HOH "outdated"

[ShaneP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


This "complete information" idea is commonly bandied about. It's true in theory, but not in practice, at least among amateur players.



[/ QUOTE ]


Jeff, I've seen you make this claim a few times. In game theory terminology, chess is indeed a game of complete information, and poker is a game of incomplete information.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I said. I also am saying that in practice you don't make all your decisions based strictly on game theory. In many actual game situations in chess, you can knowingly make theoretically incorrect moves and still gain an advantage over a (non master) opponent. You obviously cannot do this in a game theory sense. The fact that chess is theoretically a game of complete information is irrelevant sometimes, yet people keep talking about it as if chess is a game played against perfect computers, not against people. Since their assumption is wrong, sometimes their conclusion is wrong.

In some ways, amateur chess in practice has more in common with poker, a game of incomplete information, than with a game of complete information. This is the point I'm trying to get across.

For example, in poker you might say "I'm not sure what my opponent has and he's not sure what I have, but based on his play I think he has something like ABC, and he probably thinks I have something like XYZ."

In chess you might say "I'm not sure what my opponent's up to here, but based on his last couple moves he's very worried about this threat, even though there is an easy defense to it that he's obviously not aware of. I will continue with this "bluff". I might be exposing myself here, but I'm not sure since I can only imagine a couple moves ahead, and furthermore I doubt he'd see that anway even if it is an exposure."

I'm trying clear up the misconception that just because a game is one of "complete information", you can't bluff and you can't outplay your opponent in many of the same ways you can in poker. If your opponent does not know how to use information or is not aware of it, then that information might as well not exist, making the game one of incomplete information in practice. And then the game plays more like a theoretical game of incomplete information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeff--

I do (and did) see your point, and I understand it. My only point is that you're messing up the terminology--the game itself is a game of complete information, and so to attach a tag of 'incomplete information' is misleading. What you're saying is that it is a game of complete information, but the equilibrium is very difficult (if not impossible in some situations to find) so that opponents can and do play non-equilibrium strategies. As such, you can play non-equilibrium strategies (your 'bluff') because that's a best response to your opponent's mistakes.

So the game is the game--it doesn't become incomplete information because of what or how some people play. If I were to sit down and play a game of Go, it would still be a game of complete information, even though I would play it terribly, and not even close to an equilibrium strategy. So my opponent might catch on and make 'mistakes' of his own to induce more mistakes from me, or even bluff (I don't know enough about Go to know if that's even possible...).

What I'm saying is that it is true in theory and practice in Go, Chess, Checkers, Tic-Tac-Toe, and whatever else, that the game is of complete information. To claim otherwise is either wrong, or as in your case, abusing the nomenclature. That's all I'm saying, and being a theorist in the field, I don't like seeing people abuse the notation...again, not saying your point is wrong, it's just that your wording is poor.

Shane