Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.games
Subject: Re: Zero-sum games was: Monopoly (was: Monopoly)
References: <1111241312.846907.315410@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <JamesQuick1967-BE2110.10460919032005@news.verizon.net> <1111257162.947093.98830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <+qq*5l7Jq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> <MWGvjUDdK1PCFwaq@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk> <slrnd40sdm.i3s.sbleas@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <qsK2e.9467$f%4.3024@bignews1.bellsouth.net> <pan.2005.03.31.05.33.51.52032@sympatico.ca> <6osCMqACD7SCFw2n@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk> <87zmwkmc4c.fsf@becket.becket.net> <slrnd4o5us.2sf.bruno@localhost.localdomain> <878y43w01c.fsf@becket.becket.net> <Vkj3e.32$gH1.28@fe1.columbus.rr.com> <WuidnSc5mq6ZeNDfRVn-ow@comcast.com> <tnD3e.6825$Fh4.2343@fe2.columbus.rr.com> <OIWdnb9_wLIZjtLfRVn-vw@comcast.com> <tSX3e.4696$tI6.938@fe2.columbus.rr.com> <MZydnU0Ls7sqwM3fRVn-rQ@comcast.com> <93diiiqcdr3$.fb5z1a8jymcq$.dlg@40tude.net> <krWdnbdQ6sGdeM3fRVn-sw@comcast.com>
From: Rookie-Move <yronwode.com@nagasiva>
Reply-To: spam@luckymojo.com
User-Agent: nn/6.6.0
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <_h05e.13607$m31.134175@typhoon.sonic.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 01:46:34 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.242.18
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net
X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1112838394 208.201.242.18 (Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:46:34 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:46:34 PDT
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.games:1161
50050406 viii-aa
"Richard Irving"
#> But, not all 2-player games are zero-sum--"Dueling Pistols at 10 Paces" is
#> a non zero-sum game.
the game parameters aren't specified, leaving open all manner of confusion.
#> Even though someone may lose their life, the other party ***never*** gains
#> a life. Of [course], it is possible for both players to lose without a
#> winner at all.
in Monopoly, if the Bank were considered a "participant" then all players
could lose without a winner also.
"Josh Adelson" <adelson.05@NOSPAM.comcast.net>
(btw, apologies for any previous faulty attributions):
# Victory in this "game" is defined solely as surviving to see the demise of
# your opponent.
granted that, certain things do follow.
# As you note, it's possible for both to "lose", in the sense of failing to
# achieve that goal,
unless "playing" includes taking shots at one another until someone does
wins or a "draw" is reached by the victory conditions specified. without
specifying what "playing" is and where any particular "game" begins and
ends (establishing 'victory conditions', 'draw conditions', etc.), many
confusing things might be conjectured.
# but it is impossible for both to win.
the result (both dead) would seem to be a "draw", yes.
with a new "win" definition (survival) both could win.
# This is indeed a zero-sum "game".
not in the sense that the internal material gains and losses on
the part of the players are transacted only between these players,
because of the reason specified above (the player losing the life
is not giving it up to the other player, who would gain one).
# If it makes it easier, assume that the duelists each bring 10
# bucks to the duel--
zero-sum conditions might be place outside of any non-zero-sum
game. this doesn't demonstrate that they are in fact zero-sum,
only that your terminology is unusual or confused.
# if you live, you get to go flip through the dead guy's wallet
# and grab it. If he lives too, he slaps your hand away and
# challenges you again, perhaps.
here's where the Philosophy of Games enters the picture. does
the fact that you both missed mean that that game was a "draw"
and both of you failed to attain the victory conditions during
that play of the game? or does it merely constitute one TURN
of the game, after which additional shots should be fired
*until* a clear "winner" or a "draw" is established?
too many undefined aspects of the game don't help us any.
# If he kills you, and survives, he comes to get your 10 bucks....
so one guy is out a life and $10, and the other has gained
$10, and therefore the $10 added nothing conclusive about
whether it was a zero-sum game because the life didn't
"change hands" in a net-0 result within the game itself.
# You see where this is going.
into a confused muddle due to lack of specifity?
Rookie-Move
luckymojo.com@nagasiva
|
|