Termset Shift and 'Zero-Sum'
------------------------------
summary: anything can mean anything if we define our terms right.
aim: observation about the 'argument game', its rules/movement
"Richard Irving":
#> No, that is incorrect. A zero-sum game is one where total gains and
#> losses by all participants adds up to 0.
if "participants" don't include the Bank, then Monopoly is not a zero-sum
game by this criteria, since all players' condition might (possibly)
suffer through time to a point where both, propertiless, observe one of
the put out of the game by a Pay Each Player or Pay Hospital Bill Cards.
in the Pay Each Player 50$ case there is only in the final terminating
game action a 'zero-sum' in any logical sense. all other things are owned
by the Bank. in the case of Pay Hospital Bill the losing player's assets
were swept up by the Bank, not the other player, so no 'zero-sum' applies.
whether this might be *made* into a zero-sum META-game is irrelevant.
"Josh Adelson" <adelson.05@NOSPAM.comcast.net>:
# ...the gains and losses ... when ...playing a table game that has
# no real-world monetary metric.
given the aim-oriented activity of Monopoly, the gains are property
and other items which might drive players out of the game. "Get Out Of Jail
Free" Cards would not be helpful toward this end, but might keep one from
losing valuable time where one might collect rent, Go-money, or some boon,
or even an avoidable negative (because Jail doesn't charge rent to stay).
# Monopoly is not a "money" game for most folks. You don't ante 10 bucks and
# then at the end of a six-player session have one player with 60 bucks and
# five players with grimaces.
now you're describing the META-game. that is, you've transcended the game
context and are describing conventional-world motivations for playing.
that is confusing and likely to lead to term-squabbling. Monopoly money
is *imperative* to winning the game. without the beginning $1500 and the
$200-per-GO collected, one would have no possibility of winning, and
nothing to lose. ultimately primary objects are PROPERTY and BUILDINGS,
which are acquired through the control and disposition of that money.
# But it's easy to infer from that scheme how that Monopoly is a zero-sum
# game.
not really, if the Bank isn't one of the participants/players, because it
distributes and sucks up money, properties, and houses. it starts by owning
all but $1500-per-player of the game's assets, and so if it were to be
included as some kind of "participant" rather than a game-reservoir, then
its losses and gains could be matched with that of the players in order
to qualify for whatever you two are discussing as 'zero-sum'.
# Similarly, poker in its truest form is a
# winner take all game. The "winner" is the one who leaves the table with all
# the chips committed by anybody else (I really don't want to worry about the
# house take, if any). If you don't play the game to a winner-take-all
# conclusion, it is of course possible to end with several people in the lead,
# with ties, etc. But the two properties--gains total losses AND n-1
# participants must lose in order for Mr. N to win are inextricably linked.
except in Monopoly, where the Bank might collect it up, as described above.
# Just look at your own poker example below. There are not three
# winners--there are three people in better position than when they started,
# one of whom (congrats, Bill) can clearly be labeled "the winner", even
# though he didn't take all the cash. He had n-1 people perform more poorly
# than did he, and that's all it takes for him to be called a winner.
more ambiguous terminology: "winner"; better would be to specify "victory
conditions" and allow for multiple-leaders toward that set of conditions.
more on that below.
#> To use Bruno's simple minded example: Most two player games are zero-sum
#> games--for there to be a winner, there is a corresponding loser. Chess,
#> Go, backgammon, etc. If I win, the other player has to lose.
more ambiguous terminology -- "two-player games"; many games may be played
by more than 2 players even if their ortho-version defaults to 2. Chess is
a good example here, which can be expanded to include any number of players.
will we look at PIECE # and their POSITION on the board, whether or not
they are "taken" (Chess/Checkers) "bumped to start" (Pachisi/Backgammon-bar)
or "escape/graduate" (Backgammon)? or will we look at their overall VALUE and
POWER (Chess/Checker 'advancements')? what might factor into any "zero-sum"
that might be imagined by creative non-math-heads applying the term to gaming?
only the term-definer will be able to coherently support their contentions.
#> But, not all 2-player games are zero-sum--"Dueling Pistols at 10 Paces"
#> is a non zero-sum game....
the life lost by one player is not gained by the other. so this is reasonable.
#> Most multi-player games of the types discussed here are not zero-sum.
#> There is one winner and N-1 losers.
"winner" again seems to someone to be a determinant for fun 'zero-sum'
meanings. is your contention that N's victory over N-1 is *indicative*
or *determinant* of its zero-sum character? then this superficial
significance for "zero-sum" (one winner) will serve you very meagerly.
this has been commented upon before in this thread and perpetuating
the strange terminology without acknowledging its use is futile.
# So what? Put a real-world monetary value on the right to play,
META-game. you're complicating the parameters of what is included
in the "game" by making additions and reconsidering its character.
having omitted term-definitions you'll conclude as you want to.
# pay the winner everything spent on the game, and it's a zero-sum
# game just like that.
only within the parameters that you've just created, and yes.
that's the problem with vague and ambiguous terminology -- it
it can support all kinds of mutually-contradictory meanings,
confuse communications, disrupt forums and threads, etc., etc.
#> If I win a four player game:
specifying the game has GOT to help.
#> - Do I get three wins and the other players take a loss?
in some games, not in others.
#> - Do I get 1 win and the others get fractional losses?
rarely, but possible, yes.
#> The total of wins & losses have to be 0 for it to be zero-sum.
now you've switched to talking about winning GAMES rather than
winning ASSETS and VALUE within any single game. clarify your
terms and thought processes, and you'll say something meaningful.
# This is absolutely meaningless, no offense.
without additional specificity, I agree, as I mentioned.
# Wins and losses are both, in and of themselves, worthless.
depends on the person's desired meaning for "zero-sum" -- trying
to control terminology is just as futile from the ortho-language
version as from any variant. just because you like certain words
to mean certain things, many of us are from the Humpty Dumpty
school and play with language. when we fail to identify the
significance of base-level terms in a discussion, however,
we'll likely tie our brains in knots and get nowhere. those of
us who keep it all in perspective can "see 3 or 4 moves ahead"
in the argument, just like in any Chess game. how you move from
the beginning (define terms, for example), will determine to a
great extent the nature and character of your mid-game and end-
game portions of your argument (to wear thin a board analogy).
this is where philosophy and logic come into play. the philosophy
questions the ambiguities and the logic helps ascertain what we
want to mean by our terms in order to convey our point. the fact
that there is overlapping terminology between gaming and math
fields starts the confusion-ball rolling, and the lack of clear
term-definitions from the start as expressed within the thread
by gaming enthusiasts co-opting terminology continues it ad
infinitum.
moral: define your terms, build your point atop them.
you're spinning your wheels otherwise.
# If you want to see the zero-sum nature of a
# game, make each person pay a nickel to each other player remaining in the
# game when they leave; have a winner-takes-all ante--do whatever you like,
# but find a way to attach realistic values to the wins and losses.
that just analyzes the 'zero-sum' quality of the META-game or
requires a particular dimension of application. we should also
be able to analyze the game's INTERNALS and determine whether
it qualifies for the applied meanings. it has been sufficiently
analyzed regarding Monopoly within this thread:
Monopoly's BANK introduces the problem
Poker's HOUSE introduces the problem
without a HOUSE, Poker qualifies for most people's meaning for
'zero-sum game'. playing Monopoly without a BANK has not been
described, and is non-standard (some variant-ruleset), but it
might be fun to consider. all assets could be distributed to
all players at the beginning of the game, for example, and no
BANK could be allowed. "selling property to the BANK" could
be substituted for "putting up for auction" and all monies
paid in fees or bills could be distributed amongst the rest
of the players. 'Free Parking' payments would establish one
more eddy where assets could pool up and evade players, by
this rationale foiling the 'zero-sum' quality of the game.
# Even if you decide not to do this, you can certainly balance the
# scales easily with relative victory and loss tables. Top player in
# a 4er beats 3 people, 2nd best beat 2, 3rd place beat 1.
# Loser lost 3, 3rd place lost twice, 2nd player lost once--easy to
# see that when you subtract 6 losses from 6 wins,
# you have a really abstract sort of zero.
a fun meaning for "zero-sum" and would seem to apply to all games
in which there was a single winner, including Monopoly. that this
is true is somewhat incidental as to whether or not the game of
Monopoly is ITSELF, INTERIOR IN ITS WORKINGS, such a game. that
1 player wins and 3 players lose would seem to make matters
confusing/ambiguous, as has been described, because of the
peculiarity of your terminology. it seems fairly academic.
usually people talking within this thread with coherence and logic
indicate that the aim-oriented activity of the game should be
examined and measured out to see if all that was lost by the
losers is gained by the winner(s), and in fact that whether a game
is one by 1 person, 2 people, or a team of 100 people really is of
NO importance to whether it all balances out for gains/losses THAT
ARE WITHIN THE GAME (the whole *game* win/loss thing is a META-game
consideration, and confuses the usual analysis of the game's innards).
# > Poker is a perfect example of zero-sum multiplayer game. At the end of my
# > poker night, I can be up $10, John up $25, Bill up $50, and Mike broke
# > even. But the last player, Dave, would have to be out $85. Three
# > winners, one loser, but still zero-sum.
#
# It bears repeating--not three winners.
three winners of material. the ambiguous terminology of "winner" is
again not something that you can really control here. you can define
your terms to exclude it, but the point being made isn't touched --
that those who gain (material, not win the game) can be matched
precisely with those who lose (material, not lose the game) WITHIN
the game, regardless of whether any victory conditions ("win") are
specified or achieved (something most of us aren't considering).
in fact, without specified premise of
victory condition (Poker) = take all the chips finitely
distributed at the outset
there is no such thing as "winning" and only "winningS",
presuming an extended pocketbook/loan-network of anyone playing.
you don't appear to be taking this into consideration. in fact
your "win" definition is a dogma with which most haven't agreed,
because they're considering the *interior* of the game, rather
than whether multiple-games might be played and won, what the
parameters of the evaluated game material might be, etc.
# Three successes, one most successful hence THE winner.
only where the premise is
victory condition (Poker) = take the most chips
since you don't have a consensus about this victory condition,
no "winner" can be clearly-identified by anyone but you, and
the general assessment of "winnings vs losses" within Poker
which defines the usual termset of "zero-sum game" stands
despite the intrusion of your unusual terminology.
Rookie-Move
luckymojo.com@nagasiva
===============================================================================
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Beyond Boardwalk and Park Place Leftovers
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/squaregames/files/BB%26PP/
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/squaregames/files/BB%26PP/Rules/
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Warrior Knights by Email Leftovers
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/squaregames/files/Warrior%20Knights/
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
_The Classic of Magick Squares: Research on I Ching and Magick Squares_
http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/dozen/clmgksqrs.tn
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
8 x 8 divinatory mercury boards
===============================================================================
apologies for any duplication
|
|