Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9635433" data-attributes="member: 6795602">I follow your example, but I don't agree with your conclusions on it.First I would start with this, there is only 1 game.  The game being played is one involving 2 participants.  If the participants were both playing different games then there would be no room for a game here at all because there wouldn't be enough participants to fill more than the single game.Now, let's talk about the nature of this singular game.  And to do that I'm going to first introduce a slightly altered version of your example.  Let's say everything is the same except the restrictive oath of the one player is known by everyone.  Now there's no information set disparity - and yet the participants still don't have equal move spaces.  The gamefulness is still fully there, it's just a different game than if the game involved 2 participants with no such oath.Now let's talk introducing the information set-disparity of changing the oath to hidden.  The same move space exists in both the hidden vs non hidden oath scenarios.  The gamefulness is still fully there, it's just a different game than if that oath isn't hidden, just like it's a different game between no hidden oath and no oath at all.Gamefulness doesn't require perfect information (see poker where there's hidden information from every player at the table).  Or does your logic mean poker isn't gameful?</blockquote>