This is the second in a line of reviews of abstracts. I chose the first one (Go) because it is my favorite abstract, and I'm choosing this one (Chaos) because apparently no one knows anything about it, and it's actually a pretty good game that deserves more attention. On to the project...

Abstracts in Review

It is my opinion that abstracts are fundamentally different from other types of board games. People play them for other reasons and people like them for other reasons. Therefore I thought it was time I set down the priorities that I feel make a good abstract game, rather than a good board game in general, and saw how various abstracts measured up to them.

The qualities which I think make a good abstract are Strategy, Aesthetics, Solvability, Emergence, and Other Considerations, each of which will be explained in greater detail in the rating section for this particular game.

Game Play

Chaos is a two player game. One player takes the 12 brown disks and the other takes the 12 orange disks. The board consists of nine circular spots arranged in a 3x3 pattern. On a turn, a player may either place one of their disks on an empty spot or on top of another disk already on the board. The first player to get all of their disks onto the board is the winner. That's it, except for one thing...

If a player places a disk on top of one on the board so that there are now four stacked there, they then collapse them as follows:
First the disk they just placed gets moved to the spot one space away from the player who toppled them, then the one directly below it gets moved to the space to the right of the player who toppled them, then the third one goes towards that player, and finally the bottom piece moves to the left of that player. After toppling, if any disks moved off the board in this fashion (for example by moving away from the player when there was no more spots away from the player) then they are returned to the player who owned them. Then, if any stacks were only 3 high but are now 4 high as a result of the toppling, they topple in the exact same fashion.

As you might have figured, where your disk ends up in a stack will determine whether it stays on the board or not, but what's especially interesting is that the toppling goes in reference to the player who toppled them, so you have to pay attention to where it will end up both if you topple that stack and if your opponent topples it. For example, if I play a piece on the empty space to the far right and far top of the grid (from my perspective), then it means if that stack gets to three high and I choose to topple it, that piece will end up going to my left and staying on the board. However if my opponent topples it, it will go to my right and be returned to me. I'll discuss the deeper strategy elements of this game in the ratings section.

Ratings

Strategy:

A good abstract should have as little luck as possible. It should take a long time to be good at it, to the point where being the best in the world should be something very prestigious, and it should be possible to easily differentiate between skill levels. Unlike other board games, if an abstract does not suffer from analysis paralysis, it's probably not strategic enough.

This game has no luck. The basic piece of strategy which someone can easily pick up after their first game is that the starting player will win if nothing is ever toppled. This means that the starting player has no reason to ever topple anything, and so both players need only focus on what will happen if the second player topples any particular stack. At first I thought this was a serious game flaw, until I managed to come back when playing second player against someone who knew this by toppling stacks onto other stacks and thus upsetting the order. This led me to believe that there is an additional level of strategy which is a good deal deeper than just watching the order according to one player's perspective. For as short a game as Chaos is, I have to conclude that it is pretty deep, although it's not one that will take you more than a month or so to really work out.

Aesthetics:

In abstracts, the substitute for theme is beauty. A good abstract game should look good sitting out on a coffee table, and, at least theoretically, be able to be replicated with deluxe materials, even if deluxe materials are not the default. Minimalism is generally preferred.

This is a beautiful game. The choice of brown and orange, rather than the more typical white vs. black, gives it a more earthy look. The materials are all wood, and the board has some nice design elements. My only critique of the default materials is the printing of "chaos" on the board. This game could easily be recreated with any other materials.

Solvability:

Because a good abstract will have little luck, they may suffer from solvability, meaning that strategy will be supplanted with simple mathematics or logic. Although it is acceptable for an abstract to be theoretically solvable, a good abstract should be practically impossible to solve. There should not be too many "correct" moves or standard sequences which must simply be memorized. Computers should not be able to beat the best human players every time.

As the name of the game implies, the game can get very chaotic. The first player has every impetus to prevent toppling by spreading out the stacks as evenly as possible. However, this facilitates the second player's strategy of mixing things up with many consecutive topples from a single play. However, the game is still small scale with very few variables, and I have little doubt it could be solved and that perfect play could be developed with the first player winning every time. It is less easily predicted than something like Connect 4 or Pentago, and is perhaps closest in this dimension to something like Quarto. The game is probably too easily solved for play beyond the casual level to develop.

Emergence:

The traditional adage for abstracts is "minutes to learn, a lifetime to master" meaning that basic rules result in a plethora of emergent qualities. For example, in Go a player is as likely to consider eyes, tiger's mouths, and cutting points (abstractions not referenced in the rules) as they are to consider liberties and ko (which are rules terms). As the name suggests, strategic thought should be at the abstract level.

Although the game is not ingrained enough for a variety of emergent qualities to be identified, it seems to me that in order to get beyond the basic level of strategy mentioned in the game play section and start thinking about multiple overlapping topples, a person would need to go beyond looking at pieces and start looking at abstractions. However, the small scale of the game still lends itself to a reductionist thinking style in most cases.

Other Considerations

Abstracts are too big and too diverse to fit into any one rating scheme. Every game will have unique elements both positive and negative which do not easily fit in with the other important criteria listed above, and they must also be considered.

Positives: This is a very good example of a quality, light abstract. The mechanic it introducing is quite new. The player is not having to get X in a row, like so many other light abstracts, nor are they trying to get from here to there or anything like that. Although it may not have the longevity of other abstracts, it does provide something quite original.

Negatives: This game is at an odd crossroads between deep abstracts and light abstracts. It may be too simple for more dedicated abstract fans and it may be too difficult for children or more casual gamers. This can be a bonus, but it does need the right sort of attitude to be enjoyed.

Overall Rating:

I do recommend buying or at least trying this game. It seems deceptively simple, but after the first few games you will start to discover some clever twists on the basic strategy that may present itself after the first game. Don't be expecting the type of abstract you can play every day, but it will work well as filler between heavier games.

Edit: I accidentally pressed submit instead of preview. I intended to rate this 3.5 instead of 4.
Edit #2: Included the number of disks each player has.