Game Theory and Society

A game is simply a structured form of playing, often undertaken for fun or entertainment, and at times used as a teaching tool. Games are very different from work, which tend to be carried out only for recreation, and from literature, which have been traditionally a more purely expressive medium. In work, one works for pleasure, whereas in literature, one works for understanding and expressing ideas. Both games and literature require analysis, interpretation and meaning-empowerment. But the process of learning goes hand-in-hand with the analysis, interpretation and meaning-empowerment.


So, what is it about chess that makes it one of the most popular games? Well, its one of the main reasons for its popularity, probably because its one of the simplest ones. It’s a game of pure logic, a game of abstract knowledge, a game of pure ability. And, as its one of the main article authors would argue, it is also one of the most educational games.

To understand this last claim, we need to consider what the game really is. Chess is, fundamentally, a game of skill. The object of a game of chess is to achieve a set goal by means of the best possible use of available resources, either through the preparation or execution of a strategy. If a player loses, they lose because their strategy, or their ‘game plan’, was flawed. They did not take into consideration any possible tactical mistakes or underestimated the possibility of one of their opponents making a tactical error.

The same is true of most other games of strategy, including, for example, checkers, (a game of skill with a lot of skill involved), or backgammon, (a game of calculation and probability). Thus, while many people play for enjoyment, chess is largely played for the purpose of winning. The main difference between the game of chess and, for example, checkers or backgammon, is that in the latter case, all the players are working towards a predetermined goal, while in the former, the goal is almost necessarily hidden from sight. However, in a game like chess, it is almost always the intent to win that dominates the strategy.

A further distinction between the game of chess and its more traditional ancestors, such as, for example, backgammon, is that whereas the backgammon board is marked not only by its pieces (which are represented on a game board by hexagons) but by various other factors, such as the arrangement of the main pieces, the nature of the game boards (whether squares with equal spaces or not), and so on, chess sets are usually made from wood. Furthermore, the main article author suggests, in relation to the first two examples, that “the nature of the game” is not necessarily related to “the nature of the set”. It could be argued, for example, that while a backgammon board game may represent a historically significant phenomenon, in which a group of people met together at a predetermined place to engage in a game of backgammon, the nature of such a meeting is irrelevant to its value as a game. It is the interaction that occurs outside of the game that is of central interest to historians, social scientists and those interested in social issues.

Finally, the third distinction between pure strategy and competitive activity is also related to the nature of this third category. Pure strategy is defined as a system where each player plans strategically according to the information available to them. Pure strategy is an objective reality, independent of personal knowledge and influenced only by the considerations of each individual player. On the other hand, competitive activity is characterized by a certain level of subjective knowledge on the part of each participant, which influences the probabilities of winning as well as the intensity of the competition. The competitive tendencies in the game theory literature can be seen to fit closely with the notions of self-interest and self-discipline, where individuals are willing to exert effort and energy in the face of potential losses in order to increase their chances of gaining something. Although there are some elements of both these theories present in the competitive tendency, they are clearly different from pure strategy.

Related Posts