Chess as a Conversation: Artefact-Based Communication in Online Competitive Board Games

Online board-game sites are popular settings for group activity. However, unlike many kinds of group interaction, previous research has found that there is often little verbal conversation during games, which seems strange in a social situation. One reason that has been suggested for the lack of talk is that actions in the game are themselves communicative acts that can replace verbal utterances. There is little known, however, about how games can substitute for verbal conversation. In this paper we carry out a study exploring meaning and shared understanding through the moves of a board game. Participants played a board game and then retrospectively analysed the communicative meaning of each move; we analysed their responses as indicative of "joint actions" in four layers of interaction. Our study shows that game moves can provide a great deal of communication, and that there are both similarities and differences to verbal conversations at each level. The physical layer, containing the board, is a foundation similar to that of people speaking the same language. The syntactic layer, consisting of the game rules, allows demonstration of expertise but is not noticed by players except in unusual circumstances. The strategic layer, consisting of competitive use of the syntactic rules, diverges considerably from a verbal conversation in terms of shared understanding, because players are actively attempting to avoid revealing their meaning. The personality layer allows players to make inferences about the other player as a person, just as in verbal communication. Our analysis provides new evidence that even simple turn-based games contain a great deal of interaction richness and subtlety, and that the different levels of communication should be considered by designers as a real and legitimate vehicle for social interaction.

[1]  付伶俐 打磨Using Language,倡导新理念 , 2014 .

[2]  Christian Heath,et al.  Collaborative Activity and Technological Design: Task Coordination in London Underground Control Rooms , 1991, ECSCW.

[3]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Things That Make Us Smart: Defending Human Attributes In The Age Of The Machine , 1993 .

[4]  Robert J. Moore,et al.  "Alone together?": exploring the social dynamics of massively multiplayer online games , 2006, CHI.

[5]  S. Jackson,et al.  Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme , 1980 .

[6]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  "I'm just here to play games": social dynamics and sociality in an online game site , 2012, CSCW.

[7]  G. Simmel The Sociology of Sociability , 1949, American Journal of Sociology.

[8]  Carla Simone,et al.  Coordination mechanisms: Towards a conceptual foundation of CSCW systems design , 1996, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[9]  Siobhan Chapman Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[10]  Kjeld Schmidt,et al.  Ordering Systems: Coordinative Practices and Artifacts in Architectural Design and Planning , 2004, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[11]  Marek Bell,et al.  Play and Sociability in There: Some Lessons from Online Games for Collaborative Virtual Environments , 2006 .

[12]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Grounding in communication , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[13]  Mike Robinson,et al.  Double-level languages and co-operative working , 2005, AI & SOCIETY.

[14]  Alan J. Dix,et al.  Challenges for Cooperative Work on the Web: An Analytical Approach , 1997, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[15]  Bonnie A. Nardi,et al.  Strangers and friends: collaborative play in world of warcraft , 2006, CSCW '06.