No, I don't believe that's the correct interpretation of the game. The rules are pretty clear about all forms of signaling being forbidden, not just verbal. The only communication the rules allow is saying "stop", after which all players place their hands on the table and remove them at the same time to resume the game.
Now, you might say that without non-verbal queues there is even less of a game here than this article describes. And you'd be right. There is literally nothing to "The Mind" except every player (explicitly or implicitly) counting time at the same speed and synchronizing up either after a card play or a "stop".
It's not a game designed purely for expert bluffers. Everyone I've played The Mind with has their own tells and quirks - even when they know the rules forbid it - they'll cringe at their hand, tentatively hold a card forward, or lower it to the table. It's just fun to pick up on these and have a laugh about them.
I'm sure there are people that will rules-lawyer the fun out of it, but with the right crowd this is one of the games I've been pulling out most frequently recently, and haven't heard a bad thing.
In addition to that there's a spoiler section printed upside down for people to read after they've played the game, to explain how anyone could possibly succeed at the task with no communication. And that section is not about reading non-verbal queues. It's about the players perception of time getting synchronized.
It's great that you're having fun playing a game with the components of The Mind. But the game both you and the original article are describing is pretty much diametrically opposed to the game that the designer intended it to be and described in the rules.
That rule doesn’t forbid your natural actions and reactions.
So I'm certainly not going to tell people that they should play by the rules as written. There's no game there. But perhaps this explains why the author of the original game perceived it as being polarizing. (But the problem is that the moment you transform this to a game about communicating over a limited channel, or to a game about reading tells, there are better options around.)
But the way you’ve just explained it is ambiguous.
Do the rules prohibit intentional information sharing or just information sharing?
If the former, then (unintentional) information sharing is allowed and if the latter, then the game should be played using computer terminals to prevent physical and verbal tells.
Maybe you're just being silly, and if so I apologize for playing this straight, but how are you composing intentionally and unintentionally? If someone has the intention to (somehow) unintentionally share information, I don't see how that differs from intentionally sharing information.
The English rules are here: http://middys.nsv.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/TheMind_GB.p...
There is no ambiguity. Don't share information. Worse, your line of thinking is not in the spirit of the game, ambiguous or not.
The spoiler section also says you're not supposed to just count upward in seconds, which is strange because that's clearly both allowed and optimal. Maybe they mean that that's not the most fun way to play. But why would I want to play a game where fun was inversely correlated with the probability of winning?
I wonder what the optimal strategy is for the version where you're really not allowed to communicate (i.e. if no one plays a card immediately then you've communicated and therefore lost). Presumably you have to calculate based on the number of players and cards remaining how likely it is that you have the lowest card. You could also skip the later rounds by immediately playing a high card, at the cost of one life. I bet with enough practice you could win some games.
EDIT: On second thoughts, you're still communicating when you either play a card or not. So maybe that variant isn't so fun. It basically becomes everyone playing their lowest card as quickly as possible, and hoping that the lowest one lands first.
It’s primarily a game about timing but it’s not the only element.
Getting good at this game simply means getting good at one of the allowed forms of signalling.
There's also a number of fun papers out there about Hanabi:
Hanabi is NP-Complete, Even for Cheaters Who
Look at Their Cards
Playing Hanabi Near-Optimally: http://www.mi.parisdescartes.fr/~bouzy/publications/bouzy-ha... (Though maybe skip this one if you intend to play the game for fun with friends)
(Sorry, mobile cuts off the second half of the URL)
Do you mean "the action of making criticisms after the event" as in Wiktionary, "to be the head of your click" as in Urban Dictionary or something else?
Just no. The very point of cooperative games is learning to work together as a team. If you can't do that, then you lost the game. Ruining the rules so the game can't be lost is counterproductive.
edit: fixed name and added link
Let’s say we’re in the second round and all the players have 2 cards. If you have a 1 obviously you’re playing it immediately. Of course everyone knows that so if you have a 5 for example, you’ll wait to see if someone plays something immediately. You notice someone starting to play a card somewhat tentatively. But if they had a card lower than five they’d be more confident about it so you rush to get your card down first, and you’re right, the tentative player had an 11. And on the game goes.
All of which is to say that there is a lot of information in the game beyond the passage of time and it’s about developing a theory of mind of all the people you’re playing with— how would they play if they had a card lower than yours?
Like playing with my wife, I’ve noticed she waits longer per number as the gap gets larger — so she might wait 5 seconds for a 10 gap and then 30 seconds for a gap of 20 cards. So I’ve had to adjust my timing to match. And of course she adjusts to adapt to my adjustment to her. Eventually you get into some kind of agreed upon internal clock without ever actually talking about it and you can drop 20 cards in order without so much as sighing.
I and everyone we showed this game to had a lot of fun playing this game and not by counting seconds. It‘s a nice, quick game to start out with …
If things are less serious and also more squishy when it comes to the rules (despite the very absolute “no communication” rule I do think that some talking in The Mind doesn’t immediately destroy the experience and if you find a happy medium and approach with the group you are playing with it can even enhance the experience) then I would generalize that it’s in general easier for wins to be hollow, because there is more room to “cheat” in ways that ruin the experience.
It’s given as a guideline (in the optional to read spoilery upside down box on the rules that explains that it’s a game all about timing), not an actual rule, but that still completely contradicts your statement that “that's how you are supposed to beat it”.
Cracked me up. I said no and started walking in small circles. Then when he’d finally gotten tired and started coming out, I knew the maps well enough that I was always as far away from him as possible. Said the point is not to lose, right? Then he quit.
Quote from the rules: “It should be emphasised at this point that this is not a question of counting off the seconds. There is no counting. Of course, time passes by “in the head” of each player, but this is normally quicker than one second per number and it changes depending on what level is being played. The secret of the game is developing that collective feeling for “now is the moment”.”
I would also try to stick to my logic and tempo and just let the other players pick up on the logic used.
Could be fun.
I would hope/expect each other player reaches the same conclusion: sleepsort is the most obvious plan, and 1 second is the most likely interval.
This is surprisingly fun, at least with a large group. Of course it is easy to game (just count sequentially), but if people are playing for fun, it's really interesting.
That way, the one with the lowest card reaches the stack first.
I think the game is fun, but for only a few rounds. A game needs to have competition between players imho.
It's based on the word association experiments by Carl Jung, who later published his findings as The Association Method.