text:
Is it possible to design a two player game of skill with absolutely no luck?
I really do mean absolutely no luck. This would disqualify even games like Chess as White has an inherent advantage, winning between 52 and 56 percent of all games. A good test for a game with absolutely no luck is:

If player 1 plays again as player 2 and vice-versa, both playing to the best of their abilities, then the second match would be played out exactly the same as the first match.

Is it even possible to design such a game? If so then what would the rules of such a game entail? If not then why?

If we're going to expand the definition of luck to include first-player advantage, such a game would have to have simultaneous turns. However, such games lend themselves to mixed strategies which seem like they would also be covered by generalized luck.

Rock Paper Scissors?

Although it's not best suited for 2 players, it's interesting to think about a game like Terra Mystica. There is randomness in the game, but it's all during setup. The game is then pure strategy, playing to get the most out of the setup and out of predicting other players' moves.

"If player 1 plays again as player 2 and vice-versa, both playing to the best of their abilities, then the second match would be played out exactly the same as the first match." How about a race?

Set.  (Set card game.)

You say game of skill but it seems you are actually referring to games of strategy.  They're NOT the same thing.  Most direct competitions (e.g. archery) are games of pure skill with no luck.  They don't have strategy—just skill.

"If player 1 plays again as player 2 and vice-versa, both playing to the best of their abilities, then the second match would be played out exactly the same as the first match." Is False. In Ponte De Diavolo, Player A sets the start position, and player B chooses whether that's Player A or Player B's first move; whether he's happy with that start, or he's got a good response. Now, by Zermolo, any Start Position is either a Draw or a Win for B; but there's no reason every game need have the same Start Position, and thus no reason for each game to play out the same

@Wildcard, though real-life sports have the annoying property that seemingly external conditions may affect the results (at least in theory). Any outdoor sport suffers from luck effects due to weather conditions changing (gusts of wind just as you're releasing the arrow or kicking the ball). In any tournament, the match schedule may give one player/team more rest time than the other or just plain have the game take place at a time more comfortable for one (being sleepy in the morning and a match at dawn). The last one might of course be counted as part of skill.

@Aadit, "the second match would be played out exactly the same as the first match." -- would it be? If player A won the first match, then B has no reason to play an identical match, but exactly the opposite, they have nothing to lose by doing something completely different.

@eyeballfrog That's definitely not true. Games can have first player advantage, second player advantage, or be, as the question is asking, balanced.

@ASimmons Second-player advantage is isomorphic to first player advantage, so no need to consider it separately. Balance is impossible to prove without demonstrating the optimal strategy, at which point your game isn't all that interesting.

Note that any game of strategy can be converted to a game of chance by one player choosing to move randomly.  Therefore, a game of strategy that cannot be won by luck is impossible.

@eyeballfrog I'm not convinced one has to demonstrate the optimal strategy to prove that perfect play on both sides would lead to a draw.

The question seems to presuppose only games where the players are directly interacting with each other. Any game where the players act independently and then their final results are compared doesn't have the problem. For instance, crossword puzzle contests, where everyone is working on the same puzzle, and the first contestant to solve it wins.

@Tom77, what sort of skill/strategy is involved in rock, paper, scissors?

@CramerTV Attempting to psychologically anticipate your opponent while evading similar attempts by said opponent.  Since people are notoriously bad at true random generation, someone who is adept at reading people and common patterns would likely have a higher than 50% success rate.  (Note that this is from someone not good at rock, paper, scissors in any way, so don't ask me to demonstrate, heh).

@CramerTV: There're actually several papers on that. Here's one: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.5199v1.pdf

"If player 1 plays again as player 2 and vice-versa, both playing to the best of their abilities, then the second match would be played out exactly the same as the first match." Right, because so many chess games end up playing out exactly the same. This premise is completely bogus.

Your very link to wikipedia points out that some chess grandmasters challenge that black is at a disadvantage and the winning rate for white is not explained, just described

I'd also challenge your bulleted premise. Say optimal play had multiple, equal routes, even an optimal player may choose a different one. Additionally, if it's not known that players are optimal, they may play towards an alternative strategy in the second match, pursuing a weakness in the opponent. e.g. I went war-path first game but saw that the opponent could respond to that skillfully; this time maybe I'll try science path.

Just play chess twice, once as white and once as black, score it however you like and add the two scores together.

The only winning move is not to play.

@Nathaniel, or play two games at the same time with the boards separated such that the players cannot see them at the same time.  Each sits down as white, makes a move, and then goes to the other board to play black, etc.

Hmmm. Skill levels change over time - even during a match.  In a nearly equally skill level competition, the superior player may vacillate, from A to B to A to B ..., during the contest.  At some point, Werner Heisenberg determines the winner.

@chux Ah, excellent point!  Are the Olympics games of skill or chance?  Consider the 100m dash.  How much luck is involved in running in a straight line as fast as you can?  But at the highest levels, times are so close together (hundredths of a second) that luck must play some role; any minor fluke or fluctuation suddenly can be very important.

@Michael See also Why There Are So Many Ties In Swimming --> "... you couldn’t guarantee the winning swimmer didn’t have a thousandth-of-a-second-shorter course to swim"".

The title sounds like a description of Tic-Tac-Toe: "a two player game of skill with absolutely no luck". Why isn't that an answer here?

As a misinterpretation of the title: I once tried to design a two player game of skill, and I had absolutely no luck. It didn't work out, and I abandoned the game.

White having an advantage does not mean that there is any element of luck involved. Both players take each turn with a complete knowledge of the game state, so Chess is a game of pure skill.

@Wildcard you say "Most direct competitions (e.g. archery) are games of pure skill with no luck. They don't have strategy—just skill."  The gust of wind that messed up my shot-- isn't that luck?   And when I select the one of my two bows that is good at hitting the target but not so good at hitting the bullseye, because I want to safely keep my lead, isn't that strategy?

A race?  Super Mario Bros. race (video) shows an example, which contains rather little chance.  Of course, that is a video game.  As an example involving a board game, I would think that Rubik's Race could have chance (by randomizing the colors), but still guarantee equality (by manually applying the results of the random chance equally to both sides), eliminating advantage provided by luck.

@TOOGAM A race is not a game. It's a contest.

@AaditMShah : that web page distinguishes a contest from a game by nature of decision making.  e.g., in the Rubik's Race game, decisions get made.  From the definition you provided (via hyperlink), I'd say that a race to accomplish a goal can be a game, depending the complexity of the goal.

By Zermelo's Theorem, every 2 player game has one of the following:

Chance
Hidden information (this also includes simultaneous moves)
Either first or second player has a strategy that will guarantee them the win
Both players can guarantee a draw (or force the game to go on forever)

Any game that has (1) is clearly out.
Any game that has (2) is also out if you view chance as our way of modeling information that is unknown. After all, the same rules of probability work whether it's unknown because it will be chosen soon by the roll of a die, or is unknown because an opponent has already chosen something but isn't telling us.
Any game that has (3) is out by your definition, which is reasonable because presumably you choose who goes first by chance, and that determines the winner.
So your only choice is to go for (4): games that under perfect play end in draws (or are infinite). For example, tic-tac-toe can be thought of as fitting your requirements because under perfect play every game is always a draw, no chance involved.
Note that we can't always distinguish games in category (3) and (4) - for example, though you talk about the "inherent advantage" of first in chess, it's entirely possible that this advantage is merely an artifact of our incomplete understanding of perfect play, and that two perfect players might always play to a draw (perhaps even in the same way each time). You can also convert any game with (3) into a game with (4) by wrapping two rounds together in a single game where first player alternates, and declaring the overall game a draw unless one player wins both times. So while chess may or may not fit your definition, two-round-chess does.
ADDENDUM, addressing common objections to this answer:

The English definition of "game" is broader and fuzzier than the "extensive-form" definition I am implicitly using to apply Zermelo's Theorem. If you wish to consider other types of games, including timed contests of prowess and trivia, read other answers.
My analysis of (2) is certainly controversial - I consider rock-paper-scissors a game containing luck but you don't have to. For more on different views of chance, read about Bayesian vs frequentist schools of thought.
I consider simultaneous moves under hidden information because you could imagine that players alternate but the first player's move is hidden until the second player moves.

Note that I didn't quite follow the test you provide for "absolutely no luck" because it seems overly restrictive - a game like tic-tac-toe (or two-round tic-tac-toe, perhaps) has absolutely no luck, yet since there are multiple equally good ways of playing to a draw, the game may not be played the same way each time.

It's worth noting that the world championship games are played with equal numbers of whites and blacks for each player, and I believe the Swiss system is deterministic, so there's not strictly speaking any chance in who gets to be white or black in a tournament. And it's generally thought (though not proven) that chess solves to a draw.

After reading your answer I do believe that my definition of games with "absolutely no luck" is indeed overly restrictive. Thanks for the informative answer. It really helped.

What if you replaced the coin-flip for player order with an arm-wrestle? Would that count as skill rather than chance?

Why does simultaneous moves involve hidden information?

@dbmag9: I suspect that is covered by a variant of "hidden information", although it is likely the theory does not extend well to physical tests like that and is intended for turn-based games only, where the analysis can be made over something like a Markov Decision Process.

@Wildcard Because from the viewpoint of one player, the gameplay is non-deterministic. In the case of rock-paper-scissors, you don't know which move the other player is going to make until you've made your own move.

Good point that the first move advantage in chess probably only exists because of our low skill level.

@Wildcard Also, you can reduce a simultaneous moves game into an alternating one with hidden information - e.g. in rock-paper-scissors, have players take turns, but first player's move is always hidden until second player makes a move.

Regarding the first move advantage in Chess: Did anyone disprove the hypothesis that with perfect play black can force a mate but white can not, so actually black has a first-move-advantage?

Nope! See this other answer: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/31784/15483

@Philipp The usual way to prove that is the strategy-stealing argument. However, it does not apply to chess due to the existence of zugzwang positions.

@MrLister, I still don't agree that's a general rule regarding simultaneous moves.  What about in Basque chess?  (For that matter, what about in standard chess?)  If you count "not knowing what the other player will do" as "hidden information" then all games have "hidden information" whether simultaneous moves are allowed or not.  It just doesn't seem related.

@Wildcard In a simultaneous game, whether you have made a good decision depends on what decision your opponent makes. Consider rock-paper-scissors. Throwing rock was only the correct decision if your opponent throws scissors, which you have no control over. Compare chess, where the correct decision depends only on the current board state, which you have full knowledge of.

@eyeballfrog, Basque chess has simultaneous moves.  So does Set.  Neither depends on hidden information.

@Wildcard Basque chess does not have simultaneous moves, and Set is a race, not a game.

@eyeballfrog, in Basque chess two players can both make a move at the same time.  That fits the English definition of "simultaneous."  And if Set doesn't fit your definition of "game," you are not using a standard English definition of the word.  If you would argue with me, define your terms.  Don't confuse this site with CS stack exchange.

@Wildcard I'll amend my statement to say Set is not a strategic game. Prowess-based games are certainly a thing, but they're not very interesting to analyze. However, Basque chess does not have simultaneous turns. It is two separate sequential games being played simultaneously. The two boards do not affect each other, so there is no meaningful simultaneity to the turns.

Your point about tic-tac-toe makes me wonder if it would even qualify, because does playing perfect tic-tac-toe really require any skill?  What if you (or a computer) just memorized all the correct moves?

@Michael What if you or a computer memorized every possible chess game? Does that mean chess is no longer a skill game?

It may even be that with more complete information, Black has a guaranteed win over White in chess. We won't know until we have that complete information.

I'm glad that I do not "view chance as our way of modeling information that is unknown", making this question relatively trivial. i.e. Yes it's possible - just have simultaneous moves, since not being able to read your opponent's mind is NOT the same thing as chance.

I don't understand why you exclude (2). If players write down their next move(s) in secret, and then execute it simultaniously, that would not include any luck. It could be modelled by random variables, but it would still be pure strategy.

You omitted an important part of the theorem - "in which the players move alternatingly". Which also potentially holds the actual answer to the question.

@ndn I do consider the possibility of non-alternating moves - it's rolled into (2) for reasons explained above.

@Lot (and Dronz): Do you consider Rock-Paper-Scissors to be a game that has luck? I do, but you don't have to. Here's further reading on different views of probability.

I've updated my answer to address some of these points.

The exclusion of simultaneous turns as being "hidden information" is a bit weird.. At this point you might want to think about, what constitutes the underlying skill of your game. Physical prowess and chance are out, excluding hidden information/simultaneous turns removes subterfuge/trickery as a possible skill, even though those are part of many games. Any game with alternating turns is inherantly asymmetric in the beginning, thus flawed as a game of skill. Both players could be playing independently from each other, but that is boring.

I have a concern with turning sequential turns into simultaneous turns using (2). This seems to neglect the issue that in chess, for example, the allowed set of actions in one turn may depend on the action in the previous (opponent's) turn.

The conversion I'm proposing is one-way from simultaneous to sequential. So I'm only discussing sequential games directly, but you can consider all simultaneous ones converted into sequential ones.

@Chieron Wait, you don't consider simultaneous turns to be hidden information? It's information that could impact your decision making process that you don't know until it's too late. How is that not the definition of hidden information?!

@corsiKa: In ordinary chess, your opponent's planned future moves are also "information that could impact your decision making process that you don't know until it's too late". So the distinction is rather subtle. I think the main reason that simultaneous moves create "hidden information" is that they mean that you don't know what game state your move will produce.

@ruakh Your opponents future moves are not hidden information - if you have perfect play you already know your opponents next moves and your responses if they make imperfect plays. (Turns out no one yet has perfect play in chess, but according to the theorem it is possible...)

@corsiKa in simultaneous turns, the other player's move is nothing but a future move - your skill lies in anticipating and counteracting it in the same turn. The gamestate on your next turn is unknown, because they could've taken countermeasures which against the move they expected you to make. Perfect play does not necessarily mean that you know your opponents next moves, there might not always be a perfect strategy. With asymmetric start positions, one player will have an advantage - so the decision who takes what position becomes part of the game and can not be left to chance. In the end..

.. the solution boils down to playing an even number of chess matches, stopping when one player is in the lead or a set maximum number of matches have been played(with perfect play, this will always end in a draw, regardless of the result of the perfect strategy for a single game of chess)

I'm wondering which of these categories Thud falls into. It's an asymmetric game, but the rules require two matches, one as each side, for a full game.

@Chieron The problem with that claim is that simultaneous moves mean both players don't know what game state their choice will result in. That's exactly why simultaneous moves are equivalent to sequential moves with hidden information: you have to consider that whoever goes second doesn't know what the previous move was. Any game with simultaneous moves is exactly the same as one with sequential moves where player 2 does not know what move player 1 just made.

@Chieron That's why future moves aren't hidden information: "hidden information" in game theory means "you cannot know what the game state will be immediately after your move." In a game without hidden information, you can construct the subtree corresponding to each possible move. You can then analyze each subtree to see what result it'll give you, and pick the move that leads to the most favorable one. In a game with hidden information, this is not possible: you don't know what subtree a move will give you, so you don't and can't know what move will be optimal.

@Chieron, I think you nailed it with: "At this point you might want to think about, what constitutes the underlying skill of your game. Physical prowess and chance are out, excluding hidden information/simultaneous turns removes subterfuge/trickery as a possible skill...." This answer narrows the meaning of "skill" to "ability to mathematically analyze deterministic games."  Although CS professors might promote the self-congratulatory belief that that's what skill is, the actual definition is "the ability to do something well; expertise."  Skill can include speed.

I just wanted to say I really liked this answer per the way you broke down what constitutes a game from a CGT perspective.  (It might be useful to introduce readers to the concept of intractability, which you definitely reference in plain language understandable to general public.)  I'm looking for some informal peer-review of my attempt to define "deterministic games" (still a work in progress) and would greatly value any thoughts or critiques or suggestions you might have on the subject.

@Dronz I think some confusion arises because indeterminacy in games is generated in multiple ways: random number generation (such as dice or even card shuffling, in the sense of random order) hidden information (incomplete or imperfect information), and intractability.  The first is similar to quantum phenomena, where you can have a result not based on causality (Copenhagen model), and the second is based on inability to confirm positions, opponent choices or decision-making process, and the third is based on the unsolvability of a game by the participants, whether human or algorithmic.

Again, this is a really great answer.  On reflection, it seems like M games with even-order configurations and two players breaks the theorem as stated here, because in a 2-player even-order game, it is only the second player that can guarantee a draw.   (This form of the game relies on symmetry breaking by the second player if they perceive the first player to have make a sub-optimal placement.  Failing that, P2 can simple mirror P1 placements to achieve a guaranteed draw:)

Which one of these four does the game 'darts' have? (ie the bar game where you throw darts at a dart board)

@tuskiomi See Addendum #1. My impression is/was that OP wasn't asking about things like darts, even though they used the word "game" and darts is a "game" in the most common broad English sense of the word.

I find it a bit odd to include the first move advantage in chess as an element of luck -- it assumes that luck is involved in choosing the color, but that choice isn't usually seen as part of the game, more of the tournament organization.
But there are a few ways to fix it.
The most obvious and usual is to play multiple matches, with alternating colors. There is probably still some luck involved, because it may be an advantage to start first or second. World Championship matches use this format, and they switch around the order of who goes first in each 2-game block half way during the match (so it goes A B A B A B B A B A B A ).
Another is to simply accept some number for the built-in advantage to white (say 54%) and instead of always giving 1 point for a win, adjust the scores for winning as black and winning as white so that the expected scores are equal. The math is left as an exercise for the reader and there will be some issues in practice with e.g. Swiss tournaments where people get subtly different scores.
But there is an easier way: simply play two (or another even number) of games simultaneously, one with each color, each with their own clock. By symmetry, there is no advantage for either player, and that was the only luck involved.
This is called Basque chess (video of two players playing it, article about some exhibition Basque chess matches involving some top players).

If white has an advantage, and you alternate colors, wouldn't you just expect perfect players to win whenever they're white, lose when they're black, and the whole match will be a draw? You need to play an odd number of games to be sure to get a winner, and then you have the problem of which player gets an extra chance to be white.

@Barmar There's nothing in the question that says the game must always have a winner.

@Bamar: they can also just draw all the games, chess is very likely to be a draw with perfect play. But that is fine.

@Barmar That's exactly what should happen, according to the OP's stipulations. If two players have identical skill, and one still loses, it must have been due to randomness, first-player advantage, or something else unrelated to skill. In a game with no luck and no first player advantage, equally skilled players should always finish in a draw. According to the OP's stipulations, a "no luck" game can't have a winning strategy. If it does, it comes down to luck as to which player is in the correct seat to implement that strategy, which contradicts the premise.

@NuclearWang That's not how I interpret the question. It's a game of skill, so the more skilled player should win. There shouldn't be a random factor that might bias the result.

Doesn't Basque Chess have the issue where a less skilled player can just steal moves from their more skilled opponent to force either two draws or a win and a loss?

@monoRed: I suspect that player is going to run out of time on their clock first, but I can't prove it right now.

@Barmar Of course the more skilled player should always win. We're talking about a game between equally skilled players, which should end in a draw. MonoRed, black copying white's moves one turn later doesn't necessarily end in a draw. If player 2 copies white's moves one game later when he's playing white, the other (more skilled) player can make different moves, meaning the game won't necessarily be a win for player 2.

@NuclearWang Where does the question say anything about equally skilled players?

The question says that it shouldn't matter whether you're white or black, the outcome should be the same.

@Barmar You started the discussion of "perfect players" which are equally skilled. In a situation of unequal skill, the more skilled player should always win. This situation doesn't tell us much about the game itself, though - a highly skilled player could still always win a game with a minor first player advantage when playing against a low-skill player, even when going second. You can only really assess the "luck factor" of a game when it's played between equally skilled players. The fact that a high-skill player always beats a low-skill player doesn't itself imply the game is all strategy.

@Geliormth The question claims that white has a 52% advantage. If the two players are 51% vs 49% skills, that's enough to allow the lesser player to win if he's white.

@NuclearWang You're right, I did say that. I guess the actual question should be about players whose skill differences are not as great as the bias from the game structure.

@Barmar As Benjamin showed in his answer, the game must have a winning strategy (dependent on player position), or have a force-draw strategy (independent of player position). You can only assess that there's a force-draw when both players are making perfect decisions to arrive at that end state, i.e, they are equally skilled. Playing the game with players of unequal skill can't prove the positive that the game has no luck. It can only prove the negative that it does have luck, if the less skilled player wins. Playing the game with players of equal skill is the only way to prove no luck.

Consider the game of go, where Black starts, but White gets a number of points (the komi) to balance the advantage of Black's first move. Now, of course this may still not lead to an absolutely balanced game, but the complexity of the game pretty much swamps the remaining difference. From a purely theoretical standpoint the game is still a win for either Black or White (depending on the amount of komi), but as @BenjaminCosman stated in their answer, any two-player game of pure skill has a deterministic result anyway.
If you can't agree on the correct komi, one option is a bidding system like the pie-rule used in Hex: let one player decide the komi, and then the other chooses which color to play.
If that still doesn't satisfy your needs, have the players play an even number of games in a row, with alternating colours, and declare the player with more wins as the winner. (That of course works in chess, too.)
In go, you could also consider playing just two games, and take the total score difference of the two games as the final result. (i.e. if the first game ends with A winning by +2.5, and the second with B winning by +1.5, then A is the final winner, this is harder to do in chess.) However, that does change the strategy of the game, since usually the margin of winning does not matter.

Go is a finite deterministic game (basically, there's a rooted oriented graph for the moves, each move is an edge, each position is a vertex), so it either has a winning strategy for one or the other player, or has a draw strategy for both players. So assuming the players are Oraculum A and Oraculum B, go does not qualify. And nothing else than assuming they are Oracula makes sense to me (or I may have misunderstood the question).

@yo', Sure. That also rules out all variants of chess, as mentioned in other answers. But to me, a "game of skill" between two entities with power great enough to know the optimal play does not make any sense. In a smaller scale, it doesn't make sense to call tic-tac-toe a game of skill between two adults familiar with it.

I think the issue may lie in the subjectivity of non-triviality in regard to games.  Games typically designated as non-trivial are those which are intractable to the strongest human player, and more lately, defy computational solution, but to the average 5 year old child, tic-tac-toe is decidedly non-trivial. :)

@yo' You can't draw in Go because of the half point komi. Or I think you hear some say a quarter of a point in chinese scoring rules.

@snulty: While komi is often an odd multiple of half a point, in order to avoid jigo (a draw), this is not universal. To make the game fair, komi would have to exactly cancel out the amount by which Black would win given perfect play to maximise the score; that means it would be a whole number for almost all rule sets. With this komi perfect play would then lead to a draw. (Of course there is an archaic version of Ing rules in which the result can include all sorts of odd fractions, so that theoretically correct komi for those rules would be fractional.)

@PJTraill I was reading not long ago that in the Japanese rule set you can have a triple Ko that can effectively leave the game in a draw, which has happened before.

@snulty: According to Sensei’s Library (if I remember the source right), Japanese rules specify in this case not a draw but ‘no result’, meaning the game needs to be replayed. Personally I am far happier with one of the more logical, less traditional rule sets, ee.g. Tromp-Taylor or New Zealand.

@PJTraill I haven’t really had the time to read through all the rule sets and figure out what positions they allow or don’t. Lots of strange examples on 9x9 grids for all the rule sets I think. It seems you can suicide stones in Tromp-Taylor and presumably New Zealand? I’m not sure I like that. I do like the wording of the New Zealand rules though on senseis library, very clean and feels somewhat mathematical in its phrasing. Yeah I guess the difference between a draw and no result depends on scoring if it’s for a league or tournament say.

@snulty: I suspect some sets allow suicide to keep down the number of rules, I am agnostic on its desirability, tending to accept it. Simplifying rules complicates tactics!

@snulty, it doesn't usually matter if suicide is allowed or not, so you can pretty much ignore it. (Mostly it can give ko threats, but apparently there are some situations where it can matter, see https://senseis.xmp.net/?Suicide) And triple-ko is impossible to handle without a superko rule, but that requires memory of the complete game, which is hard to do on a board without good bookkeeping. :/

The card game "Set" may qualify.  (Your requirements are awfully stringent but also not precisely defined, so you may disagree on a technicality—but I believe it fits.)
It's described as the "Family game of visual perception," which is a good description.  There are no turns.  Twelve cards are dealt, and as soon as you see a set you call out "set" and then take the set you saw.  Three cards are dealt to replace the three you took, and play continues.
There can be (will be) variations from game to game, obviously, as there are over a thousand distinct sets and several million million possible "boards" of 12 cards.  But in any given game, both players have exactly the same information.  I wouldn't count the starting board arrangement as "luck" as it doesn't give either player any advantage.
The point you could reasonably question is whether perception counts as a skill.  I fully believe it does.  It's certainly not susceptible to turn-based mathematical strategy, though!

This game is of the second type listed in this answer.

A sample of a set "board," with notes on the rules:

Ricochet Robots springs to mind from this. The game basically consists of the players staring at a board, and calling out the numbers of moves they require to solve the puzzle currently presented, with the lowest number of course getting to present their solution and winning a point.

Similarly, the game Spot It could also fit this criteria.  No turns, cards in hand are secret but each will have exactly one symbol matching the card in play (no hand or card is "better" or "worse" than any other).  It's all about your skill at parsing sets of symbols quickly and locating matches.

@bta, that was the ultimate nerd snipe as I'm now knee-deep in the math of the game Spot It.  :)

But isn't there luck in which card or symbols you happen to look to first?

@swbarnes2 look at them all at once.  Spanning your attention across multiple things is a skill.  You're not a linear computing machine.

There's still an element of chance in these games: one player might have a stomachache, or a sore throat, or may simply be a bit hungry.  The chaos of life has a large effect on people's ability to play reaction games like this well.

@Brilliand that's completely irrelevant to skill.  Sufficient skill offsets any possible distraction of that type.  Go play against a world champion archer while he has a stomachache and not enough sleep; you'll find he can still shoot a bow better than you.  So that's skill, not chance.  In other words we should define "chance" as "that which cannot be offset by skill."  Anyway none of this matters to the question since the OP is really talking about strategy, not skill at all, as I pointed out in another comment.  (Also the word used was "luck" not "chance.")

For perfect symmetry, you need both players to have the same opportunity to make moves. This suggests that either:

Players play the game twice, rotating the first player position between them, with the final score of the game being the score differential between the two games.
Players play a game in which moves are played simultaneously. Either their moves do not directly interact with each other (in which case they are essentially solving the same puzzle and trying to get the better score), or there are rules preventing their moves from interfering with each other (for example, maybe if pieces are close enough together they can't move them any closer), or there are rules that resolve what happens when their moves interfere (for example, pieces which move into the same space on the same turn are removed from the board).

You may consider the simultaneous action in 2 to be a form of luck or hidden information, but it's done in a way that two players of equal skill would always make the same moves against each other, so that seems to meet the requirement. Of course, as pointed out, any perfectly symmetrical game played by players of equal skill is guaranteed to end in a draw, so it's only interesting if the game allows you to distinguish between quite fine differences in player skill - tic-tac-toe is very poor in this regard, since everyone above a fairly low skill level is able to force a draw easily; by comparison, in a game like Go even a small difference in skill level can result in a very deterministic result.

An example of (1) is the way competitive bridge is played. A team of 4 players plays the same deal of cards twice - once as North-South, and once as East-West. This takes the element of chance out; you truly measure "given the hand you are dealt, how well does your team play it?" - with the final score being the difference between the two games. I suppose that is not a "two player game" though...

@Floris This is not a "symmetrical" situation. Since top-level card players are skilled in remembering the cards that have been played, on the second play of the hand each player has (potentially) perfect knowledge of all the cards held by all the other players for the whole duration of the hand (I'm assuming that the situation where exactly the same cards are dealt to one of the players in two separate games is too unlikely to be relevant). That was not the case for the first play of the hand.

@alephzero sorry if I didn't describe this clearly. A team is four people, called NESW. NS of team 1 play EW of team 2. The score is recorded. The cards (same deal) are then given to EW of team 1 and NS of team 2 (who did NOT see game 1). So they have NO prior knowledge of the cards. Only relative skills of the four players on each team determine the outcome as they are facing the exact same set of cards and their decisions will determine their outcome.

Duplicate bridge removes a lot of the luck that would otherwise be inherent, but there is still plenty left. For example, to make a contract may involve choosing between two 50% chances: you can make a play that wins when West holds the king of spades, or a play that wins when West holds the king of diamonds, but no play wins in both cases. When I play the hand I may choose to hope that West has the king of spades, and at the other table they hope for the king of diamonds. We both played the hand with equal skill, but one of us guesses right and scores better.

Yes, 2 games of chess!
After the first game players switch sides and play again. The slight advantage is completely removed.
The premise in the middle of the OP is incorrect and irrelevant.

Agreed. Tic-tac-toe would work as well.

A game that may fit your constraints: Goofspiel, also known as GOPS - Game of Pure Strategy, for 2 or more players.

Goofspiel is played using cards from a standard deck of cards, and is typically a two-player game, although more players are possible. Each suit is ranked A (low), 2, ..., 10, J, Q, K (high).

One suit is singled out as the "prizes"; each of the remaining suits becomes a hand for one player, with one suit discarded if there are only two players, or taken from additional decks if there are four or more. The prizes are shuffled and placed between the players with one card turned up.
Play proceeds in a series of rounds. The players make "closed bids" for the top (face up) prize by selecting a card from their hand (keeping their choice secret from their opponent). Once these cards are selected, they are simultaneously revealed, and the player making the highest bid takes the competition card. Rules for ties in the bidding vary, possibilities including the competition card being discarded, or its value split between the tied players (possibly resulting in fractional scores). Some play that the current prize may "roll over" to the next round, so that two or more cards are competed for at once with a single bid card.
The cards used for bidding are discarded, and play continues with a new upturned prize card.
After 13 rounds, there are no remaining cards and the game ends. Typically, players earn points equal to sum of the ranks of cards won (i.e. Ace is worth one point, 2 is two points, etc., Jack being worth 11, Queen 12, and King worth 13 points). Players may agree upon other scoring schemes.

This is a really interesting suggestion.  Even though the game utilizes random order of the prize cards, there is perfect information for any given decision.  Even though the sequence of future prize card is unknown, all players have access to the same statistical information as each prize card is revealed.  I can see advantage for any player, or luck being a factor in this game.  It seems to definitely qualify!

Goofspiel/GOPS has hidden information, which is excluded as per point 2 of Benjamin Cosman's answer.

Each player makes a tower of stacked bricks. Their brick supplies and building areas are separate and identical. The builder of the first tower to topple loses. If both towers are standing after a predetermined amount of time, the builder of the tallest tower wins.

A large truck rumbles by outside, causing your slightly taller tower to fall over just before time is up.  Was that bad luck or lack of skill on your part to withstand unexpected vibration?

@Michael That's a foul, and requires you to start over. Tournaments are not played near roads.

No.  Whatever you do to exclude luck from your game, either player may choose to overrule you by making their own choice of moves random.  A player who chooses to move randomly (or even uses a random factor to advise their moves when unsure) has introduced chance back into the game, and may win or lose by luck.

Not necessarily.  The ability to read your opponent, and the ability to outsmart your opponent, can both be seen as components of skill and/or strategy.  In this case, the player decides to make unreadable moves which confuse their opponent through sheer unpredictability, at the expense of their own ability to strategise and plan.  Knowing when to discard strategy and act solely at random is a skill-based decision, which makes such confusion-oriented gameplay a valid tactic for outwitting an opponent (it's a mind game, basically, which causes them to doubt their ability to read you),

and a valid tactical choice as long as it falls within the game's rules.  It may introduce chance into one side, but this doesn't necessarily cause the game as a whole to fall back on chance (no human can be truly random, so this strategy can and will backfire as soon as your opponent learns to read your "randomness").

@JustinTime My point is that it is possible for acting randomly to cause an unskilled player to play perfectly, hence "getting lucky". You argue that games with a random player can still involve strategy, and I agree; but the question is whether a game can be found with no luck whatsoever, and in that context, your argument is irrelevant.

My argument is also that even a "random" player will become readable over time, due to humans not being truly random unless they use an exterior source of randomness.

Assuming that exterior sources of randomness are against the rules (if the intent of the game is to eliminate all chance, then using an outside source to add chance is akin to cheating), then random actions will initially introduce chance (as you initially lose the ability to read your opponent), but won't reduce the game as a whole to chance (since your opponent can't just flip a coin, they'll have to think about what the "random" thing to do is, which makes them predictable; you just need to learn how to read their attempts at randomness).

@JustinTime I would argue that "humans are not truly random" is not a strict theorem, and even to the degree that it is true, it does not mean "humans are never random at all".  Indeed, I would argue the opposite - that human behavior ALWAYS includes a random factor, simply due to the random environment acting on our bodies.  A large part of skill is the ability to mitigate this randomness in yourself.

I agree with this. Richard Garfield (creator of MTG) has a great lecture on chance in games where he says basically the same thing, using chess as an example. He shows that chess does in fact have luck because a player making random moves could theoretically make the right set of moves to beat the best players in the world.

@Brilliand My point is that even when people try to be random, it's usually (if not always) still possible to predict what they're going to do, if you know them well enough to be able to read them.  To offset this inherent readability, they would need some exterior source of randomness that isn't influenced by their personality.

@JustinTime Otherwise known as "play the opponent, not the game".  I strongly suspect that that would still be too random for the asker's tastes.

This strategy is really about introducing indeterminacy by attempting to confound the rational, non-random opponent.  However, intractability of a game does not constitute luck being involved, merely the uncertainty as to whether a given move is truly optimal.  (Winning play in unsolved games may only be deemed "more optimal". Objectively optimal play only exists in solved games, such as Tic-tac-toe.)  Unsolved, intractable games such as Chess are still deterministic, regardless of whether the outcome can be predicted.

@DukeZhou My argument is about a player (the opponent of the person who chose the "no luck" game) choosing to move randomly, thus introducing an element of chance (he may randomly move perfectly, or throw the game, or anything in between).  Against a player of non-perfect skill, this results in the winner being decided by chance (albeit heavily weighted toward the player moving intelligently).

You're talking about indeterminacy as opposed to luck.  Indeterminacy is introduced via: [1] random number generation (such as dice or even card shuffling, in the sense of random order); [2] hidden information (incomplete or imperfect information), and [3] intractability. The first is similar to quantum phenomena, where you can have a result not based on causality, the second is based on inability to confirm positions, opponent choices or decision-making process, and the third is based on the unsolvability of a game by the participants, whether human or algorithmic.

Only the first two forms of indeterminacy constitute luck--the third form is a function of complexity, but does not render a game non-deterministic.

@GendoIkari Great comment!!!  What Garfield claims is theoretically possible and strikes me as true, but it seems to be more of a comment on intractability of non-trivial games.  (I'll have to watch the lecture to get the full context, and I doubly thank you for mentioning it.)  Garfield is unquestionably one of the most significant game designers in history, and studied combinatorics at University of Pennsylvania.  Both factors add weight to his view.

@GendoIkari   It's technically true that if both players utilize random strategy, the outcome will be based on luck, per the Garfield categorization, but I think Game Theory has an answer.  If one player consistently employs a more optimal strategy, they will, on aggregate, win more games.  Take the example of classic, iterated Prisoner's Dilemma where one player chooses randomly, but the other player always betrays.  The betraying player will always come out ahead of the random player.

@GendoIkari  AlphaGo heavily utilized Monte Carlo Search Trees, but if the decision-making process was purely stochastic, Lee Sedol would have won every game.

@DukeZhou I'm talking about [1]: random number generation (imposed by player choice rather than game rules).  As for a more optimal strategy winning more on average, that's standard for games involving both luck and skill; a game with no luck whatsoever would not require multiple games to determine the better player.

It's a fair point, and Garfield seems to agree with you, but I still feel that it's a distinct form of indeterminacy, arising out of intractability, even if it represents a form of random number generation in this context.  That said, worthwhile to bring up, and the questioner certainly does himself extend the definition of non-chance from the standard conception in relation to games.  (The Garfield argument is similar to the million monkeys eventually typing Shakespeare;)

I think the division of opinions is partly philosophical and partly semantic: "of the forms of indeterminacy, which constitute luck?"   For me, true randomness has to be involuntary, and luck is the result of factors beyond the player's control, where statistical analysis of probability cannot be applied, which is distinct from making random decisions and "hoping to get lucky in making the right decisions."  Again, this may be a philosophical/semantic distinction.

OK-I watched the Garfield lecture on this subject.  There is some imprecision in that he is using plain language as opposed to formalize mathematical terms (per CGT).  This definition of luck in games is in regard to "uncertainty of outcomes" and is purely a factor of intractability.  (It is only a factor in non-trivial deterministic games, i.e. games where the solution is unknown to the participants.)  From the standpoint of game mechanics, it is absolutely possible to create a game that involves no luck from a procedural perspective.

I am upvoting because the language in the question was imprecise, and this answer is correct and valid from the standpoint of strategy (as opposed to game mechanics)

Thanks again for this answer, and please don't take my challenge as an attempt to diminish your correct and valid point.  (Just had to work through the concept and understand the context;)  It has been quite useful, particularly as I hadn't come across this idea previously, and have had to update my  definition of deterministic games (still a work in progress) to discuss the inability to remove luck from unsolved games from the standpoint of strategy/optimal play.

A lot depends on your definition of a game for purposes of this question.  If you're avoiding chance playing any part then the game must come down to a measure of some skill or trait (or combination thereof).  Any such game, being perfectly symmetrical and deterministic, would then proceed to end the same between any two players every game without exception (assuming both players played to the best of their abilities).
For an example I've just invented a game, I call it Who is Taller: Aggregate Edition  Two players get their height measured by the same means over a period of time (to account for shifts over the day) and then their heights are compared.  No matter which is player 1 or player 2 the results are the same.  Obviously this game is probably pretty terrible, my sales are sitting at zero currently, but it meets the criteria you've put forth.
Any game like this would make repeated plays meaningless unless the skill or trait is something a player could improve meaningfully either from playing the game itself or externally.  At which point you've discovered all sorts of games involving strength (arm wrestling), dexterity (darts), pattern finding & reflexes (Set, as mentioned in Wildcard's answer), ...etc.  Though obviously only one of those examples is actually a board or card game, there are certainly a number of board style games that involve taking physical actions especially involving dexterity, timing, or balance and it mainly depends where you want to draw your line in the sand on what counts and what doesn't.
Of course to truly replicate the starting state in a skill/trait measuring game as mentioned above with the players swapped you'd need to somehow go back in time to run the second test as one player could gain more skill from the playing of the first game than the other, thus shifting the result; but assuming you could do so the result should be the same every time.
The common thread though is that in most of these you're looking at some kind of well structured competition instead of a more traditional game, as the goal is not to allow multiple players to make interesting decisions and try to come out on top with chance of success determined by skill, but rather to see if your abilities are greater when measured in a particular way than that of another.

I believe the game of Connect 6 was designed to eliminate the advantage/disadvantage of going first or second:

According to Professor Wu, the handicap of black's only being able to play one stone on the first turn means that the game is comparatively fair

Although your categorization of what constitutes luck is non-standard, I understand perfectly the point you are making regarding first player advantage.
It is possible, and I designed a set of games, [M], which, for certain types of symmetrical configurations, eliminates turn-based advantage, and relies on symmetry breaking.
CONTEXT
For context, symmetry-breaking is a phenomena observed in nature, but, like everything in nature, is related to combinatorics.  Most of the thinking on this subject in relation to games will be found in Combinatorial Game Theory (CGT), and combinatorics is at the root of all games discussed on this Stack.
Here are a few articles I found on the subject, to demonstrate I am not alone in pursuing this idea in relation to Game Theory and CGT:
Breaking Symmetry (combinatorial games)
Explaining Diversity: Symmetry-Breaking in Complementarity Games
Symmetry-Breaking in two-player games via strategic substitutes and diagonal nonconcavity: A synthesis
Excerpt from Modern Principles of Economic Mechanics Vol. 1
The underlying problem with combinatorial games (all games are combinatorial;) is that the underlying mathematics are unforgiving: a set of mechanics is either too imbalanced, always resulting in a win for the advantaged player, or too balanced, always resulting in stalemate.
In deterministic games (those which involve no elements of chance such as card shuffling or random number generation, commonly dice) complexity becomes a balancing factor.  Chess may have a built-in advantage for the starting player, but has sufficient complexity that the second player may still engineer a win.  Complexity partly subjective in that it relates to the tractability of a problem.  Games such as chess, which are intractable to the strongest human players, are regarded as non-trivial, but for a 5 year-old, tic-tac-toe is distinctly non-trivial.  Tic-tac-toe contains a non-symmetric element in the odd-order (3x3) gameboard, but nevertheless always results in a draw if the game has become tractable to both players. Unlike 8x8 chess, the less symmetrical tic-tac-toe provides no inherent advantage to the starting player where the game is tractable to the participants
SYMMETRY BREAKING IN EVEN-ORDER [M]
In the set of games [M] restricted to 2 players, symmetric grid configurations where n is even n^2(n^2), n^3(n^3), ..., n^2(m^2), ..., allow the second player to draw a stalemate by simply mirroring the placements of the starting player.  This is because in such configuration there are an even number of turns and board positions.
However, if the starting player is perceived by the second player to have made a sub-optimal placement, the second player may change their mirroring strategy an attempt to engineer a victory.
In this model, there is no inherent advantage for the starting player.  Neither is there an advantage for the second player where the configuration is non-trivial because, while the onus is on the starting player to place optimally, where the gametree is intractable, there is no guarantee that the second player's assessment of a move as suboptimal is correct.
Thus, even-order [M] is solved to infinity in that the second player can always draw a stalemate, it is not solved in the context of objective optimality of a given move over the course of the game, particularly in that the [M] placement constraints, drawn from Sudoku, allow for unpredictable patterns to emerge than can yield advantage if exploited.  ([M] has similar emergent complexity to Chess and Go, with less rules and no special conditions.)
This principle may be extended to [M] with any even number of players (2,4,6,...), and becomes more interesting in that only even players (P2, P4, P6, ...) can break the board symmetry, where odd players (P1, P3, P5, ...) do not have this option.
Where is really gets interesting is in even-order [M] with an odd number of players, where number of players is a factor of total board positions, for instance as 3P|2^2(3^2) which yields 36 board positions and 12 placements for each of the three players.
In a configuration like 3P|2^2(3^2), the initiative for symmetry breaking cycles between players, still always on an even-numbered turn, but now all players cycle between odd and even numbered turns:
01: P1
02: P2 (initiative)
03: P3
04: P1 (initiative)
05: P2
06: P3 (initiative)
07: P1
08: P2 (initiative)
09: P3
10: P1 (initiative)
11: P2
12: P3 (initiative)
You'll notice that over 12 turns, 1/3 of the game, each player has the initiative an equal number of times.  (This configuration is distinct from even-order configuration with an even number of players because the game cannot result in a stalemate.)

I'd love to know more about symmetry breaking. It seems quite relevant to the concept of initiative in role-playing games.

@AaditMShah Initiative in this context is distinct, in that it involves a method of ordering turns (player actions).  By contrast, symmetry-breaking relates to partisan strategy in a Combinatorial Game Theory framework, typically in 2-player games,  where the second player can mirror the actions of the first player until some point of divergence, based on perception of advantage.  That said, I've been thinking about symmetry-breaking in > 2P games, and initiative would certainly interesting to explore in that model.

@AaditMShah I updated the answer to provide more context on symmetry breaking as related to games, and provided a concrete example in the set of games [M], which I designed, and which are unique in relation to all other previous games. I linked the [M] rules in the above answer, but you can also find simplified rules here: http://www.mclassgames.com/how-to-play/

Is there somewhere I could learn how to play [M] interactively? Just reading the rules is confusing.

@AaditMShah My team and I are planning to go into open Beta sometime in September, but if you have an android or iOS device, can add you to the list for the closed Beta (pst me at dukezhou@mclassgames.com)  We're not set up for even-order configurations atm, but you can definitely get a sense of how the [M]echanics work with the 9x9 "classic" Sudoku configuration.

One way that a game can be made entirely skill- or strategy-based is by meeting the following conditions:
Examples are provided, in the context of a card game.  In this fictional card game, each player has their own deck, and draws a card at the start of their turn.  On their turn, they are allowed to play one card face-up, and set one card face-down.  On their opponent's turn, they are allowed to activate one face-down card.  A full turn consists of each player getting a turn; for any full turn N, these are turn N1 and N2; player 1 is the player that goes first (and thus gets 11), and player 2 is the one that goes second (and thus gets 12).

Barring player actions, both players will have identical game states.

Both players will have the same resources become available over the course of the game (e.g., both players use the same deck).
These resources will become available in a predetermined order, with no chance involved (e.g., both players must stack their decks in the same order).
Both players will start with the same number and type of resources available (e.g., both players start with the exact same hand).

This guarantees that:

Both players have the ability to make the same moves (e.g., if player 1 can play card X on turn 31, player 2 can play card X on turn 32).
Chance is removed from hidden information, as all possibilities are known; the unknown changes from "what do I have to expect" (e.g., which deck is the opponent using) to "which of their resources is this" (e.g., which card out of the cards both players have drawn is it).
This allows players to infer hidden information using their deductive skills, as their opponent's game state can be inferred from their own (e.g., if player 2 sets a card face-down, then player 1 can look at which cards they've drawn (as they know player 2 has drawn the same cards), and eliminate the cards player 2 has already used, to determine all possibilities for that card; they can then logically determine which of these possibilities it's likely to be).

Turn advantage will be removed.  This can be done in multiple ways.

Both players can take turns simultaneously; each player plans out their turn, and reveals their actions once both have confirmed that they're done planning (e.g., both players set the cards they plan to use on turn N face-down, and tap their deck when they're done preparing; once both players tap their deck, they both flip the cards they set that turn face-up).
All games can be a two-game match, and a player must win both games to win the match; this guarantees that each player will have first-turn advantage, eliminating its effect on the game (e.g., to beat player 1 in a match, player 2 must win both when they go first, and when player 1 goes first).
Whichver player has the advantage receives a handicap that compensates for it (e.g., on turn 11, since player 1 gets to draw before player 2 does, they can only play one card instead of the normal two; player 1 will thus have more options available, but player 2 will have more options in play).
Going first and going second have distinct advantages; player 1 chooses which of these they get, and by extension, whether they go first or second (e.g., the player that goes first might be able to play 2 cards face-up once during the game, while the player that goes second might be able to set 2 cards face-down once during the game; player 1 decides which of these advantages they want, which also decides turn order).
Player 1 has the option of giving up their turn advantage; if they don't, player 2 receives an advantage (e.g., player 1 chooses whether they want to draw on turn 11; if they choose to draw, then player 2 can play a card from their hand during turn 11).

Out of these options, the first two are the most viable ways to eliminate chance.  While the others might work, they are much harder to balance, because the full implications of turn advantage are often unknown during the game's design stage and preliminary testing; they will only truly become known once the pros start milking them for all they're worth (e.g., the advantage of drawing first might be more than enough to compensate for only being able to play one card on your first turn, or only being able to play 1 card might be crippling even if you do draw first).

There is a common mechanic that I've always called the 'cake cutting mechanic' although that doesn't seem to be the common name.
lets say player A goes first.  Player A then make a move within the rules of the game.   Player B then has a choice.  They can make a move back and then the game continues as normal.  Alternatively they can say they like Player A's move so much they want it and both players swap sides and Player B now has Player A's opening Move and Player A then takes a turn in response to there opening move and from this point players stay with the pieces they have.
So if you perceived white in Chess as having an advantage opening with Kings Pawn forward 2 then the Black player just says 'I want to be white now' and turn the board around.
This is rule is used in Ponte Del Diavolo for example.

I think you're referring to the "pie rule".  It's a great suggestion, but I don't think it constitutes the elimination of advantage (which in the question is regarded as an element of luck)  if the game is intractable, because neither player really knows if the first choice by the first player is truly optimal.

I am going to criticize your definition of Luck.
Yes, it's possible. Take the game Anomia
This game requires players to quickly flip over cards and name items from subjects.
For example, if the card 'Small Dog Breed' was flipped, someone could say "poodle" and take the card for a point.
If your definition of a game without luck is what you're going for, then here is how each game would go:
card flip. "Monkey".
Both players: Marmoset.
Tie breaker.
card flip. "Tree".
Both players: aspen.
Tie breaker ... ad infinitum.
But clearly, luck is inherent in this game, with the knowledge of the players, and the cards which were turned over.

Yes, and it's already been done.
It's called InstaGib over LAN.
Latency is neglible, weapons always kill when they hit and have 100% accuracy.
Everyone has the same amount of life, the same gun, infinite ammo.
You both start at the same time, and you can eliminate the random factor of spawns by placing only 2 spawnpoints.
One for Red, one for Blue.
Here's an example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuRJNn-R1C4
edit: monoRed is right. Excuse my noobness.

This is the board games stack exchange, so video game answers probably aren't what the asker was looking for.

While true, I'd argue that anything that can be done in such a video game could be replicated in a board or card game, such as by having simultaneous resolution with equal information combined with some kind of dexterity task involved in playing to simulate players who are simply faster at processing information and reacting.  Which would seem to count except in the case that not having perfect information might be considered having chance involved.


text:
In a bridge auction, what makes an overcall "aggressive"
I'm often told, after a hand has been played, that my overcall in the auction was "aggressive". When I ask them what they mean by that adjective, nobody will give me a direct answer. I reckon that they are intimated as I am 1.9M tall and weigh 104Kg (6'3" & 229lbs).
But I really would like to know what is meant by an "aggressive" overcall. In addition, are there any other words, similar or otherwise, used to describe an overcall ?
Any explanations will be appreciated.

There's two answers here, the technical one and the nuanced one.
Technically, an aggressive call of any sort means a call that is made to take a high risk/high reward result. For example, in this auction:

N
E
S
W

1s
-
2s
-

4s
-
-
-

2S promises 6-9 points and 3+ spades. A game in spades needs 25ish points to be reasonably safe, so if you make 4s call with 16 points, that would be aggressive - you're knowing that either you're hoping to see 9 points in dummy, or you're going to be in a challenging game that's more likely to go down.
Typically, aggressive bids aren't recommended; some will bid more aggressively when they feel they need higher variance in order to succeed. However, slightly more aggressive bids are appropriate in some cases, such as at IMPs versus MPs - where that game bonus is critical.
Conservative is the inverse of aggressive, and implies you take safer lines that are less likely to be risky, but less rewarding.  It's also not recommended - you will fail to bid games you should be in.  Conservative players might pass there with 15 points.
The actual opposite of aggressive would be disciplined, meaning making calls as described in your partnership's convention card.  Disciplined players would know how to ask questions and find out whether 4S was makeable (perhaps 3S, or perhaps they have other options in their quiver).

The nuanced answer is that typically when someone describes your bidding generally as aggressive, they're suggesting you bid higher than you should, or when you shouldn't at all.
Being an aggressive overcaller is not uncommon in newer players, as it's tempting to want to get in the action, or to see your hand and feel like you have something you want to describe, but shouldn't.
It is also, however, common that in some bridge clubs, especially with older players used to a very different game, that overcalling at what would be considered a modern norm is considered aggressive.
It's hard to say if you're a "too aggressive" overcaller or a "correctly aggressive" overcaller, though, without seeing your play.

Many thanks  for your thoughtful and very readable response, Joe. That was most enlightening.

I would like now to request an example of an aggressive overcall, Joe. Also, most helpful would be an example of an overcall that is conservative, or should I say "disciplined . . . . . . . Thanks

I finally found a definitive answer to my question about aggressive overcalls. The auction below illustrates this.
My partner and I have an agreement that jump overcalls are weak and preemptive. So, when he (South) bid 2d after East's opening 1c, I (North) immediately understood what he was telling me: 6-10 HCP and 6 diamond pieces with 2 of the top 3 honours or 3 of the top 5.
Some people consider such overcalls to be aggressibe.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Can a player take both a madness and injury card if his investigator gets reduced to zero stamina and sanity?
The Dunwich expansion allows for drawing Madness or Injury cards in place of going insane or being rendered unconscious. Can this be used to draw both Injury and Madness when both go to zero? I believe given that this usually leads to being devoured and that there is no explicit mention of this in the Dunwich rules, the answer is no. Is there any supporting documentation otherwise?

The investigator is devoured.
The Dunwich Horror rulebook reiterates the basic rule

If an investigator is reduced to both 0 Sanity and 0
  Stamina at the same time, that investigator is devoured.

I'd also like to add, as it seems to be relevant, that I have a house rule that if you have a combination of three or more madness/injury cards, your investigator automatically retires from being too debilitated to carry on with the investigation.

@generalcrispy - The rules allow retirement at 2 madness/injury cards.  Is there a need to force retirement at 3?

Player exasperation, mostly. Had someone who was manically depressed and concussed, but wanted to trudge on.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Should the Hare nap when in the lead among remaining racers?
One of the rules of the Hare dictates that when he is in or tied for 1st, he doesn't move (naps) when 4 Hare cards are played in the card pool. Once other racers have secured a place on the podium, if the Hare is in the lead among remaining players, should he adhere to napping when 4 cards are played?
From a strict reading of the rules, we can probably agree that he doesn't nap once he's lost the chance to be first place.
From a game balance perspective, I feel like 18 Hare cards (versus the others' 17, 16, 15 and 15) doesn't quite put the occurrence of 4 Hares frequently enough to cut the edge he has moving two spaces each turn. Sure, Hare moves 2 regardless of how many of 1-4 cards, while Fox moves X cards outright, so you could roughly argue Fox averages 2.5 per card and Hare 2.0 per card, but Hare has 18 v Fox's 15 so moves much more frequently at lower cost. If just 4 of Fox's cards are wasted on wolf howls his game is over. From a game balance perspective, I would be ok with making Hare nap anytime he is 1st place among remaining racers. I don't think the likelihood of hitting the 4-card-and-in-first penalty is high and should be an ever-present threat to Hare.
From a story continuity perspective, the same drive that motivates him to nap when he's in the lead probably doesn't hold once he sees he's already lost the race, so this would argue for no napping once another character finishes.
I am interested in opinions and also further analysis on the game balance of the Hare's rules given his card count (18 in the deck). My analysis has just been loose and based on feel.

While you are right that the hare moves more frequently than the other animals, its up to the players not betting on the hare to win to make sure to not let someone just play 1 card per turn, (as this would be the most effective way to win with the hare). If you are playing with new people you will see that this is a clear tale on when someone is betting on the hare.
Usually when this happen all the players not betting on the hare(assuming there is no other player betting on it) can easily horde hare cards and only play them when there will 4 on the board, or when a howl is played.
If no one has willingly picked the hare the game has a total of 76 cards(since each player bets 5 cards out of the deck), and out of those 18 are hare.  Now each player holds 6 cards so the chances that a player has a hare card is 23% this is almost guarantees that the non betting players will have a combined total of 4 hare cards. Since they aren't betting on the hare to win then if played correctly they should be able to throw away 4 cards at least in one turn. Combined with the howling wolfs cards this means that you can at least throw away 7 cards at minimum.
If you assume all players are betting on the hare (including the guy who is dealt the hare) the card total goes from 18 to 13. The more ppl bet on the same animal the less chance that animal has to win statistically, but since more ppl are going for it, it will most likely move more often. (If everyone is going for the hare no one will play more than one hare per turn as there is no benefit).
Overall the game is very well balanced i have played this game probably over 200 times now, (this is a great game to play with anyone, and my friends and family love playing this game for how simple it is to pick up but how hard it is to master) and the outcome of the game now comes down to being able to read what each person is betting on.
Opps forgot to copy and paste the paragraph on answering the question, I interpret the rules as only when the hare is First place (or tie since technically they are tie for first place), so how can the hare be in first place if someone already won the race, and you are racing for second, and third? This is my interpretation and I have found out that this does not make the hare place second automatically. I would not make the hare sleep as I feel that it would significantly lower its chances of even placing at all.
As I pointed out earlier its fairly easy at the beginning to tell what people are betting on if they do the optimal play every turn so this game starts turning more into a meta game of how people play rather than people doing the optimal play because when you end up losing 4 cards of your animal it becomes basically impossible to win.
I would most more statistics on the game but I'm at work currently and this response has gone on longer than it should already(I will try to update it with more numbers on how things play out assuming you have 5 players because with less players the game starts to become more about getting lucky to draw the right cards at the right time).

My impression with 4-5 players is that the card pool grows so fast, it  leaves an urgency that you won't get another chance to contribute (especially with 4-5 players). It often seems that people will more likely play a card that helps their racers in favor of hindering another one (like forcing the Hare to nap).  Granted, this depends how close the Hare is to winning, too. I'm not entirely convinced it's easy for the players opposed to the Hare to work together to induce the nap.  Maybe easier with 2-3 players?

Hindering another player is not only done by not playing their cards, but also not allowing them to play cards so that they can cycle through their hand quickly. Remember that you cant play more than 8 cards in the table, as well as you can trigger a race to allow you to cycle cards by forcing a race when there is 4 of a kind for one animal (allowing you to cycle your hand quicker but not others). Also keep in mind that the hare is tied for second slowest animal when played perfectly it requires 6 rounds of movement in order to win. If you want we can have a private chat about the game.

I like the point of the Hare being capped at 2 spaces of movement being a limiting factor while 3 of the others have the potential to move 3-5 spaces. He's almost like the tortoise in that sense that he can (but also must) plod along steadily, just at a faster rate, with a requirement of at least a card, and a halting potential when leading.

Yea he is a slower turtle, I find it that the hardest person to counter to the Sheep due to the fact that the way he is balanced is by luck since where the water tiles are placed is based on the shuffling. I have found out that the only way to stop the sheep from winning when given good draw of water tiles is the howling wolf.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
What does "you may not use any investigator cards in this encounter" mean?
A science building encounter had a mi-go appear and stated I could not use investigator cards if I failed a speed check. What does this mean?

Investigator cards are explained in the Arkham Horror rulebook.
They are briefly mentioned on page 2 under Game Components and Preparation, and are covered in more detail on page 3 under Investigator Cards:

The small cards included in Arkham Horror are called
  investigator cards. They represent useful allies the investigators
  may meet and items they may acquire during the
  course of the game. There are six types of investigator
  cards

The specific cards that fall under this category (in the base game) are:

Common Items
Unique Items
Skills
Spells
Allies
Specials

Silver Twilight Membership
Bank Loans
Retainers
Blessings & Curses
Deputy of Arkham cards

Expansions also add their own additional Investigator Cards, such as Injury & Madness cards in Dunwich Horror.
This does point out a specific lack of clarification in the rules that is not covered in the FAQ as far as I can see: If Curse, Injury, Madness and other detrimental statuses are also Investigator Cards, then by definition of the Science Building encounter in question they could also not be used. This would then present the potential for the encounter with the Mi-Go to become easier for some investigators. (If you chose to play it strictly by the wording of the card as-is. Personally, I would use the implied intent of the card, which is that beneficial Investigator Cards could not be used.)


text:
Question about April

  Does a Faded Figure also count as a cube for the purpose of removing a cube?

For example the Funded Event card Remote Treatment, which allows removal of 2 cubes from anywhere on the board,

can this be used to remove Faded Figures?

No.  Only things that specifically refer to Faded affect them.  Things that interact with cubes generically cannot.
This along with many other questions is handled by the Pandemic Legacy FAQ on BoardGameGeek


text:
What are the dependencies of the Werewolf games expansions?
I want to buy the party game Werewolf, either "The Werewolves of Millers Hollow" or "Ultimate Werewolf" , but there seems to be different versions and expansions, and the dependencies are unclear for me. Which expansions needs the original game or not, or obsoletes other parts of the game?

The Werewolves of Millers Hollow

Original Game
New Moon - Requires Original Game?
Characters - Requires Original Game?
The Village - Standalone? Does it make the other games obsolete?
Special edition - Standalone? Can it be used in combination with any of the
expansions?
I know there is a big box version that contains many/all expansions. Is this the same as "The Village" or does it contain that and more?

Ultimate Werewolf

Original Game (?)
Classic Movie Monsters - Requires Original Game?
Night Terrors - Requires Original Game?
Artifacts - Requires Original Game?
Urban Legends - Requires Original Game?
Wolfpack - Requires Original Game?
Deluxe edition - This is the original game with an expansion? Does it overlap with the other expansions?

Based on http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/2989/werewolf-mafia there are about 100 games that meet your criteria.  Listing them all is not something this site is designed for.

@bwamer Yes, I see. The intention of my question is to understand the dependencies of the most mainstream/common ones. I have edited my question to concern only this.

@bwarner, He didn't ask to have them all listed. He asked specific questions about specific version of the game.

@PaulMag, Why don't you visit the pages of these games on BGG, find the majority of your answers, and come back with more specific questions.

This question is no longer Too Broad. You may not enjoy the tedious task of researching and writing up the dependencies for a set of thirteen games, but that is not a valid reason to close the question. The question as currently written is absolutely answerable in a tiny amount of space. The OP thinks that a single question with thirteen games is better than thirteen questions with a single game, and that's his prerogative.

@ikegami The website BGG answered my questions, thanks! I had seen it before, but did not realise until now that it actually lists all dependencies and reimplementations.

I found almost all the answers on boardgamegeek.com. That page is very handy for this purpose.

The Werewolves of Millers Hollow

The Werewolves of Millers Hollow - Original Game
The Village - Expansion which also contains Original Game.
New Moon - Requires Original Game (or The Village)
Characters - Requires Original Game (or The Village)
Special edition - It is standalone. Found no more info.
The Werewolves of Miller's Hollow: The Pact - Contains: Original Game + The Village + New Moon + Characters (so full game with all expansions)

Ultimate Werewolf

"Ultimate Werewolf" / "Werewolf" - Original Game
Ultimate Werewolf: Whitebox edition - Reimplements Original Game
Ultimate Werewolf: Ultimate edition - Reimplements Whitebox Edition
Ultimate Werewolf: Deluxe edition - Reimplements Ultimate Edition
Classic Movie Monsters - Requires Original Game (or one of the reimplementations)
Night Terrors - Requires Original Game (or one of the reimplementations)
Artifacts - Requires Original Game (or one of the reimplementations)
Urban Legends - Requires Original Game (or one of the reimplementations)
Wolfpack - Requires Original Game (or one of the reimplementations)
Ultimate Werewolf: Deluxe Edition For Kickstarter - Contains: Deluxe Edition +  Classic Movie Monsters + Night Terrors + Urban Legends + Wolfpack (NOT Artifacts)

I'm a frequent moderator. +1 to this.

Did you mean the Pact for the last pack for the Werewolf of Millers Hollow?

@AxelAdvento YES! After over 4 years that was finally cleared up. I have, however, played quite a bit of Ultimate Werewolf these years. :)

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Protection, damage and Leyline of Punishment
I was wondering about the following scenario:
I have a Leyline of Punishment on board.
My opponent has Auriok Champion
I cast Anger of the gods.
Will the damage from the Anger of the Gods still come through? As far as I'm aware, prevention by DEBT (Damage, Enchant/Equip, Block, Target) prohibits the damage according to rule 702.16e:

702.16e. Any damage that would be dealt by sources that have the stated quality to a permanent or player with protection is prevented.

However Leyline of Punishment says damage can't be prevented. Or does the prevention by protection has priority over Leyline of Punishment? If so, by what rule is this applied?

@doppel Protection doesn't seem like a good tag to have as a standalone tag.  Is there a reason you are adding it?

@bwarner Well, the same was done for Bestow. I don't mind really.

@bwarner so that we have a tag collecting questions on the same topic, helping people to locate other questions about the same. We do similar on [rpg.se] with tags that may differ in meaning between games, and it works fairly well. Given our mtg questions are almost entirely unclassified, it may help to at least collect questions together when they're clearly revolving around particular topics or mechanics.

The Champion will end up getting destroyed by the Anger of the Gods because of this rule.

101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can't happen, the "can't" effect takes precedence.

So you have the Champion saying damage can be prevented, and the Leyline saying it can't be prevented so it isn't prevented.

I just thought protection had priority over other effects. Don't know why... I knew the most restrictive option will always be used. Thanks!


text:
Does the mayor count as multiple knights during taxes?
We were playing Carcassonne last night using the expansions Wheel of Fortune and Abbey & Mayor.  A situation came up where a player had his mayor on a large unfinished city with several pennants and the wheel landed on taxes.

When taxes occurs, should the mayor be counted as multiple knights (as many as there are pennants), a single knight, or no knights?

Relevant rules:

In my interpretation, "when a city containing a mayor is scored (but at no other times, e.g. taxes) the mayor is counted as..." with the (but at no other times) implied would mean that the mayor has no effect during taxes and is treated as though it is not present.  However, arguably the taxes is a sort of "scoring the city" (though I see it more as scoring the knights).
In my opponents interpretation, any follower (be it the wagon, mayor, big follower, or ordinary meeple) when played in a city would be considered a knight from then on until removed from the board (or in the case of the mayor as multiple knights).
We allowed the mayor to count as a number of separate knights equal to the number of pennants (banners) in order to let play resume, which caused some very high points.  At the time, there were seven banners and only the mayor present in the city in question for a total of 7 knights x (7 banners + 7 knights) = 98 points.  The irony I suppose is that although my opponent scored massive points for the first taxes, I turned the tables on him by scoring massive number of points on the next two times taxes came up using the same ruling.  Still, 100+ points for taxes while the other wheel of fortune tiles scoring an average of 8 or so points seems absurd.

The annotated rules FAQ version 7.4 (and presumably for some versions prior) does answer this question directly and matches the conclusion that @freekvd did above.  The current and recent versions can be found at boardgamegeek.

(from page 111 of Carcassonne Standard CAR ver. 7.4)
Taxes
Every player receives points for his knights.[331]  For each knight, the player earns 1 point for each pennant in the city plus 1 point for each of his knights in the city.
[331] Any follower that is placed in a city, including the mayor or wagon, is considered to be a knight.

That particular rule is a reiteration of one that appears on page 60:

(from page 60 of Carcassonne Standard CAR ver. 7.4)
[154] Any follower, including the mayor, that is placed in a city is considered to be a knight.

And finally page 61:

(from page 61 of Carcassonne Standard CAR ver. 7.4)
The strength of the mayor is the same as the number of pennants in the city.

These rules (among others) together imply in particular that the wording of the original rules I cited in my question should instead read "The mayor has the strength of a number of followers..." as opposed to "The mayor is counted as a number of followers..." in order to avoid confusion.
When scoring taxes, since a mayor is counted as a knight (singular), in the situation described in the original question (a mayor alone in an incomplete city with seven banners), the player will score 8 points for taxes.

The mayor counts as only one follower for all purposes other than the final scoring of a city.
The answer seems to hinge on the definition of scoring, so I went and looked that up. The whole section is about scoring roads, cities and monasteries. All very specific about traditional scoring, so not very relevant to your case. Then, it ends with this:

After scoring a road, a city or a monastery – and only then – the followers used in the scoring are returned to their
  player's supply.

I don't think both of you thought to do this. It's in clear contrast with what you're supposed to do when the wheel of fortune hits taxes. If taxes would count as scoring, both players would have to remove all of their knights after taxes.
Therefore I don't think taxes count as scoring, and so the mayor does not count as a multiple of knights during taxes.
Whether or not the mayor should count as a follower at all, is hard to ascertain by the regular rules. Fortunately, this question has been asked often enough that it's included in the annotated rules FAQ (Footnote 118 on page 42):

Question: What is the status of the mayor, the barn and the wagon? Are they followers or 'special figures' like the builder and
  the pig?
Answer: Ah… that old chestnut! The mayor is a follower, subject to the usual rules of deployment and affects the majority.
  The barn is a special figure, although it can also be counted as a follower. As far as the wagon is concerned, I'm a little uncertain,
  but I'd nevertheless count it as a follower.

Thank you for the link to the CAR 4.1.  I was unaware of its existence and it helped me find the current versions of the CAR (v7.4 is a whopping 339 pages long).  It appears to be an invaluable resource, especially as the number of expansions in our collection keeps rising that will certainly come in handy next time something needs clarification.  We will very likely be printing this and putting it on the shelf next to our other large printed rulebooks.

@JMoravitz I was not aware that this was an old version. Your own answer seems to cover everything, why not select that as a winning answer instead?

I'll do that then, unable to immediately, though it was still your answer which led me to mine.  But you are correct, it would be better for future readers with the same question as me..


text:
Discard Ongoing Card for effect (Mad Mod)
I'm playing the Teen Titan's version of the DC building game which focus heavily on "Ongoing" effect cards. Now we came across an scenario that we are not too sure on.
Now he plays the "Mad Mod" card, (for those of you who are not familiar this is what the card reads)

+2 Power, You may discard an ONGOING card you control. If you do,choose a foe and ATTACK: That foe gaines a WEAKNESS

Lets say he has 4 ONGOING cards, which leads him to say that he discards all four and i get 4 weakness card. I was under the impression that you could only discard one, but he insist that since it doesn't say "Once Per turn" that he can discard multiple ones and keep activating the "attack" part. I have looked every where online but I have not found an answer to this. There are also other cards that read the same way that you may discard an "Ongoing" card and it does an effect.
Can these be activated multiple times? or just once?

From what I recall, Mad Mod is not an Ongoing card, so therefore the effect (+2 power, discard an Ongoing card for an attack) happens only once.  By his argument, you could also get 200 power.

Agreed. Unless a card explicitly states "for each" or "ONGOING", most cards are one-shots. If he plays multiple Mad Mod cards, though, then he can attack more than once and gain +2 power each time.

It reads "an ongoing card," this is singular, therefore one card. "Teen Titans go" is a card that differs and says for each, also if it wasn't multiple the cost would be like 7/8 and I know it is not.


text:
Do skill check re-rolls include dice gained from spending clue tokens?
If I have 2 rolls for my skill check, and I fail the roll, then I spend a clue token to roll, and I fail. I then spend a second clue and again fail.
If I now use the Lucky Cigarette Case  which says:

Discard Lucky Cigarette Case to re-roll any one skill check.

Do I roll the original 2 dice only, or have I increased my re-roll pool to 4 dice (by including the additional dice from spending 2 clues)?

Reroll all 4 dice.
It's important to do things in the right order though.  Using the cigarette case and then clues results in fewer total rolls.
This is clarified in the FAQ contained within the Dunwich Horror rules

Q: How does a re-roll work? Can you re-roll only the
  skill dice that you have before spending Clue tokens, or
  can you re-roll all the dice you’ve rolled on a given
  check, including the extra dice gained from spending
  Clue tokens?
A: You re-roll all the dice you’ve rolled for the skill
  check so far, so you can re-roll dice gained from spending
  Clue tokens as long as you spend your Clue tokens
  before using your re-roll.


text:
What are the differences between Rise of the Runelords and Skull and Shackles?
I am thinking of getting Rise of the Runelords or Skull and Shackles. From your experiences, which game would you consider better, and is there even any noticeable difference in between the two games? From what I have heard so far, the two games are pretty similar. Is that true, or are there differences in the two games that make one better than the other? What are the differences, if there are any, in between the two games? If I knew the differences maybe it would help me on deciding which game I would rather have. You can also give me your own opinion on the two games.

Skull and Shackles has two main changes from Rise of the Runelords.

The boat mechanic.  This mechanic is completely new to S&S, but I don't think it adds to the game overall.  The rules for it are not intuitive.  Your party will have a boat in most adventures and have opportunity to fight other boats.
General iterative rules development.  Despite what I said about the boat, S&S is a better game than RotR just due to them having another chance to write the rules and balance things.  Specific things I liked better

More skills are useful in challenges
Characters are better balanced
The rulebook is much better organized
As they went thru the RotR adventures they used certain templates on the cards. These are incorporated as basic rule terms in S&S. These leads to more clarity.

Overall, unless the pirate theme doesn't appeal to you I'd recommend skipping Rise of the Runelords and starting right in Skull and Shackles.
You didn't ask, but this advice holds even if you consider the newer release Wrath of the Righteous.  WotR is much harder and has a few more moving parts than either of the other two sets.  It's a fine second game to get, but if it is your first purchase in the Adventure game line it could lead to disappointment.