Talk:Game theory

This article badly needs the addition of a great deal of basic information on the emergence of the theory of games (the 1944 book Theory of Games and Economic Behavior by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern, etc.) philosophical game theory (Wittgenstein, etc.) and more. More information on the current uses of game theory in economics, politics, military, etc. would also be useful. Roger Lohmann 13:51, 17 April 2008 (CDT)

I suggest that it might be useful to move the material on the Prisoners Dilemma into a separate article, where it could be extended to include the results of iterated PD games. That article could then be linked to the article on social capital, and probably to other articles. The present article could then be used to explain the basic concepts of games theory such as Nash equilibrium, with brief references to (and links to other articles on) von Neumann/Morgenstern and Wittgenstein's contributions. What do you think?. Nick Gardner 00:46, 30 June 2008 (CDT)

Classification of games

While the lead paragraph suggests otherwise, I was under the impression that "games of skill" aren't encompassed by game theory because they have only one player and (therefore) no interdependence of choice. At any rate, it seems that the discussion of games of skill, chance, and strategy might be better off in a later section on the classification of games, which might also help structure the article's organization as a whole (i.e. rather than have a stand-alone section on, e.g., "zero-sum games," it might appear as part of a subsection [of the larger "Classification of games" section] dealing with the classification of games based on the summation of outcome cost/benefit distributions, including zero-sum, positive-sum, and negative-sum games, the latter two of which aren't currently covered at all). Shamira Gelbman 20:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a digression. As far as I am aware, games theory has nothing in common with games of skill. I have never heard of "cost/benefit distributions", but I find it hard to believe that they could have anything in common with games theory either. The prisoners dilemma game is relevant as one example, but the weight given to it and the omission of any reference to the more essential aspects of the theory leaves the article seriously unbalanced. What is needed is a rewrite that concentrates on essentials.Nick Gardner 13:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The mathematical subject "game theory" includes more types of games than appear in economics. The usual economical examples are called matrix games in mathematics. A top level article on game theory has to cover all types, from games like chess to games like roulette. Even games of "skill" -- like sports games -- may have a game-theoretic aspect. Probably an additional page Game theory in economics (or "economical games", or?) is needed. --Peter Schmitt 13:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not call it "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior" and cover both? Nick Gardner 14:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"Theory of Games and Economics Behavior" is certainly (also) a good title. But (at least to me) it would mean approximately the same as "Game theory in economics", covering those parts relevant for economics, and not "both".

On the other hand, if it would cover both -- what were the gain? It also would have to include those parts that (if I read you correctly) you want to exclude from the article. (On the other hand, a general article on game theory has, of course, to mention applications to economics -- and to politics, etc. -- but cannot go into details.)

--Peter Schmitt 00:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The proof of the pudding ... - Nick Gardner 08:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I misunderstand you? Did you speak about two separate pages? I thought you suggested a single common page ... --Peter Schmitt 08:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What I meant by saying that this is a digression was that instead of debating hypothetical possibilities, someone should get on with the task of replacing the present draft by something acceptable. If this involves including cost/benefit distributions (whatever they are) games of skill, or purely mathematical concepts, then so be it; and if not, then so be it. But the status quo is not acceptable. Nick Gardner 10:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)
I agree, this article needs improvement (it is "developing"). It is very incomplete, but it does not say anything wrong. It shall have to wait until someone has the energy to expand (and reorganize) it. See also this |talk page --Peter Schmitt 11:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)