Talk:Game theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Game theory is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 13, 2006.

	Article milestones

Date

Process

Result

November 13, 2005

Peer review

Reviewed

December 4, 2005

Featured article candidate

Promoted

March 18, 2008

Featured article review

Demoted

Current Status: Former featured article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Game theory (Rated B-Class)
	This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in \| Fix a red link \| Add content \| Weigh in

B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of top-importance within game theory.

WikiProject Business and Economics (Rated B-Class)
	This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
B	rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Top	rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale

WikiProject Mathematics (Rated B-Class)

Mathematics Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics.

Mathematics rating

B Class

High Priority

Field: Applied mathematics

A vital article.

One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.

Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate.
Please add to or update the comments to suggest improvements to the article.
Dated: Tompw 14:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics (Rated B-Class)
	This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
B	rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as high-importance on the importance scale

WikiProject Poker
	This article is part of WikiProject Poker, an attempt at building a useful poker resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page.

WikiProject Systems
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles about the idea of systems. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within Systems.
Help with this template Comments: theory/Comments\|action=edit}} edit – theory/Comments\|action=history}} history – theory/Comments\|action=watch}} watch – theory\|action=purge}} refresh Dated: Tompw 14:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This article has an assessment summary page.

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Additional information:
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
	This article is a vital article.
	The following comments have been left for this page: Dated: Tompw 14:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC) (edit)

Archives
/Archive1

[edit] Hawk-dove = chicken?

"Finally, biologists have used the hawk-dove game (also known as chicken) to analyze fighting behavior and territoriality." Is it correct that "chicken" is used as a term for "hawk-dove"-games? I always thought, there is a difference! Rieger 13:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Chicken and Hawk-Dove are both symmetrical discoordination games (as long as the standard V<C assumption is made for the Hawk-Dove game). The payoff matrices are essentially the same. In the matrix below, A is either Hawk or Don't Swerve, and B is Dove or Swerve, then they payoffs have the ranking Tempation>Coordination>Neutral>Punishment and the games will have the same reaction correspondences (see Best response#Discoordination games) or appendices in J theor Biol (2006) 241:639-648 :) )

Discoordination game payoff matrix
	A	B
A	Punishment, Punishment	Temptation, Neutral
B	Neutral, Temptation	Coordination, Coordination

Pete.Hurd 14:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An error in "imperfect information games"?

It says: "Most games studied in game theory are perfect information games, although there are some interesting examples of imperfect information games, including the ultimatum game and centipede game."

But when looking at these examples (the ultimatum game and the centipede game) closer they both seem to be perfect information games. For example, in the ultimatum game, when making the decision, the second player knows the move of the first player, and thus this game is a perfect information game. The same holds for the centipede game.

The example picture of an imperfect information game is correct though.

Thank you for point that out. It was originally correct, but was apparently changed at some point. I have changed it back. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who copied whom?

Ok, so I was searching around for information on game theory. I found this, and it sounded very familiar. I don't know if everyone already knows about this, and I'm just behind the loop, or what, but I'll just leave this here and you guys can take action if you need to.

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/g/ga/game_theory.html

Similar doesn't even begin to describe it. Vancar 20:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So I checked out some other things at Brainyencyclopedia.com. I don't know why, but all of their articles are just like Wikipedia's. I'm guessing that it's supposed to be this way, now that I've seen several articles, but I don't know why it would be the same... Anyone want to fill me in? Vancar 20:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

From that link "The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL". It is a wikipedia mirror. Martin 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum game theory

Unless I'm looking the wrong place, the quantum game theory page is a bit bare (to say the least) but in any case, does anyone agree that it would be interesting if added here? QGT is one of the more interesting and accessible topics in quantum theory.- 26/10/06 Paul

[edit] List of games in game theory on WP:FLC

List of games in game theory is a current Featured List candidate. Both the article and current nomination would benefit from additional feedback by Math and Game-theory enthusiasts. If any of you have the time, please have a look at the list and leave your comments at the nomination page. Thank you! -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 19:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green 2002

I removed this edit. I looked at Green's paper and it said the opposite of what the edit said, namely, the findings suggest that game theorists are better than novices, but not as good as role playing. Since this article is about game theory generally, and not role playing, I think its inappropriate for this article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green 2005

The previous contributor clearly didn't look at the commentaries on Green 2002 or at Green 2005 which extends the work. So that others don't make the same mistake, I've rewritten the paragraph with more detail. I hope this clarifies the relevance of the findings to game theory.

Kesten Green

Thank you for your interest in the game theory. As I mentioned above, I read the article cited in the addition (Green 2002), which says that game theorists were better than novices (contra the addition which said that game theorists were not better than novices). I have a few concerns with the most recent edit. Since this is a general article on game theory, I think its inappropriate that this one article (or two articles) are displayed so prominently. By comparison, almost as many words are written about Green 2005 as game theory in biology. Obviously, this makes the green study appear more influential than it has been. Second, there is no citation for the claim that people have tried to refute the conclusions but failed. Who has? Where are these results published? Although you may personally be aware of them, I'm afraid that wikipedia requires that such claims be verifiable by others. Finally, I cannot really judge the importance of this paper. I have no doubt that its an interesting study, but given its recency and lack of citations I'm not sure that it should be included. Can you provide any external evidence that this paper has had wide influence in the game theory community? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Since no discussion has been forthcoming, I have removed the paragraph. Please do not restore it without attempting to reach a consensus here. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chess?

Chess is listed as a zero sum game, but strictly speaking it is not. In case of a draw, each player receives 1/2 a point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.147.58.6 (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

The points always add to one, so it's a "fixed sum game", or Constant sum game, which is synonymous with zero sum for all practical, non-trivial nit picking, purposes. Pete.Hurd 15:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's say that you'd never heard the term before and wanted to know what a ZSG was. The example of poker might be helpful, but chess and go might confuse. The article still includes:

Other zero sum games include matching pennies and most classical board games including Go and chess.

The more you play chess the more points both sides will get (on average). To a lay-reader, that's the exact opposite of the first example given, poker.

Also, why the the inconsistent game capitalization in the quote above?

--Wragge 18:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Formal tournament chess might be a ZSG, but casual chess is definitely not. There are definitely situations where a draw occurs, but one player gets props for managing to pull off a draw in an impossible-looking situation, or even for good play in a loss. Can game theory take these intangibles into account? Applejuicefool (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cooperative vs. NonCooperative games

This article still needs at leads a distinction between cooperative games and noncooperatives ones. Am I missing an article on cooperative games? I know there's ones on the Core and Shapley value but nothing general.radek 05:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you looking for cooperative game? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!radek 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph on this. I would like to join Radek in saying that cooperative game theory is pretty much ignored on this page, for instance standard coalitional game forms are missing, but I feel adding them would require some reorganisation.Koczy 14:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] spelling

OK, so I reverted a US "modeling" back to "modelling" because that seemed to be the rule in this article, but other words seem to be in US english... I really don't care that much, but is there a precedent for one or the other in this article? I suppose I'll go dredge through the history and see... Pete.Hurd 20:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The oldest version I have access to (as edited by Zundark at 17:02, 31 October 2001 [1]) has only one word that I can find to judge spelling convention by, and that's "analyse". So, I think the WP rule is to standardise the article on UK spelling. Pete.Hurd 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The simplest rule I have been able to find in wikipedia about spelling variants in English: a) if the article is about a subject on, e.g., the U.K., use UK spelling; b) if not, try to use whatever has been used in the article so far; c) if there is any doubt, leave the spelling alone (between English variants) - don't "fix" acceptable forms. The only clear exception to the last point is where the same word is spelled differently in the same article. There are lots of reasons the "precedent" in the article may not be clear - there are lots of inconsistencies between UK, NZ, AUS, SAfr, Cdn and US variants, and very few people know them all. Cdn spelling has, for example, no hard and fast rule on 'ise/ize' endings, but is very clear on how things are coloured - with a 'u'.--Gregalton 21:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English says that articles should use the same spelling throughout. I make an implicit WP:IAR exception for cases where a particular section of an article is specific to one culture -- for example "U.S. check" in the cheque article, the appropriate change in the "American usage" section of The Honourable -- but for a case like game theory I think we should stick to one dialect per article. --Trovatore 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My understanding was, absent any obvious link between the subject matter and spelling variety (as is the case here) to go with the earliest usage in the article. That's what I've attempted to do with the most recent change. Pete.Hurd 01:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's my understanding too. --Trovatore 01:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

When I rewrote the article I probably used US English (since, when I can spell, I spell in US). I think Pete's right about the policy, but to be honest I didn't cheque before writing. I probably should have, but being from the US I have a hard time imagining that there are people in the world who don't live in the US. :) If someone who knows non-US spellings want to make the article consistently anything, I certainly won't object. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I've had a day of seeing multiple spelling "fixes" that were not fixes, and ahem, over-reacted. I am aware of the policy above, but I think 90% of the spelling fixes like this are from people not aware there is a policy at all, or perhaps what spelling variants exist. Hence, "leave it alone unless certain" would be more clear advice. At any rate, I'll cheque my rant at the door next time.--Gregalton 05:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless you guys are joking, you should know that "cheque" is never used to replace the word "check" except for when it pertains to a note given to banks. Otherwise check in American English and British English are the same. 128.227.51.100 20:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick everyone! look serious! Ummm... errrr... cover sheets on the TPS reports?! really? Pete.Hurd 21:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I removed a section labeled "criticism of game theory" and returned the material to its original place. Labeling it "criticism of game theory" seems inappropriate, as the criticisms do not apply to the use of game theory in biology (biologist do not presume that animals are rationally self-interested in the sense criticized). Rather this is a criticism of game theory as used primarily in economics. As a result, I think its more appropriate there. The bit added about John Nash is merely an bad ad hominem. I say bad, because those assumptions were used in game theory long before Nash. So even if Nash's mental state was relevant, it doesn't explain the assumption. Besides, on matters like this, the BBC is not a reputable source. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Having a "criticism of game theory" section would be like having a "criticism of differential calculus" section. However it is possible to criticize the various ways that game theory has been applied or used. Perhaps there should be an article or section on Applied Game Theory or Uses of Game Theory?radek 21:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We already have some criticism of game theory in the "uses of game theory/economics" section. More could certainly be added there. But adding much criticism to this section as it is would mean that there might be an unbalanced amount of criticism of game theory in economics. In any case, Nash's mental state doesn't really belong in this article.

I have a related comment/question. I think that section could use a little bit more material, both positive and critical discussion. Does anybody agree that the "in economics" section could use some lengthening, or do people think that most lengthening should be done in subarticles, to which this article may link?

The later would entail consigning, for instance, Franklin Fisher's general criticisms of game theory in the article I linked to at folk theorem and to oligopoly (which is the particular application of game theory that Fisher is most interested in). The former would mean bringing his and others' general points to this article, which could be done only if they were adequately balanced with answers (in this case, Carl Shapiro argues that Fisher's point is a straw man)

In case you are wondering, the articles I'm thinking of are: Fisher, Franklin M. Games Economists Play: A Noncooperative View, and Shapiro, Carl. The Theory of Business Strategy, both in The RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 20, No. 1. (Spring, 1989). Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sm - I think this is a nice idea, but probably better for daughter articles. I had hoped that we could write articles like game theory in philosophy, game theory in biology, game theory in economics and business, etc. I have intended for sometime to write the first, but you know how it goes.... --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

hello, thank you for the response. I wasn't sure how the section would play out. I know this page has had alot of work done on it. That being said, the idea that game theory is uncriticisable is very wrong. Settling this debate only means finding more sources, which i will do. Kzollman's idea that "the BBC is not a reputable source" is contrary to wikipedia's guidelines. Adding a new section does not reduce the value of the article. I concede that calling nash a psychopath is ad hominum. There is much to be criticised about game theory and this section can be valid if done well. I will do more work, but it will not be able to get better unless the section can survive on the page for more than 4 hours. For those unfamilliar with the criticisms of ame theory, please take my word that they are widespread, and the page will be more comprehensive if they are mentioned formally.Spencerk 18:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being bold. Generally with established articles (and especially featured articles), large discussions are brought to talk first. Even though your addition was reverted, hopefully we can come to a consensus on including the right amount of criticism in the article. One more note, BBC isn't a reliable source on game theory per WP:RS, BBC reporting on game theory fails more than one of the criteria in the section about non-scholarly sources. Its a case where a source has a different degree of reliability in different contexts, and we have many more reliable sources (published journal articles, books by reputable authors, etc) for discussing GT. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

i tried it in a section called Family, society, and personal relationships. it is incomplete and not properly referenced, but perhaps others can see value in it, that game theory fails to be appropriate in some contexts. If not, i will stop, being bold a third time is just annoying. thanks for discussion, Spencerk 20:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much of the problem with the material per se (except that it essentially duplicates some things said in the 'Descriptive' section) but I'm not sure that you put it in the right place. My feelings on the broader question are this: If the players are altruistic that's not a problem for game theory. It just means they're playing a different game. If the players are not completely rational, that's not a problem for game theory in many cases. Whatever cognitive or other constrains they face should be incorporated into the structure of the game and voila. I think it's important to distinguish between Game Theory as a tool of analysis, a methadology, and its applications. You can criticize the latter but criticizing the former is like criticizing calculus. But I also think that mentioning that there are many instances where people appear not to play Nash is important. Second, I think that the fact that the predictions of a game can be very sensitive to choice of parameters or structure of the game should also be mentioned. Third "criticism" would be the Folk Theorem - what good is a theory in which anything can happen? Of course all of these should be put in a proper context. radek 20:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

hi radek, i think your idea is common amung game theorists, atleast the game theory teacher at my school also feels this way too i think. -"if the player cares about alruism or ethics or something, throw it in the payoffs". - this is psychological egoism. Take the soldier that jumps on the granade to save his soldiers for example. Its possible to explain his actions in somesort of payoff way, like honour or legacy or afterlife, but thats crazy! right!? atleast, this 'tool of analysis' recieves huge criticism in philosophy class. interesting, yes. usefull, yes. accurate, ...is self interest the best way of understanding the soldier jumping on the bomb? no way. soldier jumping on bomb is just one example, friendship eg applies also. i dont know what the folk theorem is. Spencerk 02:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this new section. Game theory is used widely in many different disciplines in many different ways. For example, game theory as used by biologists presume that the payoffs represent fitness, and that animals simply play a strategy which is (in some sense) biologically determined. Learning models used in evolutionary game theory are similar. The criticism offered in this section are not sufficiently general to apply to all of game theory, but only its use in one field (hence its location in economics). It is controversial whether individuals cooperate in the prisoner's dilemma, but the other examples of non-nash play are already mentioned. The fact that it has been removed from the article does not prevent it from eventually being included there. We can put a draft of such a section here if you like and hammer it out. But I don't think the section is ready for the live version of the article yet. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the current entry on game theory is biased. As already noted, there are articles and a documentary posing views against the applications of game theory to social sciences. To withdraw any mention of these sources from this article for such a prolonged time is unacceptable. A layperson reading this article will get the impression that there is no ongoing debate over this issue. 21:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me stress the point again. This article is strongly biased in favor of game theory. A layperson reading it will leave with a rosy impression of it. I tried to put a single phrase on the article saying that the applications of game theory are not without criticism. This was, of course, a mild statement. Even this trivial modification was deleted from the article. It is unacceptable that pop culture movies such as A Beautiful Mind gets mentioned here while the documentary The Trap from the BBC over this topic is not even listed on the references. It is impressive that ALL scholary articles listed are in favor of game theory; why not to mention the research of Philip Mirowski on this topic? It seems that there is no option besides puting a dispute on this article. 21:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's be clear. Game theory is a mathematical theory. One can no more criticize game theory than one can criticize algebra. One can, however, criticize applications of game theory. So, the place for criticism is the application section. Notice, most of the commonly cited criticisms of game theory criticize the high-rationality approach to game theory as used in economics and political science. Those criticisms do not apply to the use of evolutionary game theory in economics, game theory in biology, game theory in computer science, or game theory in philosophy. If you know of criticisms to those applications of game theory, I recommend you add them. With respect to criticisms of high rationality game theory, I think there is substantial discussion of those criticisms. A few quotes:

"This particular view of game theory has come under recent criticism. First, it is criticized because the assumptions made by game theorists are often violated."
"However, additional criticism of this use of game theory has been levied because some experiments have demonstrated that individuals do not play equilibrium strategies."
"However, this use for game theory has also come under criticism. First, in some cases it is appropriate to play a non-equilibrium strategy if one expects others to play non-equilibrium strategies as well."
"Second, the Prisoner's Dilemma presents another potential counterexample."
"Some assumptions used in some parts of game theory have been challenged in philosophy; psychological egoism states that rationality reduces to self-interest - a claim debated among philosopher"

If there are particular criticisms you would like to see added to particular applications of game theory, we can discuss them here. I don't know Mirowski's work, but it looks to me like it may be described by one of the quotes I mentioned. I welcome you adding him as a cite to those claims if it applies. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laffer curve (Trialsanderrors)

The Laffer curve has no citations, but can someone (Trials?) verify that this really is a game theoretic analysis? It seems to me to be merely a weighted average driven effect from the new paragraph. 14:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The Laffer curve idea is not really based on game theory as it lacks a strategic component. It's just plain ol' individual-level incentives (to the extent it holds). The sentence should be removed.radek (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "interact"/"compete"

Hi Knowsetfree, re: [2] I think "interact" is better than "compete". You are right that "interact" doesn't capture the strongly competitive nature of things like the Hawk-dove game, (or zero sum games) on the one hand, but there are plenty of games, like coordination games, where the players have very strongly convergent interests. I think "compete" might also be taken to imply that players are trying to obtain higher payoff than their "opponents", rather than maximizing their returns, regardless of the other player's payoffs. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 18:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pete, all good points, and prisoners dilemma is another game where coordination is an option. Of course, coordination is a choice, at times resulting in an optimal strategy but that is dependent upon the other players. At the risk of broad generalization, I would hazard to say that most real world games have a "zero sum" component, in other words one agent trying to gain from another. Anyway, I can see how "Interact" is better in order to define the generalized meaning. Perhaps my impression of the importance and relevance of game theory to analyze competition / adversarial interaction would be best served by a sentence or two. When I get time, I should reread the article and see if it isn't already in there somewhere. -- Knowsetfree 05:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Computer science

This is as much a note to myself as anyone else. Joe Halpern has a nice encyclopedia article on the use of game theory in computer science [3]. If someone wants to expand this section this might be a nice start. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too ambitious?

Since I knew of the existence of game theory, I wandered if it could be the instrument by means of which people could make better choices in every situation of their life. As far as I know, game theory is (or is supposed to be) widely used in economics. May also be in military operations. But what about everyday life? I must confess that the idea of writing this came to me after experiencing Second Life. The present computing capability could possibly allow to collect all the possible data about a problem or a choice an individual is not able to deal with alone. I think to have sufficiently outlined my idea. What do you think about it?paolo de magistris 15:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if this has relevance to this page, but you could use GT to everyday conflict situaitons. Is it worth it? I am not sure. Building a model is often costly and time consuming. Most of the time you rely on your intuition. But when I bought a flat I tried to use GT in the negotiation.Koczy 14:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change entry (heading) to non-cooperative game theory, or add section on cooperative games

The article as it stands now is misleading as it does not involve a distinction between cooperative and non-cooperative games. The bulk (perhaps all) of the examples are based on non-cooperative games -- which is okay, as long as it is explained so. EnumaElish 01:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Some of the stuff should go to Non-cooperative games.Koczy 14:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hollywood

I removed a section about game theory in hollywood plots. As this didn't seem to relate to game theory, but just conflict of interest I don't think it's appropriate here. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I would like to see this content, including the TV show Numbers (Numb3rs), perhaps in it's own article? Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.52.225 (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Gaming the system" removed from lead

The following was removed from the Lead at the end:

Applying game theory to procedures and organisation in real life is often called gaming the system. This has a negative connotation and usually implies disingenuous behaviour.

Reasons: There is no citation for it; it is misleading. It is misleading, because 'larcenous' would be a better term than "disingenuous" at least by William Safire's account of the term.[4] It is also misleading, because there is no necessity that one who acts like an accomplished player (say, Mother Teresa efficiently trying make the world a better place or the Allies after careful analysis picking the Normandy landing to shorten the war) is "gaming the system."

A better explication of 'gaming the system' would be exploiting weaknesses of the system in a way regarded as larcenous in effect. That may suggest that the system needs fixing or the character of the gamer is nefarious. But there is no necessity that a good player is larcenous or nefarious.

It is possible that someone can establish the genealogy of 'gaming the system' as relating to game theory rather than say gambling (as in 'gaming the house'). Even so, is that worth mentioning it in this article, considering how misleading the connection might be? --Thomasmeeks 10:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC) (sp. fix Thomasmeeks 18:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Degenerate and nondegenerate games

The article is missing definition and discussion of degenerate and nondegenerate games. -- Vinsci 19:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, I think the best thing to do would be to write a seperate article on that topic first, then import the take-home into this article. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 05:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typos in PD Game?

Is there a typo in the PD game matrix? The asymmetric payoffs should be reversed. Referring to the original text by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher in 1950, mentioned on Prisoner's_Dilemma, (C,D)=(-10,0) and (D,C)=(0,-10).

It seems strange that if Player 1 plays Cooperate (stays silent) and Player 2 plays Defect (betrays), then it is Player 2 who gets the full 10-years while Player 1 goes free! 139.124.177.127 15:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

you are simply absolutely right! --Fioravante Patrone en 19:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conway

I'd like to address Conway's Surreals, particularly Surreals developed from a game, for the (to me) unusual situation of theoretical mathematics coming out of a game-theoretic analysis of an actual game (Go); as in my experience, game theorists don't play games :-) In particular I'd like a subsection along the lines of "Theoretical Mathematics" under the section Applications. Here is an example of Applied Mathematics contributing to Theoretical Mathematics, instead of vice-versa-- not that that surprises practioners. Unfortunately I don't think I'd be well-qualified to write it. I don't even believe in Octonions :-) Pete St.John (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's my impression that game theorists don't really consider that to be game theory. It's more combinatorial game theory, which is a separate subject. Another conceptually-related topic that game theorists don't really consider to be game theory is determinacy, which studies infinite-length games of perfect information (the games of combinatorial game theory are finite length, though they may have infinite move sets). --Trovatore (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, though I'd be saddened by a rift between Applied Game Theorists and Theoretical Game Theorists, if there were such a thing. But I'll go read about combinatorial &c, thanks. Pete St.John (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's theoretical-v-applied, but rather perfect-v-imperfect information. Perfect information games are not usually thought of as being within the scope of game theory, or at least not in an interesting way. At least I don't think they are -- I'm not a game theorist myself. --Trovatore (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Election systems are perfect-information, and I had always thought of that as Game Theory. But my Surreal Number friend tells me that yeah, you're basically right. I have more to understand, evidently; postponing my plan for omniscience by yet another day :-) Pete St.John (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't really buy that election systems are perfect information, but I suppose I could buy the idea that they could be of interest to game theorists even if they were perfect information. But that's because they're massively multi-player. I was thinking in terms of two-player games. So for example chess is not particularly interesting to classical game theory, because in theory the best strategy is trivial--just exhaustively search the tree of moves. You can't actually do that, of course, but that's not the kind of issue that classical game theory studies. But as I say I'm not a game theorist, so my remarks on what they find interesting should be taken with a grain of salt. --Trovatore (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Example of election as coordination game: Strategic voting. Knowing that my 3rd least favorite party is likely to win the election, I have to choose between voting for my preferred party, or the other non-favored party. If the supporters of the 2nd & 3rd most popular parties had perfect information they could unseat the most popular, but alas... Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me the term "strategic voting" is used rather loosely in Canada. When I was at York, for some reason unclear to me, most faculty had NDP sympathies, but would discuss whether they should vote "strategically" for the Liberals in order to prevent a Harper government. But that's not strategic voting; that's just voting for someone who can win.

Strategic voting would be, if I'm a McCain sympathizer (this is a hypothetical), and I judge it will be easier for him to beat Clinton than Obama, so I register as a Democrat and vote for Clinton. --Trovatore (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(willingly straying OT) I'm not super-clear on the definition you are using that makes your example different from the one I'm used to, which is pretty much "tactical voting (or strategic voting or sophisticated voting) occurs when a voter supports a candidate other than his or her sincere preference in order to prevent an undesirable outcome." (I'd feel much better if the article that definition cames from had sources). Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that the NDP faculty would be voting Liberal intending to put the Liberals in power. It's their second choice, but still their intent is aligned with their votes. In my example I would be voting for Clinton with the intent of electing McCain. --Trovatore (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

aha* ok, got it. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to think of a case where strategic voting, as I understand it, would make sense in the Canadian system. Here's one: Suppose there's an election where the Liberals and NDP are expected to be in a close race for first, with the Conservatives coming up a strong third. You're an NDP voter in a riding without a viable NDP candidate. So you vote for the Conservative, hoping that when the dust settles the NDP will be the strongest minority and will form a minority government.

This works because of the Canadian tradition of preferring minority governments to coalitions. I don't really know where that comes from (Harper still seems to be going strong even though the NDP could kick him out any time they chose). I'd be interested to hear a game-theoretic analysis of that. --Trovatore (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Computational Complexity

There is not much about algorithmic game theory on wikipedia (aka information on how to actually compute equilibria). Why is this relevant? Assuming that two players behave rational during a game, requires that they are actually able to calculate their best moves in reasonable time. Complexity-theory tells us, that this seems impossible for games with many strategies:

e.g., computing Nash equilibria is -propably- not solvable in polynomial-time, since provably there exists an FPTAS only if "P"="NP". There's a nice paper of Papadimitriou on this subject.

It would be nice to have a page giving an overview over current solution-techniques, their drawbacks/advantages and computational complexity. Willing to cooperate on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardybosse (talk • contribs) 12:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] disambig/delete...

...the following links:
elements
motives
Randomblue (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See also before Footnotes

Would anyone object to putting these in the usual order, See also before Footnotes? There's only one See also link, so no one is going to get lost, but for reasons that are currently being argued on WT:Layout, we're interested in knowing if anyone would object to a bot that alerts humans whenever end sections are in the standard order. (And of course, anyone is welcome to chime in on the discussion.) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External link removed

I just removed a link to a "concise" intro to GT. Unfortunately, in the very first page there are already two non-negligeable mistakes: "... Nash equilibrium condition and 'subgame perfection'. Before we can define either of these criteria, we need to define the concept of ‘dominant strategy’" and "If there is only one rationalisable strategy, it is the dominant strategy". --Fioravante Patrone en (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of those less familiar with game theory, perhaps you could kindly explain what you consider to be the mistakes in the two statements you cite. Thank you.Ranger2006 (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, having seen your contributions, I feel that you are the author of those notes, or at least that the author belongs to the group for which you have been advertising so much on wiki. Moreover, sorry: you added that link. So, if you think that the link is relevant, please make the effort to convince readers here that it is free of relevant mistakes. I have done already my job. --Fioravante Patrone en (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.