Talk:Winning strategy

message: So there is a group of related articles, some written and some not, dealing broadly with issues of determinacy, games, strategies, quasistrategies, winning strategies and quasistrategies, games of imperfect information, and strategies etc for the last.  Existing articles are
*Axiom of determinacy
*Winning strategy
*Projective determinacy (actually called Axiom of projective determinacy -- main article should be switched with redirect, as primary interest is not axiomatic)
*Axiom of real determinacy
*Tree (descriptive set theory)
*Tree (set theory)
Articles need to be written that better explain
#What is a 2-player length-ω game of perfect information played on the naturals?
#What's a strategy for such a game?
#What do we mean when we say such a game is, say, Σ12?
#What about more general 2-player length-ω games of perfect information?
##Playing objects other than naturals
##Playing on a tree
#What about games of length greater than ω (long games)? These may be played on a Tree (set theory)
#What characterizes a strategy as winning, in each of the above circumstances?
#What's a quasistrategy?  What's a winning quasistrategy? Relationship to axiom of choice and axiom of dependent choice (the latter is needed to show that you can't have a length-ω game where both players have winning quasistrategies).
#What's an infinite game of imperfect information (a Blackwell game)? What constitutes a strategy for such a game, what is its value, what does it mean for such a game to be determined?
Then the organizational questions are:
*How many articles do we need?
*What should they be called?
*How should the above information be distributed among them?
--Trovatore 02:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Organizational questions

message: In the article it says that there can be a rule for winning and that that would be winning strategy. But this is too general. There may be rules/principles in certain situations but there may also be a hierarchy or rules above that. For instance the winning strategy (master rule) may be to constantly change subsequently lower ranked rules for instance in the game of Poker. You can't stick to one way of playing (conservative, aggressive) because others will figure out your strategy and exploit it, so you have to adapt to the situation and change accordingly, back and forth, perhaps randomly to stop people from figuring out what you're doing. Even then, they may figure out that you are using a random strategy and play conservative, which leads to aggressive play, the loop continues; the only thing that matters is that you are only one step ahead. Any more and it might not work, you could go so far ahead in strategy that you'd be behind the opponents strategy. 
The same can be said of Chess. If a person is in one situation, he should do this, but later in the game, he would want to do that. The strategies are different for different situations and you don't know what situation you will end up in until you are in that position or if you can predict the future and know what's going to happen. Thus, you have to stay ahead of the opponent. 
Also check my comments in the strategy stealing argument article. 70.111.224.85 13:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rule for Winning? 

message: Perhaps a merge with Dominance (game theory). --70.111.218.254 21:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm against merging.  Unlike dominance, "Winning strategy" doesn't appear in the index of any of the standard game theory textbooks I have on hand: Osborne & Rubenstein, Fudenberg & Tirole, Gibbons (1992), Gintis (2000), it also doesn't appear in the following game theory texts on my shelf: Williams (1954), Luce & Raiffa (1957), Dresher (1961), Rapoport (1966), Hargreaves & Varoufakis (1995).  I've never heard the term used as described by the article.  I'm prepared to beleive that this is a commonly used term in Combinatorial game theory, but I'm pretty sure it's foreign to game theory. Pete.Hurd 21:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whups, I should have read User talk:Trialsanderrors/SCIENCE#Test case: Winning strategy first.  Obvious merge and redirect would be to Axiom_of_determinacy,  or Determinacy#Winning strategies.  Or import some of those articles' encyclopedic tone into this and begin it with something like "In set theory...". Pete.Hurd 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a redirect would be in order, I don't know if there's anything that can be merged. ~ trialsanderrors 23:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I redirected. Feel free to revert but someone would have to look up sources. ~ trialsanderrors 08:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal