To change the subject; My response to the IVxVI puzzle/Game Theory

["Electronicwaffle" <electronicwaffle@...>]

The post and threads to the "4 by 6" puzzle gives me some ideas to 
how other members think. I read and saw higher math principles at 
work,(or at least mentioned)... game theory as it where. I think all 
of this has its place, but should not be used exclusively. It seems 
to me that trial and error would have worked faster or at least is 
the other side of game design to theory. I think the mental notes 
made in this process equate to postulates formed in game theory. 
More focused ideas are advanced sooner in trial and error, and is a 
more confirming path to the solutions. 'workable' ideas from T&E 
should be recorded, perhaps not as extensively as theories, so their 
value is not lost. 

I know that many here do not like me. That aside, I want to propose 
a sincere question (not meant to offend, but to gain insight)

 In your game design, which comes first, the math or the fun? 

I take the latter. I beleive that First games should be fun, then 
inspirational (in a logic-math sense). I feel fun pulls players in, 
and in the long haul keeps many of the players around. True logic 
may bring more length to gameplay, but when untranslated, the "gray" 
during a players turn, seems to be more enjoyable over compulsory 
math that becomes little more than a computaion. (Gray of course 
being that which is not Black or White..."fuzzy logic")  When you 
milk and extract all of the wonderment out of a game in the name of 
math... the fun stops. Like the argument the 1983 movie "Wargames" 
forwards, a game is not fun once you know how to "beat" it. (Tic Tac 
Toe being the game referenced). The quote is "Shall we play a Game?" 
At the end of the day I think we should all play a game, not work 
the game.

In closing, I simply want to state that this is how I feel, and 
being as young as I am, I dont want to rule out the possibility that 
logic, may for me, one day come before fun. At present I see this 
possibility far far away. Perhaps this debate is even more circular 
than Chickens and Eggs -when terminology is standardized. (But lets 
please not start  that debate)