After reading Bob Jones's "Theory of Piquet" article and giving it a little time to sink in, I've decided that what it boils down to is something Bob himself has said from time to time: "Poker makes a better model, or metaphor, for battle than does chess. We've been settling for chesslike wargames for many years. Now here's something new: a pokerlike wargame."

I'm reminded of one of the old Star Trek episodes, where Captain Kirk decides to try bluffing the enemy starship captain. Spock questions Kirk, using a chess metaphor; and Kirk replies, "Not chess, Mr. Spock--poker!" (The bluff works, and at the end, Spock says something like, "Interesting game, this poker.")

Well, it's an amusing little exchange, and it serves for purposes of entertainment. But back then, and now as well, I consider it just another instance of chess-bashing. (Another such instance occurred in another sci-fi show, where a stodgy old commander is trying to demonstrate the enemy's strategy on a chess board; and the cool new commander indignantly sweeps the pieces off the board, saying, "That is what the enemy is trying to do!")

No, chess cannot accurately simulate war. But isn't that pretty obvious? Who would ever imagine that chess does simulate war realistically? It's an abstract game; it doesn't do anything "realistically." Nor is it meant to. But does that make it any less valid as a device for illustrating principles of strategy & tactics?

Besides, what does poker have that chess doesn't? Mainly, just random distribution and hidden information. In chess, the two sides' pieces are arrayed equally and symmetrically opposite each other, in plain sight. In poker, the players' hands are generally unequal in value and hidden from all but the owner's eyes. Thus, in chess a player analyzes the situation on the board, then makes the move he considers the most advantageous. In poker, a player evaluates his own hand, deduces the value of his opponents' hands, and then bets in whatever way he considers the most likely to be advantageous.

So, how does this relate to historical battles? hat wargamers are interested in analyzing the military forces as they maneuver upon the battlefield and clash with each other. Such analysis can provide insight into which kinds of forces and maneuvers are the more effective in various kinds of situations. The ultimate goal of reading military history and playing this chesslike sort of wargame is to gain a good overview of battle--an understanding of how battle works (i.e., how it would look from a detached, omniscient viewpoint).

If we substitute a poker metaphor, we're saying that wargamers are interested in vicariously experiencing something of what a battlefield commander experiences--the kind of decision making a commander must do "on the fly," with limited understanding and control. This might involve bluff, deception, and luck as well as force and maneuver. The ultimate goal of this pokerlike game, in conjunction with reading military history, is to gain some insight into what commanders do.

In light of the above, is the pokerlike wargame really any better than the chesslike wargame? I don't think so. I think they just approach the subject from different angles and give different insights.

As a matter of fact, this is something I've long held to be a fundamental general distinction between board games and card games. I think of board games as "God games" and card games as "hero games." When you play a board game, you generally get a godlike overview; you're like one of the mythical gods of Mount Olympus, manipulating the little men down below. And there's a unique satisfaction in doing that. When you play a card game, you're more like Achilles or Her-cules--a mythical hero on some sort of odyssey, facing all sorts of challenges and solving mysteries and so forth along the way. And there's a unique satisfaction in that too.

Military history consists of more than just the soldiers and officers on sundry battlefields. It includes theorists, strategists, tacticians, planners, logisticians, and many others as well. If one wants to vicariously experience what it's like to be a soldier or officer or commander, that's fine; and the pokerlike wargame may be best suited for that. But many, many wargamers down through the years have very much enjoyed the viewpoint of the theorist or historian--the Jomini, Clausewitz, Hart, or Keegan, who are better known for providing "godlike overviews" of battle than directing military forces in actual battle. And it's my opinion that a chesslike wargame is better suited for that, because the pokerlike wargame will blind players to the very "objective overview" they want to see.

I don't want to detract from anything Bob says in his "Theory" article. It's a fine explanation of what Piquet does that most other wargames don't do. For anyone who does want to see battle more through a commander's eyes than from a "helicopter" viewpoint, the article should be a good incentive to give Piquet a try. My only complaint is that in showing how Piquet is new and different, the article disparages the traditional approach to wargaming--an approach which I believe is still perfectly valid for what it sets out to achieve.

It's not that traditional wargames are wrong and Piquet is right; it's just that Piquet shows how war might look from a commander's point of view, whereas traditional wargames show how particular battles might look from a theorist's point of view. Neither type of wargame adheres strictly to a particular point of view, however: Piquet retains an overview of sorts; and traditional games often place restrictions on activities to vaguely simulate "command control." But generally speaking, those are the opposing stances the two types of game take.

Thus, they may be great alternatives, or complements, to one another. But I wouldn't expect either type of game to make the other obsolete--any more than I'd expect poker to make chess obsolete, or vice versa. It all depends on what kind of game a group of players want, or what angle they want to approach military history from.