I haven’t found the need to over-track other players. You just get a sense of have they bought a place of power, how many actions are they taking, and that provides the pressure you need to make the game exciting. In between rounds you check how many points everyone has, that’s the only time you really have to look closely - and you don’t do that until round 4 or 5 anyway.
I don’t have a compelling reason to definitely play it at more than 2, but I’d recommend not worrying about it either 
Two (or one) is definitely my favourite.
Except - that lovely round island you get with three players is just so satisfying. Perhaps two players running three spirits is what I want!
Yeah - if it had been higher on my list it would have been subject to more scrutiny. Spoiler, a future week will have co-op/campaign/scenario type games so this probably properly belongs there.
My husband and I have done it two-player three-spirit. We do it as his, mine, and ours and typically figure out what we can each do with our own then work together to use the joint one to fill in gaps, making any changes to our individual plans as needed. It’s fun.
That does sound really good - we’ll have to give it a go!
Playing catch-up with a few topics tonight: forgive me.
It turns out that I have more “duelling” games than expect, given that I almost exclusively only play solo and most of these have a solitaire/bot mode or fan-made solo variant. Currently, I’d consider the following as strictly/predominantly “duel” games:
I also have a Kalah/Oware set for more abstract play which I have at least played both against a human opponent, albeit about 20 years ago. The only others among those that I’ve played against someone else are Star Realms and Statis Pro Football (possibly the most played board game of my teens). I can see myself keeping most of them and getting to play them sometime in the future, although Caverna might be first to go as I prefer other Uwes.
I don’t appear to have contributed usefully to this one.
Ashes is my “big” duelling game though I haven’t played much lately. I have a bunch of new-print Netrunner stuff and I’d really like to try that some time but these are both already games that I’m not giving the time they deserve.
I know people who like Imperium: [foo] best at 2p for the speed, and I can sort of see it, but I prefer the 3- and 4-player games for the feel.
At a board game meetup t feels weird to propose a 2-player game so I don’t tend to play those much. But I have had fin with Onitama.
I’ve found myself more attracted to non duel versions of games. They always seem to fuss up games which have elegance. There’s obviously something lost in games where there’s a three way fight compared to a two but I think a looseness in games like s sometimes overlooked as a positive quality.
board game polygamy
unless Cathala made the 2 player mode 
I am generally not much for 2 player only games but both 7 Wonders Duel and Splendor Duel are really my favorite over the original. I may or may not have previously stated this on this thread.
Thinking of whom, Sea Salt & Paper is great at two.
No, I definitely agree that duel modes add fidget and sprawl - even Cathala. Look at Splendor Duel - it has so many more mechanisms than it’s daddy. And Isle of Skye requires the Druids expansion to function at 2.
I think this is because 2 player is inherently punchy. De-escalating a two player experience requires some buffer obstacles put between the two players, or some side arenas. Splendor Duel does that well, creating some constraints on jewel drafting and arenas for indirect conflict that keep it from spiraling into a zero-sum grudge match.
It’s a rare game that can maintain its elegance without losing its heart, at 2. All honor be to Samurai
There’s always a tug of war.
There are plenty of reasons including the one you describe there, that make me avoid 2 player only games. I prefer “games that play well at two but aren’t exclusively for two” for that player count with rare exceptions made.
More generally, I start from the idea that piling on the loser in a multi-player game isn’t an enjoyable thing for them, and I don’t want to encourage games that do it. (Piling on the incipient winner is a better social dynamic, for me.) In a two-player game if you’re in the lead you have to exploit that victory to win, but I look for games that don’t feel like kicking the other player when they’re down.