Single Comment

I honestly think all this "human vs computer" thing is nonsense as it's comparing totally different things.

In one side you have a group of computer scientists and mathematicians that model the game in a way it can be understood and played by a machine, it is all about making a mathematical model and reducing the solution space to the most powerful moves; in the other side you have a person that learnt playing normally doing games and studying. A Chess player can study how Deep Blue was implemented, but this won't make him playing much better. At the end of the day it's comparing apple and orange.

Anyway. What makes a game hard for computers? Usually it is:

• Search space (how many meaningful moves you can do?)
• Long term effect (the move I do now for all long it affects the game?)
• Hidden information and it's counterpart: what information I can get deduce from the game state?
• Number of rules (exceptions and special case makes computer programming much more difficult)

For example Go was unbeaten by computer for so long for the first two reasons, Magic The Gathering (a subset of it actually) is still unbeaten for the last two.

So I guess if you really want to develop a game just to make life to computer scientists and mathematicians difficult you have to point to increase all the point points as much as possible. However, it's very difficult to obtain a game that is FUN. Because if you overdo to most humans the game will appear random.

Personally I would point to a mix between Gess (but with a larger board) and Netrunner card game...