Some variants differ drastically in gameplay than the others, and as such they require a subset of different, sometimes even contradistinct skills. Let's take a simple example: The Four Horsemen requires calculation skills and skills of predicting the opponent's tactical series, while Sergeants Laboratory on the other hand commonly incorporates elements akin to the standard two-player chess ones, such as bad pieces, space cramps and long-term positional advantages. As a scheme for categorizing the variants listed, the MTDPS (Materialistic, Tactical, Dynamic, Positional, Strategic) classification was developed.
Let's start off from what is the emphasis being put on for the different game modes:
1. Two-Player games are being classified by their middlegames and endgames, all the main motifs present in these two stages of the game and how they are inter-related.
2. Three-Player FFA games are being classified by their three-player middlegames only.
3. Teams variants are being classified based on all the games stages, due to the fact that move order, the 4P exclusive feature, changes quite a good lot of things: some are classified on the middlegames/openings, a few exceptions are classified by endgames as it really depends on the variant most of time.
4. FFA variants are being classified primarily on the three-player stage and how does it inter-relate with two-player stage and with the four-player stage.
So, let's get over to what each of the MTDPS does constitute in practice. The first and the main way of defining what does the game represent is the optimal, dominating strategy types in case of two-player and teams, and what is the optimal way to manipulate the other players and their board analysis for FFA games. By definition, games are high-level with players making a minimal amount of blunders or mistakes.
1. Materialistic games are based on maximizing the static advantages, the ones that cannot be taken away and the ones that will likely lead to a win given correct conversion. The players seek to prevent the other players from seizing their own static advantages. Lenghty, direct attacks do not take place commonly and mostly the game outcome is not being based on the direct threats, attacks, or non-permanent piece placement advantages, but development and piece placement still play a major role.
2. Tactical games are based on finding the balance between launching attacking lines against the other players and defending/preventing the other players' attacks. You could think of the tactical games as a race in some way: players try to be the first one to obtain a permanent advantage. The players need to take the tactical move sequences of the other players into account as the main evaluation factor, superseeding even the static advantages.
3. Dynamic games are based on gaining a spatial advantage and piece placement that allows for attacking the other players but not vice versa. This also includes preventing the other players from developing, claiming space or just building an optimal setup. Dynamic games are ultimately attacking games, but to a much lesser degree than tactical games, as dynamic games focus on piece development as the main evaluation factor but not the sequences themselves.
4. Positional games are based on trying to prevent optimal piece outposts via structuring pieces in a way that does not hinder the opponent's development yet does impede the opponent attacking and winning ideas, forcing long-term positional disadvantages that allow to develop but not to utilize your development. Should your opponent try to seize an advantage in such a lost position, they shall not be able to convert it as simplistic development would lead the opponent taking a greater advantage: you can compare this to how top-level chess players and engines play the timeless game.
5. Strategic games are based on predicting an opponent's plans and seeking ways to undermine their plan ideas before they even commence it in a meta-prophylactic manner, with the idea being to limit all the players from creating either positional or dynamic threats before launching an attack, as a direct tactical attack would be most of the time losing. The plan of the opponent does even yet exist, but the player already should consider the possible plans and try to make them implausible.
Usually, MTDPS is not only based on the above, but rather two more gameplay ideas from the classification, but to a weaker extent:
1. Materialistic incorporates elements from Strategic and Dynamic.
2. Tactical incorporates elements from Materialistic and Dynamic.
3. Dynamic incorporates elements from Tactical and Positional.
4. Positional incorporates elements from Dynamic and Tactical.
5. Strategic incorporates elements from Positional and Dynamic.
I hope this is enough descriptive, but if this is not, let me provide a few great examples of the each game type:
Some variants differ drastically in gameplay than the others, and as such they require a subset of different, sometimes even contradistinct skills. Let's take a simple example: The Four Horsemen requires calculation skills and skills of predicting the opponent's tactical series, while Sergeants Laboratory on the other hand commonly incorporates elements akin to the standard two-player chess ones, such as bad pieces, space cramps and long-term positional advantages. As a scheme for categorizing the variants listed, the MTDPS (Materialistic, Tactical, Dynamic, Positional, Strategic) classification was developed.
Let's start off from what is the emphasis being put on for the different game modes:
1. Two-Player games are being classified by their middlegames and endgames, all the main motifs present in these two stages of the game and how they are inter-related.
2. Three-Player FFA games are being classified by their three-player middlegames only.
3. Teams variants are being classified based on all the games stages, due to the fact that move order, the 4P exclusive feature, changes quite a good lot of things: some are classified on the middlegames/openings, a few exceptions are classified by endgames as it really depends on the variant most of time.
4. FFA variants are being classified primarily on the three-player stage and how does it inter-relate with two-player stage and with the four-player stage.
So, let's get over to what each of the MTDPS does constitute in practice. The first and the main way of defining what does the game represent is the optimal, dominating strategy types in case of two-player and teams, and what is the optimal way to manipulate the other players and their board analysis for FFA games. By definition, games are high-level with players making a minimal amount of blunders or mistakes.
1. Materialistic games are based on maximizing the static advantages, the ones that cannot be taken away and the ones that will likely lead to a win given correct conversion. The players seek to prevent the other players from seizing their own static advantages. Lenghty, direct attacks do not take place commonly and mostly the game outcome is not being based on the direct threats, attacks, or non-permanent piece placement advantages, but development and piece placement still play a major role.
2. Tactical games are based on finding the balance between launching attacking lines against the other players and defending/preventing the other players' attacks. You could think of the tactical games as a race in some way: players try to be the first one to obtain a permanent advantage. The players need to take the tactical move sequences of the other players into account as the main evaluation factor, superseeding even the static advantages.
3. Dynamic games are based on gaining a spatial advantage and piece placement that allows for attacking the other players but not vice versa. This also includes preventing the other players from developing, claiming space or just building an optimal setup. Dynamic games are ultimately attacking games, but to a much lesser degree than tactical games, as dynamic games focus on piece development as the main evaluation factor but not the sequences themselves.
4. Positional games are based on trying to prevent optimal piece outposts via structuring pieces in a way that does not hinder the opponent's development yet does impede the opponent attacking and winning ideas, forcing long-term positional disadvantages that allow to develop but not to utilize your development. Should your opponent try to seize an advantage in such a lost position, they shall not be able to convert it as simplistic development would lead the opponent taking a greater advantage: you can compare this to how top-level chess players and engines play the timeless game.
5. Strategic games are based on predicting an opponent's plans and seeking ways to undermine their plan ideas before they even commence it in a meta-prophylactic manner, with the idea being to limit all the players from creating either positional or dynamic threats before launching an attack, as a direct tactical attack would be most of the time losing. The plan of the opponent does even yet exist, but the player already should consider the possible plans and try to make them implausible.
Usually, MTDPS is not only based on the above, but rather two more gameplay ideas from the classification, but to a weaker extent:
1. Materialistic incorporates elements from Strategic and Dynamic.
2. Tactical incorporates elements from Materialistic and Dynamic.
3. Dynamic incorporates elements from Tactical and Positional.
4. Positional incorporates elements from Dynamic and Tactical.
5. Strategic incorporates elements from Positional and Dynamic.
I hope this is enough descriptive, but if this is not, let me provide a few great examples of the each game type:
Materialistic: Labyrinth 82 (FFA) / Euler's Game (Teams) / Sergeant's Checkers (2P)
Tactical: The Four Horsemen (FFA) / Salvation Bastions (Teams) / Villagers Chess (2P)
Dynamic: Unique (FFA) / Inferno (Teams) / Behind the Mirror (2P)
Positional: Surprise Attack (FFA) / Underground War (Teams) / Torpedo (2P)
Strategic: Unison (FFA) / Storming the Castle (Teams) / Horde (2P)