On Games for People
What kind of a relationship do you have with the MSO event? What do you think of it?
The first time I heard about MSO - in the spring of '97, that was - I immediately thought: fantastic! Or even stronger: finally!
I was in full preparation of a kind of abstract games fair in Antwerp myself, called The Other Game. The aim was to let the people know that abstract 2-player games still exist and that each year new games of this type are released. Far too few people know them and that I consider a real problem for games in general.
The shops are stuffed with all kinds of toys, gadgets and tools for kids and I think that is one of the main reasons why more and more adolescents and adults turn their back on games.
The first thing to do is to make people aware that there still are good and challenging games, next you must find a way to get them playing. If you get them there, you have won a first battle - not the war, because that is a matter of long term re-education. When I heard about MSO, I thought: I have a few brothers in arms on the other side of the channel.
You have had experience with fighting for games - you have staged a similar event in Belgium?
|
| "The Other Game" '97
|
Well, I'm very familiar with the problems David Levy had to face this year, and I think it is a miracle that he found a way out of it. It is an unbelievable achievement.
The first edition of The Other Game cost me about £7,000. Now I'm preparing the third edition, which will take place in November. I think there's a good chance that we'll pass the edge of 3,000 visitors, because we got very enthusiastic reactions from the visitors and good coverage in the media.
But I simply don't get the thing sponsored. Apparently nobody takes games seriously. I can't make business people understand that The Other Game is a cultural event that really needs to be supported.
| "Playing an abstract game, no matter on what level, should remain part of the world. The more you deal with it on an elitist level, the more you isolate it" |
What exactly is The Other Game? How does it compare with the MSO - is it a competition or a games fair?
It is not really a fair, rather a happening. We select between 25 and 30 recently published abstract 2-player games. We have a hall of 1500 m² and each game is represented with at least 8 demo-copies.
We take care that every game has a volunteer to explain it to the visitors. We also invite clubs of the classic games, so that they can inform the people about their activities.
Most people don't even know that e.g. Go and Shogi clubs exist - not to mention how they work and where you can find them. So, in total we have between 300 and 400 copies waiting to be played.
The formula works well. There is a lot of ambiance; the visitors understand and experience that abstract 2-player games can be great fun, that you must not necessarily play them with a gray pull-over and brown shoes and that there is no obligation to think about each move until steams comes out of your ears. Even the tournaments are rather workshops than tough competitions.
So The Other Game is a festival and gathering more than a sporting event?
No, the competitions were certainly not a joke. For example, last time the prize money for the GIPF-tournament was about £4,000, so, believe me, the players performed at their best.
With "workshop" I mean that the participants rather looked at it as a gathering of equally-minded people that got the opportunity to measure up to each other. It's hard to put in words the difference between "doing the best you can" and "being prepared to kill", but it isn't difficult at all to "feel" that difference.
An important aspect was that we did not have a separate tournament section. The competitions were part of the complete event, not more and not less important than the other activities. Everything took place in the same hall, because we wanted to keep the gap between the occasional players and the hardcore gamers as little as possible.
I would love to organize a tournament on a square in the center of a city, preferably on a hot summer evening. And install big screens to give passers-by something to look at. Playing an abstract game, no matter on what level, should remain part of the world. The more you deal with it on an elitist level, the more you isolate it.
| The MSO "is like a 5-story building with plenty of activity on the highest floor, with an elevator for the participants but without stairs for the public. And that, I think, is a pity." |
Taking your organization of festivals in Belgium into account, how do you react to the MSO's emphasis on competition?
Above all I think it is a fantastic event. But what I think is not so important, because I already am an abstract game freak. So, if you permit me, in my opinion the MSO is too much focused solely on competition.
That way you only reach people like me, players who already are convinced abstract game players, but you will not - or hardly - generate new players. Moreover, you won't attract a lot of visitors and I think visitors are the key to further growth.
Every visitor you get is a potential participant of the next edition. But for the moment the difference between a man in the street who wants to have a look around or a mother who would like to do something interesting with her kids, and, on the other hand, the world of the experienced players, is far too big.
It is like a 5-story building with plenty of activity on the highest floor, with an elevator for the participants but without stairs for the public. And that, I think, is a pity.
The MSO concentrates on competition because they hope to establish mental achievement on an equal footing with physical. Is this a reasonable goal?
Players who put a lot of effort in getting really good at a particular game, must have a context within which they can compete with other advanced players. If not, many will lose their interest and look for something else to get good at.
I also think that it is a necessity for the status of the MSO itself to have competitions on the highest level, like e.g. the Olympic Games. But on an equal footing? I don't know... The achievement of the individuals, athlete or player, may be equal - in fact, they are, no doubt about it - but the MSO is not needed to prove that.
If you want to compare physical with mental efforts, you must compare the contexts in which these efforts are made and it doesn't need much explanation to see that the comparison doesn't go far. You can practice sports on every corner of every street, so to speak.
Everybody is familiar with physical performances and related competitions; billions of people practice some kind of sport all over the world. Put in other words: the base is enormous and that makes top events a guaranteed success. That is not the case with "mind" sports.
| "I read in an interview with David Levy that the idea of organizing the MSO came from what he called 'a chess party'. Indeed, a party it must be." |
The MSO is a top event, but where is the base? Where is the public? The MSO creates a platform for the best players in many different game disciplines - a platform that was badly needed - but I fear that isn't sufficient to talk about "equal footing". First the interest in abstract games must be re-established on a much larger scale.
What do you see as the major differences between your festival and the MSO games?
Well, I think it's a matter of approach. As a player David Levy is a top athlete, I'm not. David is focused on a big event to give players the opportunity to compete with each other. And I fully understand why: there was nothing!
If you think about it, how come a big abstract games event didn't already exist? Games are played all over the world, playing should still be considered as part of every culture, yet somebody had to start something like the MSO from scratch.
I, on the other hand, was never good at one particular game; you could say that I belong to the base and I'm confronted with what's going wrong there: lack of interest. So, doing something about that is my goal.
Our approach is different, but eventually we want to achieve the same thing: putting abstract games back where they belong. And I sincerely hope that my comments will not be interpreted as criticism to David's address; I sympathize very much with what he's doing and my respect is enormous. Moreover, I certainly don't want to compare what I do with what he is doing. He's major league.
How would you change the MSO?
From my point of view the most important thing that is missing is: what do you offer an average visitor? Something spectacular to look at? Not really. Something else? Not really.
| "Arguments alone won't convince many people, nor will competitions and prize money; let the games do some of the work, too." |
I can't help having had the feeling that you scared off most of the few visitors that showed up. It is fun for the participants, but visitors don't experience a joyful atmosphere.
And as such, I fear that the MSO is rather confirming the current prejudices towards abstract games than deals with them. I'm sure most visitors must have thought: too elitist, too serious, gives you a headache, not "cool".
I read in an interview with David Levy that the idea of organizing the MSO came from what he called "a chess party". Indeed, a party it must be. Sounds great, but why not make it a party for the visitors, too?
That way you make the MSO accessible for people who like games but don't feel like participating in a tournament - that is: not yet!
The MSO has tried to have an exhibition and sales area, and teach visitors some of the games. Is this something that can fit in with the idea of a kind of Olympic games of the mind?
|
Yes, a few games were demonstrated on the spot, but there wasn't put much effort in the area. Who knew about it? It thought it was a fine bonus for those who where there any way, as participants of one or more tournaments, rather than an activity to attract and entertain visitors.
The space where you could be initiated in the few recently published games wasn't really part of the happenings, although, in my opinion, that is what it must be: an essential part of the MSO. And it must be promoted as such.
With the competitions you attract high level players, with the new games you attract less fanatic game minded people, to keep in touch with the base and to welcome newcomers. Make them active; give them the opportunity to play and to get familiar with the games on the program and let them feel that abstract 2-players games are fun.
Arguments alone won't convince many people, nor will competitions and prize money; let the games do some of the work, too. After all, the quality of the games is the strongest argument you have.
|
