Talk:Complete information

message: In the perfect information page, I separated the ideas via headers, I'm trying to figure out the proper procedure to give them their own pages, since my understanding is they are different concepts.  Mathematically, games in game theory can be modeled with graph theory graphs, that is, discrete math.  Whereas perfect info in the microecon sense would require complete knowledge of the physical state of the universe.  I'm not sure I understand the distinction between complete and perfect information in the microecon sense, or maybe there isn't one, and the microecon references should be removed and combined with the perfect information (microecon page).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoWikiFeedbackLoops (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game Theory vs. Microeconomics 

message: The article gives this example:
Examples of incomplete but perfect information are conceptually more difficult to imagine. Suppose you are playing a game of chess against an opponent who will be paid some substantial amount of money if a particular event happens (an arrangement of pieces, for instance), but you do not know what the event is. In this case you have perfect information, since you know what each move of the opponent is. However, since you do not know the payoff function of the other player it is a game of incomplete information.
Unless I am misunderstanding the idea of complete information, this doesn't seem to be a valid example.  The objective in chess is checkmate, not to get a particular arrangement of pieces, and the rules don't change because one player has an agreement outside the game.  If this player tries to arrange the pieces in such a way, and it causes him to be checkmated in the long run, he has lost the game, regardless of whether he gets paid for arranging the pieces in that way.  Whatever financial arrangements one player has made outside the game are irrelevant - the rules of the game are still the same.  The other player's objectives do not change at all, even if he were aware of the arrangement; his goal is still checkmate, by the rules of the game.  The only payoff in the rules of chess is checkmate. 86.28.197.238 (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand the confusion since the "winning conditions" are not affected, but this kind of chess game would still be considered as having incomplete information since the payoff of your opponent is changed (which might affect his playing style and lead him to make unusual moves, for example). I have brought back the paragraph but tried to clarify it a bit. 7804j (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete Information in Chess 

message: I don't think  "a state of complete knowledge" is very helpful as a definition for "complete information". It is defining a term in terms of itself. Knowledge of what? Of the history of moves? Of the payoff functions? What is the difference with "perfect information"?--Frank Guerin 16:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Merger should no longer be necessary, I have clarified the definitions. 7804j (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete Knowledge