Zero-Sum Games

"The notion of an equilibrium point is the basic ingredient of our theory. This notion yields a generalization of the concept of the solution of a two-person zero-sum game. It turns out that the set of equilibrium points of a two-person zero-sum game is simply the set of all pairs of opposing 'good strategies'." (John F Nash, "Non-Cooperative Games", 1950)

"Zero is where it all begins, the clean slate. We speak of zero-sum games (in which anyone who wins anything does so only at the equal expense of the losers), zero hour (the time at which a military operation begins), ground zero (the impact point of a bomb, particularly a nuclear one), to zero in on something (getting it precisely in the cross hairs), zero degrees of temperature-which, depending on the scale you use, can be the freezing point of water (Centigrade), fortified wine (Fahrenheit), or the universe (Kelvin); the last, a bit chillier than - 2730 C or - 459' F, is aptly called absolute zero." (Alexander Humez et al, "Zero to Lazy Eight: The romance of numbers", 1993)

"In a mathematical sense a zero-sum game is a loser's game when it is valued in terms of utility. The best decision for both is to refuse to play this game." (Peter L Bernstein, "Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk", 1996)

"A game is a situation of strategic interdependence: the outcome of your choices (strategies) depends upon the choices of one or more other persons acting purposely. The decision makers involved in a game are called players, and their choices are called moves. The interests of the players in a game may be in strict conflict; one person’s gain is always another’s loss. Such games are called zero-sum. More typically, there are zones of commonality of interests as well as of conflict and so, there can be combinations of mutually gainful or mutually harmful strategies. Nevertheless, we usually refer to the other players in a game as one’s rivals." (Avinash K Dixit & Barry J Nalebuff, "The Art of Strategy: A Game Theorist's Guide to Success in Business and Life", 2008)

"Chess, as a game of zero sum and total information is, theoretically, a game that can be solved. The problem is the immensity of the search tree: the total number of positions surpasses the number of atoms in our galaxy. When there are few pieces on the board, the search space is greatly reduced, and the problem becomes trivial for computers’ calculation capacity." (Diego Rasskin-Gutman, "Chess Metaphors: Artificial Intelligence and the Human Mind", 2009)

"Game theory postulates rational behavior for each participant. Each player is conscious of the rules and behaves in accordance with them, each player has sufficient knowledge of the situation in which he or she is involved to be able to evaluate what the best option is when it comes to taking action (a move), and each player takes into account the decisions that might be made by other participants and their repercussions with respect to his or her own decision. Game theory about zero-sum games with two participants is relevant for chess. In this type of situation, each action that is favorable to one participant (player) is proportionally unfavorable for the opponent. Thus, the gain of one represents the loss of the other." (Diego Rasskin-Gutman, "Chess Metaphors: Artificial Intelligence and the Human Mind", 2009)

"In the context of a zero-sum game, opposing tendencies are formulated in two distinct ways. First, conflicting tendencies are conceptualized as two mutually exclusive, discrete entities. The conflicts are treated as dichotomies that are usually expressed as X or NX. If X is right then NX has to be wrong. This represents an or relationship, a win/lose struggle with a moral obligation to win. The loser, usually declared wrong, is eliminated. Second, opposing tendencies are formulated in such a way that they can be represented by a continuum. Between black and white are a thousand shades of gray." (Jamshid Gharajedaghi, "Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity A Platform for Designing Business Architecture" 3rd Ed., 2011)

"The real challenge dto building a viable social system is the ability to create unity in diversity, meeting the varying interests of independent members operating in an interdependent whole. […] In the long run, the society and the individual either stand together or fall separately. A win/win relationship is achieved not through zero-sum or even compromise. For both of them to win requires reconceptualization of the nature and the relationship of the whole and the parts." (Jamshid Gharajedaghi, "Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity A Platform for Designing Business Architecture" 3rd Ed., 2011)