So Rich, would a game like Backgammon that includes random elements be included as an Abstract Strategy Game?  I know you were looking for input on issues like this on the Geek, but I don’t know how you resolved it.  My feeling is that it should be included, as probability management definitely requires skill.

How far does one take the probability mgmt/skill line of thinking.  Skillful poker players must certainly know about probability, but bluffing and player observation will lead to other gameplay dynamics. 

In the case of backgammon, does knowing when to offer the doubling cube start to lead down paths where abstracts tend not to follow??  A smaller aspect of the game to be sure, but at least contains a little bit of grey area.

Do abstracts share a trait where both players must have the same probablity of having the same game options/information available to them.  This definition invalidates poker but include backgammon since once you assume both players have an equal chance of first play, the same options would be available for a given turn.  Poker would fail since the same hand of cards given to players in different offsets from player to act first could lead to different dynamics.  Bridge could fail as diffent bidding conventions can lead to varied availability with respect to bidding room

Absence of theme leaves all these choices as abstracts.  I like the ‘Its my fault’ description.  Does this mean that once a game is ‘solved’, it loses its abstract status?  Perhaps.  So this definition would exclude backgammon as a single game will produce a series of die rolls that one player may find impossible to win with, although over repetition of play, greater skill will prevail.

Please excuse my meandering thoughts.

Greetings everyone. 
I finally see info is up on IAGO and the IAGO World Tour is on here, which is cool.  If people want info on IAGO, please check out the site: http://www.abstractgamers.org
For info on The IAGO World Tour and events in The 2008 IAGO World Tour, go here: http://abstractgamers.org/iwt.htm

As for the questions in mind people are asking about.  Not sure I can answer them, but the approach now for determination of what is, or is not, is to have a list of criterion for what would be consider a “standard abstract” strategy game and then deviations that are considered “non-standard abstract” strategy games (these deviate from the criterion slightly.  A “non-standard” abstract strategy game currently as defined as deviating from at most, one of the criterions.  Deviate more, and it doesn’t count).  The document that contains the current criterion is found here:
http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/game-acceptance

It is still being worked on, and it is arbitrary.  I can’t guarantee there will be perfect results, but at least the hope is we are close enough that sufficient people can accept it.  As of now, “abstract games”, is short for “abstract strategy game”, and the anchor of the definition has to do with no-luck, rather than no-theme.  There is a bit on theme in there, but it is so vague that it is hard to use.  Theme is accounted for in whether or not it ends up bloating the rules or not. 

At this point backgammon would be in as a “non-standard” abstract strategy game. Kriegspiel (the chess variant) would also be, along with Stratego.  They are both in, at the edge of what is acceptable.  As it is set up now, the game Diplomacy is excluded, but Intimate Diplomacy could be in as a “non-standard” abstract strategy game.  And the issues of randomized set up, use of a randomizer in a game, having more than two players, and also imperfect information in a game, have all been debated and discussed and debated and likely will still be debated.  Object is to try to get something going, and establish a set of acceptance criterion, which should meet the following standards:
1. Have a sufficiently robust set of standards that allows for a wide enough interesting list of games that you maintain a sufficiently large interest in people participating and eventually become official members (membership details and benefits will grow over time).  The set of standards for acceptance also must be tight enough that it prevents things degenerating to a place where every tabletop game gets argued in and the organization is simple a tabletop boardgame association, or a mindsports game association.
2. Reduce the risk of a game getting accepted for political reasons.  Someone dumps a bunch of money just to get their game in.  The reasons need to be clear here. This isn’t meant to be mean, but to maintain identity.  Eventually, IAGO should be a model for a general tabletop games association, of which IAGO would be part of, and it tournament events could also be part of a boardgame World Tour.  I also hope that it serves as a pattern for a general cardgames association also, and all games end up in association and have their own Tour.
3. The criterion should be clear and have a logic that makes sense.  You want it known and easy to tell.  The issue with abstract strategy games is that everyone has their own intuitive understanding of what they are, but it is not the same for everyone.  This leads to problems, and a bit of the “heap paradox”.

I may of missed some others, but these are major. 

By the way, ANY event just about can be part of IAGO if it is part of an Athlon (a multiple game tournament).  At this point, if at least 50% of the games in the tournament are standard abstract strategy games, it can be an official IAGO event (to have IAGO involved, it must have abstract strategy games at least on equal footing with other games).  This means you could do a chess-poker Biathlon.  As of now, Backgammon-poker would be out (Backgammon is currently non-standard abstract strategy game) but chess-poker would be.  At this moment, a non-standard abstract isn’t considered impacting one way or another, so a chess-backgammon-poker triathlon would be allowed.  One could argue Chess Boxing could also be part (it could end up excluded for the boxing part hurting people, rather than it not being an abstract strategy game).  You could also do chess-jacks or chess-pool.  This is where the criterion for what is an standard abstract strategy game is important.  The idea of the Athlons is to get increased exposure for abstract strategy games.

Anyhow, if any of this is of interest to you, please visit the IAGO website and join in the discussions there.  Your input is going to shape how things develop here.  Again, you can get involved there and help shape the direction to help get IAGO to best represent what people want, while remaining true to its mission of promoting abstract strategy games. 

Again, if this is of interest to you, PLEASE visit the IAGO Website and get involved in the discussion.  The website is at: http://abstractgamers.org

More events have been added to the 2008 IAGO World Tour calendar.  Please visit the calendar page for more details.  It is at:
http://abstractgamers.org/iwt.htm