What does gaming meanCategorization of gaming

The original meaning of game is: to play chess. Derived meaning is: under certain conditions, abide by certain rules, one or several people or teams with absolute rational thinking, from their respective allowed to choose the behavior or strategy to choose and implement, and from which each of them to achieve the corresponding results or benefits of the process. So how much do you know about games? The following is organized by me about what the game means, I hope you like it!

Introduction of the game

A complete game should include five aspects: First, the participants of the game, that is, the game process of independent decision-making, independent of the consequences of individuals and organizations; Second, the game of information, that is, the game players grasp the choice of strategy to help the intelligence information; Third, the game party can choose the entire behavior or strategy ***; Fourth, the game of the Order, that is, the game participants to make strategic choices successively; Fifth, the game party's income, that is, the game party to make decisions after the choice of gain and loss.

Classification of the game

From the formalization of the study of the game to divide, can be divided into traditional game theory and evolutionary game theory; from the specific application of the game to divide, can be divided into static game and dynamic game. Static game refers to the game, the two participants at the same time to choose or two people do not choose at the same time, but the latter actor does not know what kind of specific actions taken by the first actor. For both sides, it is easy to form a chaotic reorganization of behavior, due to the rules of strict and fine, anyone due to time problems, financial problems, psychological problems, etc., resulting in a number of equilibrium until the unexplained caused by a big loss, involved in the static game and the dynamic game of most of the people are this kind of people. Dynamic game means that in the game, the two participants have a sequence of actions, and the latter actor can observe the action chosen by the first actor.

Games can be categorized as cooperative or non-cooperative based on whether participants can form binding agreements to act collectively. Game theory experts such as Nash have studied more non-cooperative games.

The so-called cooperative game refers to the participants from their own interests to negotiate with other participants to reach an agreement or form an alliance, the results of which are favorable to the alliance parties; and non-cooperative game refers to the participants in the choice of action can not reach a binding agreement. The economic activities of people's division of labor and exchange and the prisoner's dilemma are cooperative games, while the tragedy of public **** resources are non-cooperative games.

From the point of view of the degree of knowledge possession, the game is divided into complete information game and incomplete information game. Information is an important element in game theory. The complete information game refers to the participants of all the participants of the strategy space and strategy combinations under the payment has "complete understanding", otherwise it is incomplete information game. Strictly speaking, the complete information game refers to the payoffs under the strategy space and strategy combinations of the participants, and it is a game in which all the participants have "public **** knowledge" of the game. For the incomplete information game, what the participants do is to try to maximize their expected payments or expected utility.

This game philosophical language can also reflect the following four game classification:

Complete information static game, complete information dynamic game, incomplete information static game, incomplete information dynamic game

Which strategic game should belong to the complete information static game, while the complete information dynamic game includes the expansion of suite of sexual games and repeated games; incomplete information static game is based on Bayesian knowledge. The static game is to Bayesian equilibrium and other theories to complete the re-interpretation of mixed strategies, incomplete information dynamic game is perfect Bayesian equilibrium as the core concept of the signal game.

Introduction to Game Theory

Game Theory, also known as Countermeasure TheoryGame Theory is both a new branch of modern mathematics and an important discipline in operations research.

Game theory focuses on the study of interactions between formulated incentive structures. It is a mathematical theory and methodology for studying phenomena of a combative or competitive nature. Game theory considers the predicted and actual behavior of individuals in a game and studies their optimization strategies. Biologists use game theory to understand and predict certain outcomes of evolution. Game theory has become one of the standard analytical tools in economics. It has wide applications in biology, economics, international relations, computer science, political science, military strategy, and many other disciplines. Among the basic concepts are players, actions, information, strategies, payoffs, equilibrium and outcomes. Of these, players, strategies and gains are the most basic elements. The players, actions and outcomes are collectively referred to as the rules of the game.

Game theory is, after all, mathematics, more specifically a branch of operations research, talk about the natural language of mathematics, the layman seems to be just a bunch of mathematical formulas. The good thing about game theory is that it is concerned with everyday economic life, so it can't be a bad idea. In fact, this theory is borrowed from the chess game, poker and war with competition, confrontation and decision-making nature of the problem in the terminology, sounds a little esoteric, in fact, but has important practical significance. Game theory masters look at economic and social problems as if they were chess games, and often put profound truths into the game. Therefore, more from our daily life in the mortal small things to start, with stories around us as an example, telling, and not boring. It is said that one day, a rich man was killed at home and his belongings were stolen. In the course of solving the case, the police arrested two suspects, Scarface and Nakouls, and searched the missing belongings from the victim's house from their residence. However, they denied that they had killed anyone, arguing that they had first found the rich man murdered and then just stole something. The police then isolated the two men and put them in separate rooms for interrogation. The district attorney spoke to each of them individually. The prosecutor said, "Since there is solid evidence of your theft, you can be sentenced to one year in prison. However, I can make a deal with you. If you confess to the murder alone, I will sentence you to only three months in prison, but your accomplice will get ten years. If you refuse to confess and your accomplice denounces you, then you will get ten years in prison and he will only get three months. But if both of you confess, then you will both be sentenced to five years in prison." What were Scarfis and Nakuls to do? They were faced with a dilemma - confess or deny. Obviously the best strategy would be for both to deny and the result would be that everyone would get only one year. But because the two men were in isolation they could not conspire. Therefore, according to Adam Smith's theory, each person is acting from self-interest and they choose confession as the best strategy. This is because a confession can expect a very short prison sentence - 3 months - provided the accomplice denies it, which is obviously better than 10 years in prison for denying it themselves. This strategy is a strategy of damaging people and benefiting themselves. Not only that, but there are more benefits to confessing. If the other person confesses and he or she denies it, then he or she has to go to jail for 10 years. It's not worth it! Therefore, one should still choose to confess in such a situation. Even if both of them confess at the same time, they will only be sentenced to 5 years at the most, which is better than being sentenced to 10 years. Therefore, the reasonable choice for both of them is to confess, and the original strategy of denying and ending up with a 1-year sentence which is favorable to both of them will not occur. The strategy of both parties choosing to confess and the resulting 5-year sentence is known as a "Nash equilibrium", also called a non-cooperative equilibrium. This is because each party does not "****collude" in choosing a strategy; they simply choose the strategy that is most favorable to them, without regard to the welfare of society or the interests of any other opponent. In other words, the strategy mix consists of the best strategy combinations of all the players, also known as the parties, involved in the game. No one will voluntarily change their strategy in order to benefit themselves more. The "Prisoner's Dilemma" has a broad and deep significance. The conflict between individual and collective rationality and the pursuit of self-interested behavior lead to a "Nash equilibrium", which is also unfavorable to everyone. Both of them think of themselves first in their strategy of confession and denial, which will inevitably lead to long prison terms. Only when they both think of each other first, or conspire to conspire with each other, can they get the shortest prison sentences. "The Nash equilibrium first challenges Adam Smith's principle of the "invisible hand". According to Smith's theory, in a market economy, each individual starts with self-interested purposes, while the whole society eventually achieves altruistic results. Let us revisit the famous words of this sage of economics in The Wealth of Nations: "By pursuing the self-interest of the individual, he often promotes the interests of the community more effectually than he actually intends to do." From the Nash equilibrium we derive one of the paradoxes of the principle of the "invisible hand": starting with a self-interested goal results in a self-interested outcome that is neither self-interested nor self-interested. This is the fate of the two prisoners. In this sense, the paradox of "Nash equilibrium" actually shakes the cornerstone of Western economics. Therefore, from the "Nash equilibrium" we can also learn a truth: cooperation is a favorable "self-interest strategy". But it must conform to the Golden Rule: treat others the way you would like them to treat you, but only if they behave in the same way. That's what the Chinese call "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". But only if you don't do to others what they don't want you to do to me. Secondly, the Nash equilibrium is a non-cooperative game equilibrium, and in reality non-cooperative situations are more common than cooperative situations. Therefore, "Nash equilibrium" is a significant development of von Neumann and Morgan Stern's cooperative game theory, and can even be said to be a revolution.

From the universal significance of "Nash equilibrium", we can y understand the commonplace economic, social, political, defense, management and daily life of the game phenomenon. We will cite many examples similar to the "prisoner's dilemma". Price wars, arms races, pollution, and so on. The general game problem consists of three elements: the players, also known as parties, participants, strategies, etc. *** , strategies *** and the choices made by each pair of players and win payoffs *** . The so-called win is the utility that each player receives if a particular strategy relation is chosen. All game problems encounter these three elements. Classification of games