Talk:Chicken (game)

message: Should this article be in the category Mathematical Games rather than Game Theory? -- Birkett 16:17, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Which category?

message: I've never seen this version of the tradgedy of the commons.  It really isn't like the prisoner's dilemma dynamic that is usually applied.  While the verbal description given in this page is Chicken-like (ie a discoordination game) it's not really representative of the usual meaning of the model. Pete.Hurd 00:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think at least the reference to TotC should be taken out, and unless sourced probably that whole section. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I'm on it. Pete.Hurd 01:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  ummm, while we're on the topic, the "Chicken and the prisoner's dilemma" section feels like a bit of a loss too.  Chicken is a discoordination game and the PD is a game with a dominated strategy, very different.  I'm trying to wrap my head around what the text in this section is trying to explain.  Right now it leaves me more confused than enlightened. Anyone care to make the case for keeping? Pete.Hurd 00:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chicken != Tragedy of the commons

message: Article says:
:The Hawk Dove game has three Nash equilibria; 1) the row players chooses Hawk while the column player chooses Dove, 2) the row player chooses Dove while the column player chooses Hawk, and 3) both players play a mixed strategy where Hawk is played with probability p, and Dove is played with probability 1-p.
Isn't this wrong?  It seems like 1) and 2) are not Nash equilibria, since the Dove player can improve his return by switching to Hawk (assuming C < V).  Actually Hawk/Hawk is a Nash equilibrium.  Right?  (I'm no expert.) --Jorend 12:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why the standard assumption is that V<C, the reverse is a boring case where there's no conflict of interest, and always attack is the strict Nash.  Given the standard V<C assumption Hawk-v-Hawk is the worst possible outcome, and therefore not a Nash.  Cheers, Pete.Hurd 00:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nash equilibria

message: The talk page for Peace war game redirects here (which is probably appropriate due to the suggested merge) but then the cleanup-rewrite template also redirects to this page.  So, in the hopes that someone came looking for what needs cleaning up in that article, see the section above... Pete.Hurd 04:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the only connection to "chicken " I see is that Mbhiii believes that the aggressive nature of the Peace/War game intepretation makes it akin to the Hawk-Dove interpretation of the discoordination game.  The peace-war game is a different payoff interpretation of the PD, not a discoordination game.  My opposition to organizing articles on games by payoff interpretation explained in previous topic.  I suggest we end the merge proposal per Trials' suggestion above. Pete.Hurd 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Peace war game]]

message: The whole article has gotten off track.  The initial use of the word "game" is misleading -- this can be a deadly serious game, not fun-and-games.  Death is a possible outcome.  The reader needs to be immediately cued in to this technical meaning of "game", academic game theory.  "The principle of the game is to create pressure until one person backs down."  This is too mild.  The core concept is, to create intensely escalating danger, that forces a quick resolution.  But it is also key that each party takes "losing" (loss of face at a minimum) seriously -- not as trivially as the article seems to generally suggest.  "metaphor for a situation where two parties engage in a showdown where they have nothing to gain" -- this is wrong.  They do have something to gain.  Face etc is very real, culturally/socially/psychologically/politically.  The whole article gets way too academic.  World politics is frequently characterized by various forms of the game of chicken.  The article should address/discuss this is meaningful terms -- academic game theory should not dominate the article, but should be present.  Readers should be directed to other articles for more game theory, and for other related games.  The article currently does not mention "macho" or any of the ordinary inter-personal concepts that form the basis of why the game of chicken exists among humans and is so important to understanding our lives.  The words "coward" and "yellow" are not mentioned -- they belong in the intro probably.  Without "male" and "teen", there might well be no game of chicken... 69.87.204.201 16:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I half-agree. The heretical essay is a good starting point to discuss the origins of the game in popular culture. The discussion in discoordination game should stick to the game-theoretical interpretation. ~ trialsanderrors 20:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't Merge

message: When the stakes are death, the payoff matrix is not conceptually accurate in assigning a numeric value to lose-lose, from the post-game perspective of the players.  Players who no longer exist are not experiencing negative consequences, at least not on this measurable/estimable scale.  From a simple perspective, it is just an undefined state.  From a many-worlds perspective, it could make sense to take the risk of either being dead or very rich, for example.  Dead in a sense doesn't count, and rich would be good...  Society does experience the consequences of death.  So the payoff matrix may be different for the players and for others...  Swerve-swerve should not be 0,0; both parties would presumably lose face to some extent. 69.87.204.169 22:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the exposition it is only relevant that death is the worst outcome. The same game is given below with only variables as payoffs and inequality relations between them, but for an opening example the lowest number reflects the worst possible outcome. ~ trialsanderrors 10:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This (→) would be a way to express the Chicken story non-numerically (Win > Tie > Lose > Death). Original research? ~ trialsanderrors 21:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Death is not a number

message: "Hawk-Dove game - Can we multiply those payoffs by 2?":  Nah, that's the way they're always presented, it would look weired to change them. Pete.Hurd 23:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll try another way to format them then. ~ trialsanderrors 23:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiply HD payoffs by 2

message: I have been thinking about writing a section about learning models in chicken/hawk dove.  In there, I was considering discussing this paper by Brian Skyrms and Peter Vanderschraaf.  As Brian is my adviser and Peter a friend, I thought I would get other's opinions on whether this was relevant or not (as it is a bit far afield from the current material in the article).  What do you think?  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you don't start a whole article on that paper... ~ trialsanderrors 07:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I changed my mind anyway.  Not so relevant. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adviser-cruft? 

message: Should this article contain examples of the game of Chicken in real life/popular culture (such as one of the 2004 winners of the Darwin Awards)? - Super Sam ultra quick reply 10:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, I'm also thinking the Chickie Run scene from Rebel Without a Cause should get a mention. No "Chicken in popular culture" section though, please. ~ trialsanderrors 00:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Life Examples 

message: I notice that the article discusses only symmetric Ch/H-D games, although it's not a necessary condition for most of the findings. Is this a standard definition in the literature or is Ch/H-D generally defined as W>T>L>C, w>t>l>c, with symmetry imposed for simplicity? ~ trialsanderrors 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Symmetry

message: So, January has come and gone, and the article has much improved.  I think we ought to give this article a rating, and maybe put it up for WP:GA.  What do folks think? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I'm no expert on GA/FA, most of my article writing is about moving D-class articles to B-class. I see a couple of necessary fixes, mostly rewriting the lead which doesn't cover all aspects of Ch/H-D, and the fact that most of the informal description presents it as a dynamic game while the formal definition is a one-shot game. These two views need to be reconciled. Other than that, I see only minor copyedit issues that would keep it from GA. ~ trialsanderrors 08:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think your right.  I'll give this a B-class rating for now.  Once we get the lead up to snuff and clean up some of the prose, I'll submit it for GA.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA/ranking? 

message: I removed this edit which added a reference to the "blond game" from A Beautiful Mind, although it's correct that this game is similar to Chicken, I think the example is unhelpful.  In particular, "John Nash" describes a strategy set in that game which is not actually a Nash equilibrium.  So, I'm worried that appealing to that game in this article will frustrate our ability to explain the central concept rather than illuminate it. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember the details. Wasn't that a three-player game anyway? ~ trialsanderrors 06:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, maybe even more.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beautiful Mind 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
===Suggestions===
Good work. The article will need additional citations, further discussion on historic development, further discussion on application and some minor wordsmithing in order to get to FA.
::I should mention that I've been observing the progress of this article for some time and am glad that we can finally pass it. Majoreditor 23:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your review and kind words! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you be more specific about what makes the lead so poor? Pete.Hurd 20:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might have written that myself, but this line is incorrect: while each player prefers not to yield to the opponent, the outcome where neither player yields is the worst possible one for both players. Although I doubt that's what G-guy is aiming for. ~ trialsanderrors 21:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand your complaint about the lead.  Chicken isn't defined in the lead, it's defined later. The first sentence is no more a definition than any opening sentence of any article.  There is one sentence about terminology (the distinction between chicken and hawk-dove).  The other sentences briefly describe what the game is, what it is used for, and its similarity to another game in game theory.  Why can't it be stand alone?  What term in the lead is inaccessible?  What is the issue with formatting of references?  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: IMHO, dividing the references into parallel inline citation to a "notes" section and then a separate "references" section is confusing and an unnecessary complication.  Can you explain what was wrong with the way it was before? Pete.Hurd 19:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before my edits, the references were inconsistently and randomly formatted. I did a lot of work here to format the references consistently. If you want to reformat them another way, that is fine, as long as the style is consistent. Geometry guy 20:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's readily apparent that you put a lot of time & effort into making the references all consistent, and I don't want to belittle that.  However: the good article criteria call for inline citations, and now we have in line notes, the entries of which now correspond to citations in a separate references section.  I much prefer the more standard way of organizing references such as is done in Equipartition theorem for example.  Unfortunately, the present style of references can't be wrapped in  tags to produce standard style referencing while saving your efforts.  I'll mull over how best to incorporate your work.  Since you have alluded to so many problems with the substance of these articles, it seems to me that the cosmetics of the references is of a much lower priority. Pete.Hurd 00:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There are three ways to provide inline citation (see WP:CITE#Inline_citations): One is the approach I have taken, another is the approach you prefer, and the third is Harvard referencing. If you want to change it to your preferred method, all you have to do is move the citation templates into the ref tags, adding page numbers where necessary. Geometry guy 14:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The result of the Good article review was to delist. No action was required, however, as it does not appear the reviewer ever actually listed the article at WP:GA. The discussion, now in archive, can be found here. Once the article has been brought up to standards, it may be renominated at WP:GAC. Regards, Lara♥Love 16:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: Gimmebot removed the article from the GA list. It was listed under the Economics subcategory. I would have never thought to look there. Lara♥Love 03:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: Good work. The article will need additional citations, further discussion on historic development, further discussion on application and some minor wordsmithing in order to get to FA.
::I should mention that I've been observing the progress of this article for some time and am glad that we can finally pass it. Majoreditor 23:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your review and kind words! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: I am not sure that this article is currently good article standard. In particular, the lead is poor. It may be easy to fix, but this isn't clear to me, so I have taken it to Good article review. Please comment there and/or improve the article to meet the good article criteria. Geometry guy 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific about what makes the lead so poor? Pete.Hurd 20:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might have written that myself, but this line is incorrect: while each player prefers not to yield to the opponent, the outcome where neither player yields is the worst possible one for both players. Although I doubt that's what G-guy is aiming for. ~ trialsanderrors 21:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand your complaint about the lead.  Chicken isn't defined in the lead, it's defined later. The first sentence is no more a definition than any opening sentence of any article.  There is one sentence about terminology (the distinction between chicken and hawk-dove).  The other sentences briefly describe what the game is, what it is used for, and its similarity to another game in game theory.  Why can't it be stand alone?  What term in the lead is inaccessible?  What is the issue with formatting of references?  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: IMHO, dividing the references into parallel inline citation to a "notes" section and then a separate "references" section is confusing and an unnecessary complication.  Can you explain what was wrong with the way it was before? Pete.Hurd 19:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before my edits, the references were inconsistently and randomly formatted. I did a lot of work here to format the references consistently. If you want to reformat them another way, that is fine, as long as the style is consistent. Geometry guy 20:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's readily apparent that you put a lot of time & effort into making the references all consistent, and I don't want to belittle that.  However: the good article criteria call for inline citations, and now we have in line notes, the entries of which now correspond to citations in a separate references section.  I much prefer the more standard way of organizing references such as is done in Equipartition theorem for example.  Unfortunately, the present style of references can't be wrapped in  tags to produce standard style referencing while saving your efforts.  I'll mull over how best to incorporate your work.  Since you have alluded to so many problems with the substance of these articles, it seems to me that the cosmetics of the references is of a much lower priority. Pete.Hurd 00:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There are three ways to provide inline citation (see WP:CITE#Inline_citations): One is the approach I have taken, another is the approach you prefer, and the third is Harvard referencing. If you want to change it to your preferred method, all you have to do is move the citation templates into the ref tags, adding page numbers where necessary. Geometry guy 14:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The result of the Good article review was to delist. No action was required, however, as it does not appear the reviewer ever actually listed the article at WP:GA. The discussion, now in archive, can be found here. Once the article has been brought up to standards, it may be renominated at WP:GAC. Regards, Lara♥Love 16:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: Gimmebot removed the article from the GA list. It was listed under the Economics subcategory. I would have never thought to look there. Lara♥Love 03:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article review

message: The difference between Chicken and Prisoner's Dilemma makes it clear that what makes them distinct is that in PD you should snitch if you expect the other guy to, while in Chicken if you expect the other guy not to swerve it means you should.
But the payoff matrix suggested for Hawk/Dove seems - unless I'm misreading it - to be on the Prisoner's Dilemma side of that distinction rather than the Chicken side.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.140.128.107 (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hawk-Dove should have the property (for "sensible" values of V and C) that (as you put it) "you should do what you expect the other guy not to do", which makes it Chicken like, not PD like. Pete.Hurd 19:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference with Prisoner's Dilemma

message: This article is mainly concerned with the game from a game-theoretic standpoint.  Would it not be beneficial to discuss why people play the game when it has such a seemingly minor payoff for winning, and such a steep penalty if neither swerves?  Is it machismo?  Is alcohol typically a contributing factor?  And so forth.  I don't have any good data on this, so I'm not going to add the section myself.  Does this seem like a good idea to others?  — Matthew0028 13:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article is suppose to be about the game theoretic conceptualization, not the activity practiced by intoxicated adolescence. So I am not a big fan of the idea for that reason. --DFRussia (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for playing? 

message: Sorry about this cos I have no problem with the maths but I don't like the lead.
In the UK, playing chicken means to CROSS fast-moving traffic at the last possible moment. The one who goes first loses, cos he is a "chicken" (a coward) who will not wait until a moment later. This does cause a few deaths each year. I think that this should be incorporated in the lead. And it tends to be practiced by juniors e.g let's say 8-13 something like that. Obviously we would need to find references etc. if you agree.
SimonTrew (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: "Snowdrift game" redirects here, but that game is never actually described.  Also, I don't see a clear description of Hawk and Dove (i.e. the rules of the game, not the payoff matrix).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.50.37 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of the games 

message: I recommend to remove the example and quotation from Sir Bertand Russel related to the game of chicken. Mr Russel's use of the example is game-theoretically inaccurate and was aimed exclusively at scoring an emotional/propaganda  point against the US/NATO. It trivializes the issue implying that there was nothing to gain by arming and nothing to lose by disarming. In reality some of the payoffs were slightly more unpleasant (obviously not to Mr Russel) than a few jeers from a bunch of losers. Mr Russel's worldview can be gauged from his statement "better red than dead". Patrick Henry would obviously have disagreed but game theory had been fully flashed out at his time. Using Mr Russel's logic one would have to agree with the drug cartels that disarming the police makes a lot of sense. Anyway,explicit or implicit politically biased viewpoints  like Mr. Russel's should be avoided in the scientific and technical areas of the Wikepedia. The correct game-theoretical example that can be applied to the arms race is the prisoner's dilemma, with arming=confessing and not-arming=not-confessing. That example accurately explains the payoffs and shows that there was more than sheer stupidity behind the race. Another difference worth mentioning: in the game of chicken one can choose not to play (James Dean could decide not to consort with the gang, call the police, move to another state. move to another country, ignore the jeers, etc). In an arms race you may not have that choice. Once one side starts escalating the other must play: migration to another planet or calling the UN do not seem very effective alternatives. The player must gauge the threat level and the intentions of the adversary, choose a strategy, then live with the consequences from the payoff matrix.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmrfd (talk • contribs) 23:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Chicken is the name for a social phenomenon (although stories about it are more significant than the practice), not just a game-theoretic game, so the article can't solely be decided by what's game-theoretically correct. I think Russel's story got a lot of notice, and so is relevant to the article, whether he's right or wrong in his analysis. I don't think the article necessarily gives approval to the story, though there might be room for amendment. It does seem like it's given a lot of space, but Russell was wordy. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Chicken

message: The article does not comprehend the essentials of 'Chicken' and the 'PD'. This is especially clear in the following section: 
"'Chicken' and 'Prisoner's dilemma' share the premise of a mutually agreeable, 'compromise' solution (C, C) that is threatened by a Pareto dominated, 'aggressive' solution (A, A). The threat comes from the fact each player is individually better off switching to A if the other player plays C, but if both switch they end up in (A, A). The games differ in their response to one player switching individually."
In PD there is no mutually agreeable compromise. Both players have dominant strategies to defect. Therefore, the claim that "each player is individually better off switching to A if the other player plays C" suggests that they're not better of to play strategy A if the other does not play C. That's the fallacy: both players are always better of playing A, regardless of what the other player does. This section should at least be changed, and any reference to PD with regard to similarity with Chicken should be justified properly. Currently the article contributes to misconception about the mechanism that leads to the outcome of the Prisoner's dilemma.
:I agree that the section is confusing. The connection between Chicken and the Prisoner's dilemma is either (a) deep, or (b) misleading, and I think the current text goes toward misleading. It also doesn't have any references, so I'm going to pull it out. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prisoner's dilemma 

message: It might be a good idea to include a couple of real life examples... I think the Cuban Missile Crisis illustrates the nature of the political chicken game perfectly.--86.138.113.101 (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Any such examples should be discussed by others, so if there's a book/article that talks about the Cuban Missile Crisis in terms of chicken, that could be good. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuban Missile Crisis 

message: Why does this particular type of simple game merit a separate article? Having articles for coordination game, chicken, prisoner's dilemma is one way to go; another would be incorporation into an article about basic games.
Crasshopper (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chicken (game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031216212124/http://www.gametheory.net:80/Dictionary/Games/GameofChicken.html to http://www.gametheory.net/Dictionary/Games/GameofChicken.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Penis game. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  -- Tavix (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Penis game" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Lol 176.72.33.234 (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lol 

message: Currently Zugzwang is listed in the "see also" list. I don't think it should be listed, because I don't think Zugzwang is related to Game of Chicken. Hkfscp11 (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Zugzwang from "see also" list