Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8437241" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Thanks.  I would say that we often refer to illusions as the real thing.  The magician didn't actually make the woman disappear.  But we will say he did.  So let's delve into throwing the game of chess so your opponent will buy you lunch.  For that to happen it is important for your opponent to believe the illusion that he legitimately beat you at chess.  If that illusion goes away via him finding out you threw the game he is going to be upset and not buy you lunch.  To me the differences in opponent reaction when finding out you threw the game reveals his belief that it was an illegitimate game.  I'm not seeing how that reaction can be reconciled with the belief that those two instances were the same game.Being elected is real life and real life has many interdependencies.  Games don't really have that.IMO.  Players can have slightly different win conditions without them being mutually exclusive in terms of playing a game.  For example, in chess if you are trying to win with some novel opening and i'm trying to beat someone that is trying to win then while you have unilaterally changed the game by self imposing a restricted moveset on yourself.  You likely are okay with that changed game as it has little to no impact on how you will be playing.But the moment you are playing to lose takes away my win condition of defeating someone that is trying to win.  That's one place the game ceases to exist and we end up with the illusion of a game.Or players may agree not to play any traditional openings in their next match.  That's not actually the same game as it's rules have been slightly changed.</blockquote>

Verification