Here we wish to point out that any solved game, or better said ‘well understood’ game by our population, is effectively no longer a skilled game. It is important to point out that the nature of the game hasn’t necessarily changed but rather our relation to it, yet this is a significant observation to make. That is to say that any game that is not solved and/or not well understood by the players can become effectively a game of skill even if the true nature is a game of chance. Furthermore we can point out that a solved game does in fact reduce it self to the “chance” that it represents.
These are significant points since as society progresses and as we have evolved over the history of man we might see an evolution of games in relation to those that we solve or those that remain unsolved. There maybe a particular use for certain games that are effectively skill in our society, and so the evolution of games might be understood best in relation to the rendering of effectively skill games to their true nature of “chance’.
This might be best studied in relation to our understanding of game theory at the time of a certain “game evolution”, but other factors as well might be considered such as the economic or political (monarchical) conditions that prevailed at the time. The author suggest there is to be a definitive and obvious correlation, however, cautious attempts to relate these things since it might not be immediately intuitive or obvious how such connections might be “revealed”.
The best place to start would probably be Nick Szabo’s, Adam Smith, John Nash’s relation of currency to the economic conditions of their respective times.