If someone loses in chess its because they've made a mistake, no question about it. This doesn't disprove game theory; two game theory optimal actors would just be drawing against each other in the long run. — BitconnectCarlos
Analogously, think about chess for a moment. Given that chess is the oldest game in human history, and given that it is deterministic, then through enough iterations it can be demonstrated that both players, given a sufficiently long backlog of past historical games, are going to face situations where winning becomes... impossible.
What is left to entertain is simply a mistake committed by either player to ensure victory. Since both players, given enough iterations, become hyper-rational, then winning becomes impossible, and the game looses its "fun-factor".
I believe the analogy can be demonstrated for ANY deterministic game, and thus, game theory has been refuted for any deterministic game. — Shawn
Given a sufficiently long enough interval to analyze all the potential iterations of a game, then a human being would become no different than a hyper-rational computer.
True or false? — Shawn
In any sufficiently complex game, given enough iterations, it can be demonstrated that both players become hyper-rational, and thus a winning strategy cannot be entertained. — Shawn
Analogously, think about chess for a moment. Given that chess is the oldest game in human history, and given that it is deterministic, then through enough iterations it can be demonstrated that both players, given a sufficiently long backlog of past historical games, are going to face situations where winning becomes... impossible. — Shawn
Oh, like chess? Have you played chess against a computer?
Why don't you test it out. Set a chess engine like Rybka, against Shredder, or Rybka vs Rybka, and see what happens? — Shawn
In any sufficiently complex game, given enough iterations, it can be demonstrated that both players become hyper-rational, and thus a winning strategy cannot be entertained. — Shawn
Winning strategies is something that can only exist for participants of a deterministic game where mistakes can be made. Once you have a super-rational player that is immune from making mistakes via forward and backward induction, along with no asymmetrical information problems, then winning becomes next to impossible.
Agree? — Shawn
Doesn't count. Otherwise it wouldn't be much of a game if one had to memorize a certain causal chain in a deterministic tree to ensure victory at all times.
Does that make sense? — Shawn
A game theoretic scenario entails that both players have an equal chance at winning... — Shawn
Well, it is wrong, if it is implying that no deterministic game of perfect information can have a winning strategy for one of the players — Nagase
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.