Talk:Game theory

Disgrace of Gijón in game theory?

In the Disgrace of Gijón of the 1982 Football World Cup, Germany and Austria played a day later than two other teams. They exactly knew beforehand which result would qualify one team for the next round, the other, or even both. With a score of 1-0 benefitting both, even the losing team as it would advance as 2nd seed to play weaker opponents while winning 1st place would match them with stronger ones, both teams seemingly settled for this result. The winning team was in a "do or die" game, they had to win and become 1st, or would have been eliminated as 3rd. The only option would have been trying to win by four goals or more which would have kicked out the losers and would have helped one of the other, absent teams, which had managed to beat the eventual winners in the first round.

What does game theory say about playing according to the real existing rules instead of playing for absent third parties?I'd say the "Disgrace" tag should be applied to the hosts having organized an asymmetric schedule of games, not to the final game or to the teams playing it. 2003:C6:3735:25D2:D97C:2C9D:E62F:DEA2 (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Origins of the game

My understanding was that The Game was developed by Cambridge mathaticians in the late 1970's early 1980's as a refutation of the idea that a game had to have a win criteria. SunKing777 (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Source? ~2026-10517-75 (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Tell details about formalistics

I advise to create a separate page (prominently, e.g. in the first paragraph) linked from this page, that could discuss **formalization** of common game types, i.e. in von Neummann style. VictorPorton (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Criticisms and limitations Recursive Meta‑Game Theory

Criticisms and limitations Recursive Meta‑Game Theory (RMGT) In 2026, Nicholas Micah Taylor proposed Recursive Meta‑Game Theory (RMGT), a framework arguing that classical game theory suffers from an observer‑position fallacy—it assumes all players observe from the same third‑person, ahistorical, human‑scale vantage. RMGT identifies three core flaws: (1) reliance on Brouwer's fixed‑point theorem, a topological result derived from fluid‑dynamics analogies (e.g., coffee‑cup stirring) rather than strategic interaction; (2) historical erasure of co‑creator Oskar Morgenstern; and (3) the treatment of Nash equilibria as universal when they are artifacts of a single observational frame. The framework introduces a six‑type hierarchy of strategic cognition and twelve levels of observation, contending that game theory’s foundations are mathematically and historically contingent. Source was https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18236676 WikiGrower1 (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Should we add that? There has been an edit war?WikiGrower1 (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

No, that is a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source with no academic standing, see also WP:ZENODO. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

The Game theory visualisation on International political affiliations.

This is Tatva Sanghavi. I was trying to gather data on the implications of game theory and the perfect political ( either local , national or international) position and action for the statistical analysis of the best performing strategy of real world in the field of politics for the development of understanding of political science with help of statistics for the common folk ( those who are not interested in politics) . I would be glad if anyone wanted to share their insights on the topic . Tatva Sanghavi (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)