Can we design a game that a computer cannot play well?

I read it somewhere, that there are many weakness of humans against computers.. and even of computers against humans.
I was unable to find or think of what weakness may computers have at present. Anyone here knows?

And then the main question is, "Can we design a game that a computer cannot play well?"

Look up a game called Arimaa. Supposedly, there's an ongoing challenge to program an engine that can beat the best human, but it hasn't been done yet. There's a monetary reward, so if you're a programmer, here's your chance to make some extra money.

Sounds interesting!
I'm still a student.
Thanks for your time :) 

Any other answers/ something to say about it????

I think Arimaa is relatively unknown - or at least I have not heard of it before - but contract/duplicate bridge is a huge game with a similar following to chess.  No computer can beat world class players.  The difference is that in chess all the pieces are in plain view allowing very detailed calculations to be made.  In bridge there are so many unknowns and the 'best' play may be to do a different thing in two identical situations to intentionally confuse your opponent.  It seems many accomplished chess players play bridge too. 

It has been done, and the engine is constantly beating humans now.
Here: https://games.slashdot.org/story/15/04/19/2332209/computer-beats-humans-at-arimaa

Games of incomplete information are very hard for computers. Bridge is good example, but it's hard to guess if programs can reach world class level. Keep in mind that computer bridge has not attracted an amount of interest anywhere near to that of computer chess.

Water polo?

- EJ

Arimaa gives (or gave, after seeing the link Megabyte posted) computers a hard time by creating massive move trees that it has to explore, playing off the weakness that makes Go more difficult for them than Chess. Arimaa seems to my intuition to rely much more heavily on that trick to frustrate computers than Go does, though. I don't know how deeply Arimaa has really been studied, but considering Go probably has hundreds of times as long of a history and over ten thousand times as many players, I'd say it's hard to tell conclusively.

The boardgame Diplomacy is one that computers so far play very poorly, and the requirement to model the psychology of human opponents seems to make it *very* difficult for them.  (It's a hard game for humans, too!)

Excellent game! Yeah computers couldnt do that, they would have to understand both human and computer psychology to play that. (If there were 3 humans and 2 computers playing for instance).

Computers are our tools, not enemies. Just because Stockfish can beat Carlssen doesn't mean he isn't a magnificent player that could go back in time and obliterate legendary players, leaving the world with their mouths open...

Why try to find a game that computers are bad at?

I agree that computers aren't our enemies, but I disagree that finding a game they're bad at is a bad thing. Isn't the best way to improve, whether we're talking about computers or human beings, to find weaknesses and address them?

You can pour water over a computer, this is their main weakness.

I cleaned my motherboard and graphics card with distilled water and a soft toothbrush. So no, not quite.

Maybe a game like Blokus or chopsticks(finger kind). Blokus has tons of different strategies, that a computer would have to take a long time to learn and master. The computer would lose for a long time, until it is finally done with it's full programming and they've worked the problems out! Interesting post btw.

Years ago, I've seen, on a few occasions, a computer competing in a tournament with players, and if you could block the position up with pawns facing each other on most of the files, it had no idea what to do, and was sometimes beaten easily. It probably wouldn't happen with top computers nowadays, but with some of the lesser ones it might.

fascinating topic!  summarizing the thread to date, humans [arguably] have an advantage in games with "incomplete" information, and/or in games in which "human nature" has a major role (e.g., negotiating skills, or perhaps emotions), and/or physical games in harsh environments (like a pool). I think though, that it is not hard to imagine computers (or software) being developed to overcome virtually any of these "obstacles", with (for example) fuzzy logic, learning algorithms, robotics, and ruggedization.  But to be fair, if we allow that computers can be improved, one can argue that people can also be "improved", e.g., via genetic enhancement, or mechanized prosthetics.