@keithburgun As I said on twitter I love this article and the framework it implies. I think it should continue to be worked on and made more rigorous. A lot of this model depends on end conditions. This is a really key sentence in your article: "The basic idea is that winning the match happens when you spend a significant enough amount of time with your power above that of the opposition. " You obviously knew this was a critical part of your argument or you wouldn't have bolded it. One problem I see in the article right now, is that if we take this seriously as the literal end condition in a toy game example, then your defense graph doesn't make sense. The defense graph shows the pink player with higher power for an extremely long time -- implying that the pink player, not the green player, should win. So either the precise end conditions needs to be fleshed out more, or the defense graph is backwards. You could define the end condition more carefully, perhaps as not just being about being above your opponent for a period of time, but about being significantly above your opponent in *degree* as well. (EDIT: You could borrow from calculus and say that you win by building up a significantly large area between the two curves.) Alternately you could flip the pink & green lines in the defense graph, which would imply that a defense play is actually about being barely *ahead* of your opponent. Which make some sense in many battle-themed games, where investing in defense means you get an incremental advantage in the attrition process. Or you could adopt some combination of the above two fixes. But basically, I'd like to see a more fleshed out & air tight toy game example that illustrates how this triangle can work.