1. Background—Field of the Invention
This invention relates to amusement devices, more specifically card or tile games in which contest elements are intended to interact with each other in a competitive and amusing contest of skill and/or chance, according to definite rules.
2. Background—Prior Art
Competitive play is one of mankind's favorite endeavors. A deck of playing-cards is almost certainly the most popular gaming tool of all time.
Playing-cards are unique in the subclass of card or game tiles. Unlike specific game pieces, the appeal of playing-cards is the wide variety of games that can be played simply by redefining the rules (playing a different game). A multi-dimensional system of relations between cards, and various subsets of cards, is essential to the versatility of a successful deck of playing-cards.
The success of a deck of playing-cards, as a gaming tool, is also due in no small way to its ergonomic physical attributes. Cards are portable and inexpensive. Opaque construction provides the security needed for competitive game play. The conventional rectangular shape facilitates shuffling the deck, a function that is essential in playing card games.
While many unique decks of playing-cards exist, the state of the art is overwhelmingly emblematic, employing symbolic marks on the card's playing face. The multiplicity of games that can be developed is based upon, and limited by, the relations of the various symbols.
The most popular deck of playing-cards is related as a simple matrix consisting of a hierarchical sequence with the addition of suit modifiers. The readily apparent relations promote game development. Indeed the vast majority of games are based upon collecting card subsets of similar rank, or similar suit, or in a hierarchical sequence. In Poker games, these subsets would be called: multiples of a kind, flushes and straights.
There are of course limits to the symbolic relations in this simple matrix. A deck of playing-cards having playing faces that are subdivided into geometric regions, or play-fields, would allow for geometric relations in a physical or non-symbolic manner. Thus, such a deck would provide the opportunity for new and unique games that are not possible with decks of emblematic playing-cards.
Cultural bias can be observed in many of the symbols employed in emblematic playing-cards. Corner indicia of the popular English playing-cards employ numeric symbols that are foreign to non-English speaking peoples. Symbols of the English Royalty and the superiority of King over Queen could be offensive to some and foreign to others. Similar cultural symbols can be observed in emblematic playing-cards around the world.
In today's highly communicative world, the cultural bias of conventional emblematic playing-cards limits the opportunity for cross-cultural play. By contrast, games that employ the more fundamental and universal concepts of geometric shapes and relations are trans-cultural and timeless. Geometric playing-cards provide the opportunity for truly global game play.
The vast majority of geometric game pieces have previously been developed for specific limited uses such as puzzles, path-forming games, edge matching games, or board games. However, examples of a well-developed system of non-emblematic geometric cards that are capable of functioning as a multi-dimensional playing card gaming tool are absent from the art.
Also absent from the art are cards that combine the basic physical attributes of conventional playing cards with a well-understood and versatile system of rectilinear geometric relations between the cards.
Geometric game pieces with indexing corner indicia (a miniature depiction which informs the user of all the card's relevant attributes) are absent from the prior art. Indexing indicia provide a method of viewing the properties of the cards while handheld in a compact, convenient, and secure manner necessary to facilitate popular types of handheld set collection games like Poker or Rummy. Previous geometric game pieces have not been designed to employ such conventional handheld methods of playing-card play, as evidenced by the lack of these indexing indicia. Further, examples of cards that employ rectilinear geometric relations and include suits and cross-suit relations that are used in many conventional set collection games, are also absent from the art.
While the physical characteristics of conventional playing-cards enable popular hand-held methods of game play, the well understood and versatile system of relations between the cards is the factor which actually allows an extremely varied array of games to be played. Some such potential might impliedly exist within the previously known geometric playing cards, but this potential is unrealized as the prior disclosures for such geometric cards do not adequately describe the use of geometric relations.
The present invention comprises a deck of playing cards (or comparable game pieces, whether in physical or electronic form) of conventional construction, but having playing faces subdivided into rectilinear geometric regions, or play-fields. The rectilinear geometric regions are positioned so that a plurality of cards can be collected or arranged to synthesize larger and more complex geometric sets, sequences, shapes, or patterns.
The deck is designed to facilitate conventional methods of playing-card play, which have previously only been used for emblematic cards. Each card preferably includes a small indexing indicia, which comprises a miniature depiction of the rectilinear geometric regions on the entire playing face. These indexing indicia allow a user to hold a “hand” of such cards in a fanned fashion, while still being able to visualize the appearance of each card.
Several embodiments are disclosed, focusing on different types of rectilinear geometry. Some embodiments feature multiple suits defined by differing colors of the rectilinear geometric regions. Cross-suit play is made possible by the arrangement of the geometry. A plethora of games can be defined using the card deck. Examples of some of these games are provided.
The concept of playing cards having a display surface divided into rectilinear geometric regions can be realized in many different embodiments. Several—though by no means all—of these embodiments are disclosed in the following. For purposes of organizational clarity, each embodiment discussed is given a name. The first embodiment is a set of playing cards known as a “Z-deck.”
A thin playing card is the preferred embodiment for the game piece. However, the reader should bear in mind that rigid tiles, electronic media, or other embodiments can be substituted for a conventional playing card throughout this disclosure.
For the “Z-deck,” the rectilinear geometric regions are created in the following fashion: The display surface is divided into first quadrangle (50) and second quadrangle (52) by bisector (48). First quadrangle (50) is divided into first triangle (58) and second triangle (60) by first diagonal (54). Second quadrangle (52) is divided into third triangle (62) and fourth triangle (64) by second diagonal (56). First triangle (58) is given a color. Second triangle (60) must be given a color which is different from the color within first triangle (58). Third triangle (62) is given a color. Fourth triangle (64) is then given a color which is different from the color within third triangle (62).
For the specific version shown, the two quadrangles are squares. This need not be the case, however. If the card's dimensions are varied appropriately, the two quadrangles can be rectangles.
Three or more colors can be used. However, for a simplified example using only two colors, it is helpful to refer to the background color of the game piece as the “base color.” A contrasting color can then be employed to create the geometric patterns. This contrasting color is referred to as a “suit color.” In the view shown in
The reader should note that the two diagonals can slope upward rather than downward. In
The reader should also note that the diagonals need not be parallel (see the cards shown in
Of course, more permutations are possible under this definition.
This fundamental set of sixteen unique “Z-deck” cards is referred to as the “Mosaic set.” For many games, it is desirable to employ more than sixteen cards. The Mosaic set can therefore be used to create larger sets. The following is an example: A Mosaic suit of thirty-two cards consists of a pair of Mosaic sets. A Mosaic deck of sixty-four cards consists of two Mosaic suits. Since suit differentiation is often desirable for enriched game play, the two Mosaic suits are preferably differentiated by color. Thus, the first Mosaic suit could consist of thirty-two cards (two identical sixteen card Mosaic sets) having a white base color and a black suit color. The second Mosaic suit could then consist of thirty-two cards (two identical sixteen card Mosaic sets) having a white base color and a red suit color.
A system of detailed nomenclature is helpful to the thorough understanding of the “Z-deck” cards and how they can interrelate according to various game rules. The reader will recall that the display surface of each “Z-deck” card is divided by bisector (48) into two quadrangles.
(10TR)—Orientation ‘TR’ has the suit field of the quadrangle at the top-right.
(10BR)—Orientation ‘BR’ has the suit field of the quadrangle at the bottom-right.
(10BL)—Orientation ‘BL’ has the suit field of the quadrangle at the bottom-left.
(10TL)—Orientation ‘TL’ has the suit field of the quadrangle at the top-left.
The individual cards of the Mosaic set can most precisely be described by the unique orientation of the suit field within each of the two adjoining quadrangles comprising each card. Referring to
As a matter of interest, the cards of the “Z-deck” Mosaic set can be described as the set of permutations of all possible orientations of two adjoining quadrangles that are subdivided into four triangles by the two diagonals. The permutations can be seen in the chart above, as well as by inspection of
Observing the four cards in each of the columns of
While the Mosaic deck can be played without naming the cards, a well-developed nomenclature is essential to academic study and continued development of this gaming system. Inspection of
Row 1 of
Row 2 of
Row 3 of
Row 4 of
The cards in each row have important relations that will become more evident in subsequent sections. Individual card names will be presented in another section wherein these individual card properties are explored.
The physical operation of the “Z-deck” playing-cards is similar to that of traditional playing-cards. Because the cards are preferably thin, opaque, and rectangular, they may be shuffled, dealt, and played like a traditional deck of playing-cards.
Mosaic playing-cards may be handheld like traditional playing-cards.
While the similarity in construction to traditional playing-cards is essential to conventional playing-card play, it is the relations between the cards and the unique properties of the cards that are fundamental to the Mosaic playing-card games. This new deck of playing-cards is rich with new and unique relations and properties not found in other playing-cards and upon which many new and unique games may be based.
The object of many playing-card games is based upon the various relations available between the cards in the deck. Mosaic playing-cards employ relations including complementarity, contrariety, reflection, and identity, in a unique system for game play.
The relations between cards in the “Z-deck” family groups are unique and important elements for play of Mosaic games. Each family group, or row of
The concept of reflection is well known. Referring to
Complementarity has its origin in the concepts of completion, fulfillment, and the perfect unity of parts. Referring to
Contrariety has its origin in the concepts of opposition and inconsistency. Referring to
The concept of identity is well known. Identical relations within the Mosaic card families are found between identical pairs from the two Mosaic sets that compose a Mosaic suit. The “Z-deck” playing-cards employ these relations of complementarity, contrariety, reflection, and identity, in a unique system for game play.
Providing names for each individual cards within the sixteen card Mosaic set is helpful to academic study and continued development of this gaming system. The names of the individual cards are derived from the various relations within the family group.
Each family group consists of four cards that are interrelated as reflections, complementaries, or contraries of one another. These relations are circular; meaning each card is compared to each other card in the group by one those relations. It is helpful to define one of the columns of
Column 2 includes the cards defined as the identity card for each family. The individual identity cards are named by adding the second name ‘Prime’ to the Mosaic family names. The name Prime is from the Latin prim for “first”.
Card 12 is named Serra Prime.
Card 22 is named Para Prime.
Card 32 is named Rota Prime.
Card 42 is named Tessa Prime.
Column 3 includes cards that are reflections of the family identity cards. The individual reflective cards are named by adding the second name ‘Nam’ to the Mosaic family names. The name Nam is from the Latin nam for “on the other hand”.
Card 13 is named Serra Nam.
Card 23 is named Para Nam.
Card 33 is named Rota Nam.
Card 43 is named Tessa Nam.
Column 1 includes cards that are complementaries of the family identity cards. The individual complementary cards are named by adding the second name ‘Totus’ to the Mosaic family names. The name Totus is from the Latin totus for “complete and whole”.
Card 11 is named Serra Totus.
Card 21 is named Para Totus.
Card 31 is named Rota Totus.
Card 41 is named Tessa Totus.
Column 4 includes cards that are contraries of the family identity cards. The individual contrary cards are named by adding the second name ‘Contra’ to the Mosaic family names. The name Contra is from the Latin contra for “against”.
Card 14 is named Serra Contra.
Card 24 is named Para Contra.
Card 34 is named Rota Contra.
Card 44 is named Tessa Contra.
Facilitating a short hand for academic purposes, note that unique initials can identify each card. For example, card 12 Serra Prime can be referred to as SP without confusion with any other card.
Mosaic cards are rich with unique properties not found in other decks of playing-cards. These properties include figure-ground reversibility, handedness, rotational transformation, and perpendicular association.
A useful and unique property of Mosaic playing-cards is that each card face has a reversible base color/suit color. Viewed on a neutral backdrop, the relation of the suit fields composing each card is ambiguous. Either the suit color field or the common base field can be considered as the figure, while the other is considered as the background.
The base color/suit color property provides useful flexibility in game play by allowing the association of the suit color field, the base color field, or both. Referring to the three cards shown in
The base color field of the Mosaic suits facilitates the interplay between suits. Referring to
The playing cards of many decks exhibit uniform rotational symmetry; that is, all cards are unchanged by rotating the card 180 degrees. Mosaic playing-cards demonstrate various transformations of character upon rotation.
Some Mosaic playing-cards demonstrate handedness or persistent directionality. Other cards reverse direction upon rotation. Referring to
Another useful and unique property of Mosaic playing-cards is rotational transformation. Rotating Mosaic cards 180 degrees transforms each card to one of its four relative forms; its reflection, complement, contrary, or identity, according to the properties of each family of related cards. Referring to the rotated pairs shown in
Rotating cards of row 4 (the Tessa family) results in the reflection of the original card. Rotating cards of row 1 (the Serra family) results in the complement of original card. Rotating cards of row 3 (the Rota family) results in the contrary of the original card. Rotating cards of row 2 (the Para family) results in no change from the original or identity card. These rotational variances add depth and richness to Mosaic game play.
Perpendicular association is another useful property of Mosaic cards. Mosaic cards may be oriented vertically, horizontally, or in combinations of orientations. Rotating any pair of related cards ¼ turn results in a shape similar to that created by related pairs of another family. Perpendicular association is an important bridge between the Mosaic families.
Row 1 of
Row 2 of
Row 3 of
Row 4 of
Each family of cards is said to be the patron of one of these basic relations. The Tessa family is the patron of reflective pairs. The Para family is the patron of complementary pairs. The Rota family is the patron of contrary pairs. The Serra family is the patron of identical pairs.
While many card games can be developed based upon the individual relations and properties of various cards, many other games can be developed based upon combining subsets of related cards. In a traditional deck of cards such subsets would include cards of similar rank, or similar suit, or in a hierarchical sequence.
Mosaic playing-cards are rich with subsets of cards that can be combined to synthesize logical, symmetrical, and attractive complex geometric shapes and patterns. A plurality of games may be developed based upon collecting and arranging these card subsets.
A complete analysis of possible card combinations is beyond the scope of this disclosure. As a starting point for game development and academic analysis, however, several of the more logical and obvious card combinations are presented. The specific goals, and the value of various combinations, are left to the various rules of the individual games.
All the combinations of Mosaic playing-cards are referred to as “mosaics.” The simplest logical mosaics are developed based upon family pairs within the 32-card Mosaic suit. These family pairs are referred to as “mosaic couples.”
Larger and more complex mosaics can be formed by combining mosaic couples.
The reader will appreciate that a naming convention is useful in discussing the ways the playing card can interact. Examples of rotational transformation, perpendicular association, geometric pattern formation, geometric sequence formation, handedness and others have been given. All these concepts will be referred to generally as “geometric interactions.” The term “geometric relation” will be understood to more specifically refer to the relation of one card to another. Thus, the term “geometric relations” includes reflection complementarity, contrariety, and identity.
The geometric interactions inherent in the Mosaic deck allow for design of new competitive and amusing games of skill or chance. They are universally understood, thus creating a gaming environment that is trans-cultural. They are inherently simple, allowing for games that can be play be persons of varied intellect, skill, age and experience. The games may be simple or complex depending upon the rules of the games.
Games may be based upon card relations, card properties, collection of sets, shape building, path-forming, pattern development and other interactions. Many additional subtleties, complexities, and variations remain to be explored and exploited as Mosaic gaming develops.
Games types can include, memory games, trick-taking games, outplay games, Poker type wagering games, solitaires, competitive patience games and others. The number of additional games which can be developed is limited only by one's imagination.
Stud Poker is a simple example of a set collection type game. Many of the Mosaic deck's important attributes become evident in the following description of a hypothetical hand of stud Poker:
Mosaic Poker hands are ranked based upon the quantity and quality of cards collected in sets that are geometrically related-as: reflections, complements, contraries, or identities. A ranking values most cards in a series of uniform relations (one card to another).
The second consideration of rank is the suit quality of the series (as in the suit color being red, black, etc.). A flush is best, followed by a combination of suits bridged by the base color field. The least desirable quality is a mixed combination of suits wherein differing suit fields are adjacent in the completed series. Thus, the complete ranking from best to worst can be outlined as follows:
Chain (5 cards)—Flush/Common/Mixed
Run (4 cards)—Flush/Common/Mixed
Full House (Triad+Couplet)
Triad (3 cards)—Flush/Common/Mixed
Couple (2 cards)—Flush/Common/Mixed
Mosaic stud Poker is played with dealing and betting like any stud Poker game that results in 5-card hands being ranked.
In
In
Player 2 couples the 1st and 2nd cards together (see the middle row). Rotating this couple 90 degrees in the counterclockwise direction (see the bottom row) allows the addition of the 3rd card (Note that the 3rd card is associated via the base color field. The 3 card relation thereby formed includes two suit colors). This triad represents the best hand which Player 2 can form. As it includes two suits, Player 2's triad is a “common” triad. Player 1's triad is all of the same suit (a “flush” triad). According to the ranking scheme in this example (and consistent with Poker tradition), Player 1's hand wins.
From this example the reader will perceive how the Mosaic deck can be used to play Poker. The reader will also perceive, however, that the relations possible within the Mosaic deck add a completely new and enriching aspect to the game.
Other traditional Poker games with different rules for dealing and betting can similarly be played in this new geometric game environment. Examples of such games include 7-Card Stud, 5-Card Draw, and Guts, to name a few. It should also be apparent that other set collection games—such as Rummy—can also be played. While the basic structure of these games is unchanged, the geometric relations within the Mosaic deck provide for card properties, probabilities, and strategies that are unique.
The Poker example demonstrates the operation of this method of playing-card play based upon geometric relations including identity, complementarity, contrariety, and reflection. The game operation also includes: rotational transformation, perpendicular association, base color/suit color cross-suit relations, and handedness. As the analysis of the hands in
The reader should note that sorting and set collection card games are typically played with cards handheld and fanned such that an indexing indicia (recall
The Mosaic deck can be used to play games in which the object is pattern development. The following example is a geometric pattern game named “Array:”
Array is a competitive game between two players. The object of array is to be the first player to arrange 16 randomly dealt cards into a pattern having both horizontal and vertical axes of symmetry.
The 64 card Mosaic deck is further divided into two equivalent 16 card sets. Further, only two of the four card families are used (in order to simplify the game). For the example shown in
“Array” can also obviously be played as a “solitaire” type game with the score being determined by the number of moves required to complete the array, or a “win or lose” scenario in which only a fixed number of moves are available.
The “Array” game is a good example of how the Mosaic cards can be used to play geometric pattern games which are not possible with emblematic cards.
The object of Mosaic games can include the development of geometric sequences (as opposed to geometric patterns). A geometric sequence is formed by laying out the cards in a series of repeating relations of three or more cards. The following game—referred to as “Sequences”—demonstrates this operational characteristic:
“Sequences” is a competitive game between two or more players. The object is to meld cards to the table in related sequences. The player to meld all his or her cards first is the winner (All players start with the same number of cards). Scoring could include a one-point penalty per card remaining in the losers' hands. To wager, the players might bet an amount to be paid the winner per card remaining in the losers' hands.
Each player is dealt seven cards. A “start card” is then dealt from the deck onto the table.
The third view from the top shows the next player having played two cards to create a geometric sequence extending from top to bottom. The reader should note that this player has altered the suit. In this embodiment, geometric sequences are allowed to extend across suit.
The bottom view shows that the next player has played two cards to create another sequence extending from left to right. Once again, the suit has been changed.
If a player cannot meld to form a sequence, he or she must forfeit a turn and draw three more cards from the deck. The game continues from player to player until one player has laid down all his or her cards.
An object of Mosaic games can include the development of regular geometric shapes, such as squares, triangles, quadrilaterals and the like. The following game—referred to as “Squares”—demonstrates this operational characteristic.
Squares is a competitive game played between two or more players. The object is to lay cards on the table to build square shapes. Scoring is based upon the size and quality of squares developed by each player.
Each player is dealt seven cards. A start card is then dealt from the deck onto the table. In each turn, a player must draw one card from the deck and lay one card down on the table adjacent to one of the previously played cards. Players receive one point for each card they place into each square formed.
The two bottom right pairs shown in
Points are doubled for squares that are flush, as well as squares that are symmetrical. The first player to score 32 points wins the game.
These four examples presented (Stud Poker, Array, Sequences, and Squares) serve to illustrate how the Mosaic deck can be used to play a wide variety of games. All these examples employ the “Z-deck” cards described initially in
The upper quadrangle has first diagonal (79) extending from first corner (66) to third corner (70), and second diagonal (80) extending from first corner (66) to third corner (70). The lower quadrangle has third diagonal (81) extending from fourth corner (72) to fifth corner (74), and fourth diagonal (82) extending from sixth corner (76) to third corner (70).
The reader will thereby perceive that the display surface of an “X-deck” card is divided into eight triangles, denoted as first triangle (83), second triangle (84), third triangle (85), fourth triangle (86), fifth triangle (87), sixth triangle (88), seventh triangle (89), and eighth triangle (90).
The lines separating the display surface into the rectilinear geometric regions (the bisector and the four diagonals) do not generally appear on the display surface. The user will only perceive them if the colors of the triangles on opposite sides of a particular line contrast. Thus, the lines themselves are merely “theoretical.” In the example shown in
The reader will thereby appreciate that numerous embodiments featuring display surfaces divided into rectilinear geometric regions are possible. These three embodiments described in detail (“Z-deck,” “X-deck,” and “T-deck”) should therefore not be viewed as limiting the invention's scopes.
Likewise, although most examples have discussed the game pieces as “playing cards,” other embodiments are possible. Rigid tiles or domino-like playing pieces can be used for all the games where the pieces must be laid down on a table to form a pattern. Electronic media—such as computer software—can also be substituted for the physical playing pieces.
Although the preceding descriptions have presented substantial detail, they should properly be viewed as providing examples of the present invention rather than any limitation of scope. Accordingly, the scope of the invention should be fixed by the following claims rather than any example given.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
191167 | Mueller | May 1877 | A |
869302 | Healy | Oct 1907 | A |
1973564 | Graham | Sep 1934 | A |
2571195 | Buck | Oct 1951 | A |
RE25031 | Hoolim | Aug 1961 | E |
3643956 | Bovasso | Feb 1972 | A |
3755923 | Krahn | Sep 1973 | A |
4673185 | Morley, Jr. | Jun 1987 | A |
5037110 | Haskel | Aug 1991 | A |
5524898 | Pavlovic | Jun 1996 | A |
5887873 | Freeman | Mar 1999 | A |
6305688 | Waroway | Oct 2001 | B1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20060022408 A1 | Feb 2006 | US |