminar topic or propose a research question.
Start with the working notes ↗Our contributors bring together mathematical reasoning, software engineering, experimental design, and a shared interest in the structure of play.
PhD in Applied Mathematics
Milan studies the structure of competitive games, with a focus on opening advantage and rule symmetry. He develops formal comparisons of rulesets and helps translate broad design questions into measurable hypotheses.
PhD in Computer Science
Ayan builds computational agents for abstract strategy games. His interests include search efficiency, evaluation functions, and the influence of computational budgets on estimates of playing strength.
MSc in Statistics
Dana develops evaluation protocols for paired matches and repeated playtests. He focuses on sampling, uncertainty intervals, and separating an apparent advantage from variation in player performance.
PhD in Cognitive Science
Lukas explores how players form plans under incomplete information. He designs controlled tasks to examine attention, learning, and the heuristics people use when exhaustive calculation is impossible.
We welcome conversations with researchers, game designers, and educators working on strategic systems. Tell us what you are exploring, which ruleset you are studying, and where you need a second perspective.
Research question · game or ruleset · proposed method · relevant material or prototype
Research enquiries, collaboration proposals, seminars, and general correspondence.
15/2 Brusilovskogo Street
Almaty, Kazakhstan
Correspondence in English and Kazakh. Meetings by arrangement.