Talk:Chicken (game)

Chicken (game) was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: August 6, 2007.

Which category?

Should this article be in the category Mathematical Games rather than Game Theory? -- Birkett 16:17, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Under mathematical games, I understand games that require some knowledge of mathematics in order to play or solve them. In game theory, mathematics is used to study (dynamics of, optimal strategies for, ...) games. It could be interesting to add these (or other) views to the Mathematical Games page. The game of chicken is one of the simple games studied by game theory, so I think it is in the correct category. If there are more doubters though, you can put them in both categories, but I guess that other games like the Prisoner's Dilemma and Rock Paper Scissors and the likes should be then treated similarly. --Anthony Liekens 13:41, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Chicken != Tragedy of the commons

I've never seen this version of the tradgedy of the commons. It really isn't like the prisoner's dilemma dynamic that is usually applied. While the verbal description given in this page is Chicken-like (ie a discoordination game) it's not really representative of the usual meaning of the model. Pete.Hurd 00:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think at least the reference to TotC should be taken out, and unless sourced probably that whole section. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm on it. Pete.Hurd 01:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ummm, while we're on the topic, the "Chicken and the prisoner's dilemma" section feels like a bit of a loss too. Chicken is a discoordination game and the PD is a game with a dominated strategy, very different. I'm trying to wrap my head around what the text in this section is trying to explain. Right now it leaves me more confused than enlightened. Anyone care to make the case for keeping? Pete.Hurd 00:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nash equilibria

Article says:

The Hawk Dove game has three Nash equilibria; 1) the row players chooses Hawk while the column player chooses Dove, 2) the row player chooses Dove while the column player chooses Hawk, and 3) both players play a mixed strategy where Hawk is played with probability p, and Dove is played with probability 1-p.

Isn't this wrong? It seems like 1) and 2) are not Nash equilibria, since the Dove player can improve his return by switching to Hawk (assuming C < V). Actually Hawk/Hawk is a Nash equilibrium. Right? (I'm no expert.) --Jorend 12:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the standard assumption is that V<C, the reverse is a boring case where there's no conflict of interest, and always attack is the strict Nash. Given the standard V<C assumption Hawk-v-Hawk is the worst possible outcome, and therefore not a Nash. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 00:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk Dove/Chicken

Hawk and dove has a strategy and payoff matrix sufficiently different from those for Chicken that the two games should be put back on separate pages. -- Mbhiii 18:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say more the ways in which you think they differ? The example of chicken given here is an instance of the general payoff matrix provided for Hawk-Dove. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those considerations alone seem sufficient to separate them. Otherwise, just put all 2x2 payoff matrix games together, as a sub-category of Payoff matrix. It is what they simulate in real life that makes them so different, and instructive. Hawk and dove could be a point of reference throughout a normal lifetime and could help one deal with unavoidable aggression, if played with proper strategy, for example the Hanseatic League vs. the Vikings. Anyone playing Chicken will have an expendable life, but since its real life analogues are avoidable, it represents no real threats. --Mbhiii 18:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. In game theory, it is common to group classes of games together that have similar properties. Both Chicken and Hawk-Dove have two asymmetric nash equilibria, and each actor has a preferred one. As a result they both have similar properties. Importantly for our purposes, ANY game with this sort of structure will be called Hawk-Dove or Chicken. Just because we use different payoffs in our examples in the article, it does not mean these are the only examples of each game. Any payoff matrix you provide for Hawk-Dove will also satisfy the conditions for being a game of chicken, and vice versa. For an example, see GameTheory.net's entry on Hawk-Dove. The first sentence is "The hawk-dove game is also commonly known as the game of chicken". --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding all that, there still seems to me to be more to Hawk-Dove than its game theory properties. It is an instructive model for those wishing to find a way to deal with aggression. You have shown clearly its game theory properties, but to accomplish the other purpose, I've spun off Peace War Game with links to Peace and War, writing "- not a wargame, as such, rather a simulation of economic decisions underlying war." --Mbhiii 13:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mbhiii - I've read the new article. I have suggested its content be merged back here. I don't disagree that it would be good to have more in this article, and the stuff you added to Peace-war game would be a good addition here. But, please, understand that minor difference do not warrant a new article. I don't mean to be a pain, but I have yet to hear you give a reason why there need to be separate articles on the two games. I understand they have different descriptions, but I don't see why that requires two different articles. This article is not overly long, so including addition material here will not hurt this article. Having two separate articles is harmful because we will have to repeat much of what is said or users will have to flip back and forth between the two. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, necessarily, require two different articles, but the fact that you see the game's real-world instructive content and historical relevance as "minor" shows our differences. To me, there is more at stake here than correct game theory sub-categorization. Peace-War discovered something surprizing about the economics of war, and there should be a special place for it. People seeking to read about it, directed there from Peace or War, will want to do so directly without reading a lot of game theory. If they want to read more about game theory, those links are provided. The title game for this article, Chicken, does not rise to that level of seriousness or adequately represent those considerations. Its payoff matrix makes it irrelevant, never mind its game theory similarities.

What about "Iterated prisoner's dilemma" a main part of Prisoner's dilemma, do you want to merge that too? Iterated-prisoner's-dilemma/Peace-War/Hawk-Dove is sufficiently different in instructive content, historical relevance, and potential real-world analogues to be set apart from Chicken. If you want to merge them all together into one article, do it under one of those three titles, with Chicken as a curiously divergent sub-category. Thanks, Mbhiii 21:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken is not iterated prisoner's dilemma, they have very different game theoretic properties (nash equilibria, learning dynamics, etc.) As a result it would be inappropriate for them be in the same article. There is not much repetition in Prisoner's dilemma and Chicken, illustrating my point. On the other hand, a complete article on the Peace war game would discuss its nash equilibria, learning properties, etc. This would be redundant with the information in this article. As I suspect the two of us will not reach an agreement, I will solicit suggestions from other members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Game theory to see how they feel. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kevin here. When you say "just put all 2x2 payoff matrix games together, as a sub-category of Payoff matrix. It is what they simulate in real life that makes them so different, and instructive"[1]. I could not disagree more, the purpose of having these articles in the game theory project is to explain their game theoretical properties. If you think that all games in the abstract should all just be lumped together whilly-nilley and then have sparate articles that describe their applications to different topics, I think that's odd. It sort of runs against the idea of game theory: that the abstract model captures something essential about the real world. Ignoring the essential properties of the different games (and by extension grouping those that are essentially identical) in their abstract sense is to abandon the aim of capturing the essence of the "real life" problem in a model.

I'm not opposed to the idea of a separate article for the hawk-dove game, there is a great deal of published research on that model (work by Mike Mesterton-Gibbons, Philip Crowley, Carl Bergstrom, Eshel & Sansone, Rufus Johnstone leaps to mind for starters), an article describing that body of work would be a great thing. The old Hawk and Dove article [2] just wasn't such a thing, it merely rehashed the essential basic fundamentals of the model (and where it wasn't merely duplicating material copied from the Chicken (game) article, it presented material in an ideosyncratic way, see my comments [3] for e.g.). I see similar problems in the Peace war game article as in the old Hawk and Dove article, it's ideosyncratic to the point that I'm not convinced that it accurately represents the state of scholarship "in the field". For instance: "It is a variation, also called Hawk and Dove, of the iterated prisoner's dilemma in which the decisions (Cooperate, Defect) are replaced by (Peace, War)." seems to confabulate ideas which ought to be clearly distinct. Prisoner's dilemma is a totally different game from Hawk-Dove (aka chicken).

It stands to reason that articles covering the topic of game theory should have different articles for different games, and that games that are the same be covered in the same article. I am however, opposed to merging. Until reliable sources are produced to support the Peace war game article I suggest it be viewed as original research. If sources do support, then I'm still opposed to merging, it's different enough that I think it's like the extensive form game/game tree situation. Pete.Hurd 04:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say that even if games have similar but different properties it might still be ok to put them in the same article, if discussing the differences in context makes more sense than discussing them separately. For naming issues we have redirects. On Peace/War vs. Prisoners Dilemma, I don't see anything in Peace/War that is structurally different, it sounds much more like PD repackaged for business seminars. And that's not something we need to cover in a separate article. ~ trialsanderrors 03:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone add the biological basis for Hawk-Dove? What are the actual resources in question? I understand chicken, and we say Hawk-Dove is related, but we never explain what it is actually based on. Thanks

The resource is hypothetical. Could be anything, mating teritiory, what ever, as long as its not share-able. Also, any of these game can be iterated. Hawk-Dove is an older and more studied than "chicken". I guess that you could see chicken as a variation of H-D, taken to an extreme (for the neg payout) and with the matrix inverted. But, to me, I think they are seperate games. But, it they are lumped together, should be called Hawk-Dove, as it is more notable. 193.11.246.156 09:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC) 193.11.246.156[reply]

Peace war game

The talk page for Peace war game redirects here (which is probably appropriate due to the suggested merge) but then the cleanup-rewrite template also redirects to this page. So, in the hopes that someone came looking for what needs cleaning up in that article, see the section above... Pete.Hurd 04:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the science citation index finds no hits for "peace war game", googling "Peace war game" computer simulation turns up no hits other than the wikipedia article. Pete.Hurd 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a math/phil undergrad in the 60s and a prob/stat grad student in the 70s, I recall occasional, but excited or reverential, mention of the "Peace War Game" by faculty in those departments (U of Ky, Harvard, Stanford), some of whom were engaged in playing it on computer or by mail, and always by that name, never by any of the other names mentioned above. In a corporate training session, in the 80s, (on departmental competition and cooperation) it was referred to again by that name. I've written what I remember of those discussions. --Mbhiii 13:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the Oz Shy reference given in the Peace war game article, and, while it discusses the properties of the game in the Peace/War framework on page 14, page 15 says: "In the literature, the game described in Table 2.1 is commonly referred to as the Prisoners' Dilemma game. Instead of having two countries fighting a war, consider two prisoners suspected of having committed a crime," etc. So certainly this is the same game. A redirect to PD and a mention of the alternative name seems enough. I don't see any connection to Chicken. ~ trialsanderrors 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the only connection to "chicken " I see is that Mbhiii believes that the aggressive nature of the Peace/War game intepretation makes it akin to the Hawk-Dove interpretation of the discoordination game. The peace-war game is a different payoff interpretation of the PD, not a discoordination game. My opposition to organizing articles on games by payoff interpretation explained in previous topic. I suggest we end the merge proposal per Trials' suggestion above. Pete.Hurd 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Merge

The whole article has gotten off track. The initial use of the word "game" is misleading -- this can be a deadly serious game, not fun-and-games. Death is a possible outcome. The reader needs to be immediately cued in to this technical meaning of "game", academic game theory. "The principle of the game is to create pressure until one person backs down." This is too mild. The core concept is, to create intensely escalating danger, that forces a quick resolution. But it is also key that each party takes "losing" (loss of face at a minimum) seriously -- not as trivially as the article seems to generally suggest. "metaphor for a situation where two parties engage in a showdown where they have nothing to gain" -- this is wrong. They do have something to gain. Face etc is very real, culturally/socially/psychologically/politically. The whole article gets way too academic. World politics is frequently characterized by various forms of the game of chicken. The article should address/discuss this is meaningful terms -- academic game theory should not dominate the article, but should be present. Readers should be directed to other articles for more game theory, and for other related games. The article currently does not mention "macho" or any of the ordinary inter-personal concepts that form the basis of why the game of chicken exists among humans and is so important to understanding our lives. The words "coward" and "yellow" are not mentioned -- they belong in the intro probably. Without "male" and "teen", there might well be no game of chicken... 69.87.204.201 16:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I half-agree. The heretical essay is a good starting point to discuss the origins of the game in popular culture. The discussion in discoordination game should stick to the game-theoretical interpretation. ~ trialsanderrors 20:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death is not a number

	Swerve	Straight
Swerve	Tie, Tie	Lose, Win
Straight	Win, Lose	Death, Death
Fig. 1: Chicken example

When the stakes are death, the payoff matrix is not conceptually accurate in assigning a numeric value to lose-lose, from the post-game perspective of the players. Players who no longer exist are not experiencing negative consequences, at least not on this measurable/estimable scale. From a simple perspective, it is just an undefined state. From a many-worlds perspective, it could make sense to take the risk of either being dead or very rich, for example. Dead in a sense doesn't count, and rich would be good... Society does experience the consequences of death. So the payoff matrix may be different for the players and for others... Swerve-swerve should not be 0,0; both parties would presumably lose face to some extent. 69.87.204.169 22:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the exposition it is only relevant that death is the worst outcome. The same game is given below with only variables as payoffs and inequality relations between them, but for an opening example the lowest number reflects the worst possible outcome. ~ trialsanderrors 10:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This (→) would be a way to express the Chicken story non-numerically (Win > Tie > Lose > Death). Original research? ~ trialsanderrors 21:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiply HD payoffs by 2

"Hawk-Dove game - Can we multiply those payoffs by 2?": Nah, that's the way they're always presented, it would look weired to change them. Pete.Hurd 23:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try another way to format them then. ~ trialsanderrors 23:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adviser-cruft?

I have been thinking about writing a section about learning models in chicken/hawk dove. In there, I was considering discussing this paper by Brian Skyrms and Peter Vanderschraaf. As Brian is my adviser and Peter a friend, I thought I would get other's opinions on whether this was relevant or not (as it is a bit far afield from the current material in the article). What do you think? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you don't start a whole article on that paper... ~ trialsanderrors 07:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I changed my mind anyway. Not so relevant. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Life Examples

Should this article contain examples of the game of Chicken in real life/popular culture (such as one of the 2004 winners of the Darwin Awards)? - Super Sam ^{ultra quick reply} 10:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I'm also thinking the Chickie Run scene from Rebel Without a Cause should get a mention. No "Chicken in popular culture" section though, please. ~ trialsanderrors 00:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Symmetry

I notice that the article discusses only symmetric Ch/H-D games, although it's not a necessary condition for most of the findings. Is this a standard definition in the literature or is Ch/H-D generally defined as W>T>L>C, w>t>l>c, with symmetry imposed for simplicity? ~ trialsanderrors 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESS/Replicator dynamics

Pretty nifty stuff, Kevin. It looks like there is a bit of cleanup work that needs to be done. I'd do it but I'm not as comfortable writing on evol game theory:

There is a bit of a sequencing problem here. The order is roughly 1. Popular explanation of Chicken 2. Biological interpretation of H-D. 3. Strategy Polymorphism vs Strategy mixing (??? this looks like it's orphaned here.) 4. Symmetry breaking, which is really about mixed NE, but in an odd sequence. Correlated eq is still an obscure topic compared to standard mixed NE. 5. Best response mapping, which should be a subtopic of mixed NE. 6. Replicator dynamics, which is the intro to evolgame theory. Interspersed are statements about ESS, which is never really explained.
The discussion jumps between 2-player Ch/H-D and games in a population, but never explains how the two are related. (I seem to remember that Ch/H-D is played via pairwise random matching and not against the field, or otherwise we would have to explain a multi-player Ch/H-D).
The vector field plot is nifty but needs explanation. I assume this game from All-Dove to mixed NE to All-Hawk for both axes, but that's just guesswork. Maybe a payoff matrix and labeled axes will make it clearer.

Comments? ~ trialsanderrors 09:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article needs to get reorganized. I moved the uncorrelated asymmetry stuff out of the "hawk-dove" section because I thought presenting it side by side with correlated equilibrium is insightful. It's basically the same idea, just one is presented from a rational choice perspective and one from a biological perspective. The idea is that when two player confront a game of chicken they would both do better by finding a way to coordinate their actions. This presentation of this material isn't my own, but Skyrms (not to say that its necessarily right, of course :). Perhaps we should add an "equilibrium section" early in the article which contains the best response mappings, stuff about the mixed strategy equilibrium, explanation of the ESS and which strategies are ESS. This could be followed by the symmetry breaking section which could talk about U.A. and C.E.

WRT your second bullet. I should say something about this. In the ESS and replicator dynamics section the game remains a two player game, the replicator dynamic model assumes you play the two player game against every individual in the population, but you do so pairwise. I agree about the vector field plot. I tried to add labels, but they came out too small when the size was reduced. I decided I would sleep in it trying to decide how to do it. Sleep didn't help, but I'll give it another try. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So a good sequence would be 1. Popular definition, 2. Basic NE properties 3. Mixed NE incl. best response & correlated eq 4. Hawk-Dove and evolutionary interpretation. 5. ESS, replicator dynamics? Also, maybe a general split, all rational choice discussion up to 3 should use Chicken and all evol discussion should use Hawk-Dove? And a general question, what's our rule on capitalization? I think the article uses Hawk dove, Hawk-Dove and Hawk Dove now. ~ trialsanderrors 19:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I was thinking something slightly different. 1. Popular definition 2. Basic Ne including mixed and best response 3. Interpretations in evolution 4. ESS/Replicator dynamics 5. Uncorr. Asym. and Cor. Eq. Here are a list of the things that motivate me for this order:

Mixed strategy should come before ESS, since the ESS is the MSNE.
ESS should come before Uncorr Asym, since that section discusses ESS
Uncorr. Asym should occur near corr. eq. since they provide a nice juxtaposition of the two ways of doing things and are addressing the same general problem.

I'm open to have my mind changed on any of these, but that's the idea. Re: naming. Personally my preference would be for us to adopt one name and use it throughout the article. This has the unfortunate conclusion of using the "wrong" name (wrong = not used by the papers to which we are referring). On the other hand it makes the article more cohesive and easier to follow. Re: h-d. I vote for "Hawk-Dove", although I really don't care. Does Professor Hurd have any attitudes about any of this? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, I hope that didn't come out wrong. I didn't mean to suggest I didn't care what you thought, trials. Does that seem a reasonable order to you? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this one. I'm good with either sequence. ~ trialsanderrors 18:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, thoughts... I like the Replicator dynamics section (note that the one population/two population versions are the symmetrical/uncorrelated asymmetry versions of the model) so it would make sense to put that section right after the "Symmetry breaking" section, since the punch-lines are the same to both. I think the points to both these sections really make sense only after the best response mappings (maybe label the Chicken Two Pop Replicator Dynamics.png figure to match the Image:Reaction-correspondence-hawk-dove.jpg fig, or re-make them so the mixing Nash is in the same general area in both - it's top right in the best response and bottom left in the vector field). So I guess I'd go 1) Popular Def 2) Interpretations/application in biology, economics (incl. payoff variants etc?) 3) Basic NE & Best response 4) NE/ESS & Uncorr assym 5) Replicator dynamics 6) Polymorphism vs Strategy mixing. I havn't thought terribly hard about this, so that's more like my 1.25 cents worth. Pete.Hurd 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a second vector field figure for the symmterical/one pop dynamics? Pete.Hurd 16:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started moving stuff around, but I realized its a bit harder than I originally thought. I saved my work as Talk:Chicken (game)/Draft. If anyone wants to work on this, go ahead. I should finish it off in the next few days. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I moved that version to the live version. Let me know what you think! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA/ranking?

So, January has come and gone, and the article has much improved. I think we ought to give this article a rating, and maybe put it up for WP:GA. What do folks think? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'm no expert on GA/FA, most of my article writing is about moving D-class articles to B-class. I see a couple of necessary fixes, mostly rewriting the lead which doesn't cover all aspects of Ch/H-D, and the fact that most of the informal description presents it as a dynamic game while the formal definition is a one-shot game. These two views need to be reconciled. Other than that, I see only minor copyedit issues that would keep it from GA. ~ trialsanderrors 08:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think your right. I'll give this a B-class rating for now. Once we get the lead up to snuff and clean up some of the prose, I'll submit it for GA. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related games?

Would it make sense to add a section on related games? In particular, how does Chicken relate to PD, War of Attrition and Brinkmanship? ~ trialsanderrors 18:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest an entire article, comparison & contrast between all payoff symmetric 2x2 games (there aren't that many of them). Pete.Hurd 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, on second thought, since WoA isn't a 2x2 game, my suggestion isn't such a hot idea. Pete.Hurd 19:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a feasible article, but admittedly not very high on my priority list. ~ trialsanderrors 19:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, meanwhile I think a section on related games is a very good idea. Pete.Hurd 06:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muchachos. Ok, I took a stab at it. I wasn't sure what to do with Brinkmanship, the Chicken/PD is so fugly that I've left it commented out, and WoA v HD is what it is. I'm sorely tempted to change the Chicken talk to Hawk-Dove talk in the Chicken v PD. Anyway, I'm going to leave it as is pending feedback. Pete.Hurd 17:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my take on each in twenty-five words or less:

WoA: Chicken is a one-shot model while WoA is a dynamic model. WoA allows for gradually increasing stakes.
PD: PD is about the impossibility of cooperation while Chicken is about the inevitability of conflict. Iterated play can solve PD but not Chicken.
B: B is a strategic move, it's the threat to implement a tremble that with non-negligible probability picks the disastrous strategy to get the other player to back down.

The last one looks like more than 25 words... ~ trialsanderrors 22:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, *fidget* *fidget* I'd say WoA isn't dynamic in that sense. Players know the value of the resource before making a one-time only decision as to how long they're willing to persist in the contest (bid). There's no re-evaluation and re-decision once the WoA duration decision has been made at the start of the contest. The players just implement their choices since no more information is received, other than "nope, he hasn't quit yet". I really like the PD sentence, I think I'll plagiarize that one right in there. I think B will take far more than 50... Pete.Hurd 23:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in essence you can have either a multi-stage game where in each stage you have two strategies: stay in or chicken out, or a one-shot game where you have N pure strategies: stay in until round x. Both are different from the binary choice model in Chicken. ~ trialsanderrors 01:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but even more so. The choice in WoA is a continuous value (the bid magnitude) rather than a dichotomous choice, since there aren't discrete rounds. I keep meaning to write up a proof of the derivation of the ESS bid distribution for the article. I seem to remember having it all sussed out once, but that was in the '80s and it seems to have wandered off since. So I can't say for sure that forcing it into a discrete form wouldn't screw up the ESS. I would not say that WoA is a repeated form of Chicken. Pete.Hurd 03:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done endogenous timing games since my first advanced game theory class, but I seem to remember that under certain conditions (sequential moves?) continuous games can be transformed into discrete games. Not sure about the ESS literateure but in strategy revision reseqarchers use discrete and continuous setups exchangeably. BUT. Sticking to the matter closer at hand, what's a good example that drives home the difference between Ch and WoA? Putting your hands on a hot stove until the loser withdraws? ~ trialsanderrors 05:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw, there's already a mini-paragraph on Brinkmanship in the "popular versions" section. ~ trialsanderrors 05:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I posted my 50-word summaries in the article. ~ trialsanderrors 06:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Mind

I removed this edit which added a reference to the "blond game" from A Beautiful Mind, although it's correct that this game is similar to Chicken, I think the example is unhelpful. In particular, "John Nash" describes a strategy set in that game which is not actually a Nash equilibrium. So, I'm worried that appealing to that game in this article will frustrate our ability to explain the central concept rather than illuminate it. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember the details. Wasn't that a three-player game anyway? ~ trialsanderrors 06:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe even more. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Suggestions

Good work. The article will need additional citations, further discussion on historic development, further discussion on application and some minor wordsmithing in order to get to FA.

I should mention that I've been observing the progress of this article for some time and am glad that we can finally pass it. Majoreditor 23:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and kind words! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review

I am not sure that this article is currently good article standard. In particular, the lead is poor. It may be easy to fix, but this isn't clear to me, so I have taken it to Good article review. Please comment there and/or improve the article to meet the good article criteria. Geometry guy 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific about what makes the lead so poor? Pete.Hurd 20:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might have written that myself, but this line is incorrect: while each player prefers not to yield to the opponent, the outcome where neither player yields is the worst possible one for both players. Although I doubt that's what G-guy is aiming for. ~ trialsanderrors 21:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is supposed to be a stand-alone summary of the article. This one isn't: instead it is a definition and a discussion of terminology, which appears to me to be a substitute for an accessible discussion of these issues in the body of the article. I have other concerns about the accessibility of this and other game theory good articles. There are also more minor issues about the formatting of references and so on. I hope GA/R will be a helpful way to clarify these issues. Geometry guy 21:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your complaint about the lead. Chicken isn't defined in the lead, it's defined later. The first sentence is no more a definition than any opening sentence of any article. There is one sentence about terminology (the distinction between chicken and hawk-dove). The other sentences briefly describe what the game is, what it is used for, and its similarity to another game in game theory. Why can't it be stand alone? What term in the lead is inaccessible? What is the issue with formatting of references? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:LEAD, linked above. As for the references, the formatting is inconsistent (e.g. in the placement of the year). There are templates such as {{cite book}} to handle this. I will try to fix it. Geometry guy 11:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, dividing the references into parallel inline citation to a "notes" section and then a separate "references" section is confusing and an unnecessary complication. Can you explain what was wrong with the way it was before? Pete.Hurd 19:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before my edits, the references were inconsistently and randomly formatted. I did a lot of work here to format the references consistently. If you want to reformat them another way, that is fine, as long as the style is consistent. Geometry guy 20:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's readily apparent that you put a lot of time & effort into making the references all consistent, and I don't want to belittle that. However: the good article criteria call for inline citations, and now we have in line notes, the entries of which now correspond to citations in a separate references section. I much prefer the more standard way of organizing references such as is done in Equipartition theorem for example. Unfortunately, the present style of references can't be wrapped in <ref></ref> tags to produce standard style referencing while saving your efforts. I'll mull over how best to incorporate your work. Since you have alluded to so many problems with the substance of these articles, it seems to me that the cosmetics of the references is of a much lower priority. Pete.Hurd 00:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are three ways to provide inline citation (see WP:CITE#Inline_citations): One is the approach I have taken, another is the approach you prefer, and the third is Harvard referencing. If you want to change it to your preferred method, all you have to do is move the citation templates into the ref tags, adding page numbers where necessary. Geometry guy 14:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made an attempt to copyedit and improve the article, but am very disappointed by my edit. I have probably introduced errors and inconsistencies, and I have failed to address the problems with the article. The prose is poor, but I can't fix it, because I don't understand what it is trying to say: if a professional mathematician can't understand a game theory article, what chance does a general reader have? I can only hope that my poor edit gives some indication of the problems with this article, so that others will be able to respond. Geometry guy 16:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the Good article review was to delist. No action was required, however, as it does not appear the reviewer ever actually listed the article at WP:GA. The discussion, now in archive, can be found here. Once the article has been brought up to standards, it may be renominated at WP:GAC. Regards, Lara ♥Love 16:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Gimmebot removed the article from the GA list. It was listed under the Economics subcategory. I would have never thought to look there. Lara ♥Love 03:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difference with Prisoner's Dilemma

The difference between Chicken and Prisoner's Dilemma makes it clear that what makes them distinct is that in PD you should snitch if you expect the other guy to, while in Chicken if you expect the other guy not to swerve it means you should.

But the payoff matrix suggested for Hawk/Dove seems - unless I'm misreading it - to be on the Prisoner's Dilemma side of that distinction rather than the Chicken side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.140.128.107 (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk-Dove should have the property (for "sensible" values of V and C) that (as you put it) "you should do what you expect the other guy not to do", which makes it Chicken like, not PD like. Pete.Hurd 19:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for playing?

This article is mainly concerned with the game from a game-theoretic standpoint. Would it not be beneficial to discuss why people play the game when it has such a seemingly minor payoff for winning, and such a steep penalty if neither swerves? Is it machismo? Is alcohol typically a contributing factor? And so forth. I don't have any good data on this, so I'm not going to add the section myself. Does this seem like a good idea to others? — Matthew0028 13:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is suppose to be about the game theoretic conceptualization, not the activity practiced by intoxicated adolescence. So I am not a big fan of the idea for that reason. --DFRussia (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Sorry about this cos I have no problem with the maths but I don't like the lead.

In the UK, playing chicken means to CROSS fast-moving traffic at the last possible moment. The one who goes first loses, cos he is a "chicken" (a coward) who will not wait until a moment later. This does cause a few deaths each year. I think that this should be incorporated in the lead. And it tends to be practiced by juniors e.g let's say 8-13 something like that. Obviously we would need to find references etc. if you agree.

SimonTrew (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Description of the games

"Snowdrift game" redirects here, but that game is never actually described. Also, I don't see a clear description of Hawk and Dove (i.e. the rules of the game, not the payoff matrix). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.50.37 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken

I recommend to remove the example and quotation from Sir Bertand Russel related to the game of chicken. Mr Russel's use of the example is game-theoretically inaccurate and was aimed exclusively at scoring an emotional/propaganda point against the US/NATO. It trivializes the issue implying that there was nothing to gain by arming and nothing to lose by disarming. In reality some of the payoffs were slightly more unpleasant (obviously not to Mr Russel) than a few jeers from a bunch of losers. Mr Russel's worldview can be gauged from his statement "better red than dead". Patrick Henry would obviously have disagreed but game theory had been fully flashed out at his time. Using Mr Russel's logic one would have to agree with the drug cartels that disarming the police makes a lot of sense. Anyway,explicit or implicit politically biased viewpoints like Mr. Russel's should be avoided in the scientific and technical areas of the Wikepedia. The correct game-theoretical example that can be applied to the arms race is the prisoner's dilemma, with arming=confessing and not-arming=not-confessing. That example accurately explains the payoffs and shows that there was more than sheer stupidity behind the race. Another difference worth mentioning: in the game of chicken one can choose not to play (James Dean could decide not to consort with the gang, call the police, move to another state. move to another country, ignore the jeers, etc). In an arms race you may not have that choice. Once one side starts escalating the other must play: migration to another planet or calling the UN do not seem very effective alternatives. The player must gauge the threat level and the intentions of the adversary, choose a strategy, then live with the consequences from the payoff matrix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmrfd (talk • contribs) 23:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken is the name for a social phenomenon (although stories about it are more significant than the practice), not just a game-theoretic game, so the article can't solely be decided by what's game-theoretically correct. I think Russel's story got a lot of notice, and so is relevant to the article, whether he's right or wrong in his analysis. I don't think the article necessarily gives approval to the story, though there might be room for amendment. It does seem like it's given a lot of space, but Russell was wordy. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoner's dilemma

The article does not comprehend the essentials of 'Chicken' and the 'PD'. This is especially clear in the following section:

"'Chicken' and 'Prisoner's dilemma' share the premise of a mutually agreeable, 'compromise' solution (C, C) that is threatened by a Pareto dominated, 'aggressive' solution (A, A). The threat comes from the fact each player is individually better off switching to A if the other player plays C, but if both switch they end up in (A, A). The games differ in their response to one player switching individually."

In PD there is no mutually agreeable compromise. Both players have dominant strategies to defect. Therefore, the claim that "each player is individually better off switching to A if the other player plays C" suggests that they're not better of to play strategy A if the other does not play C. That's the fallacy: both players are always better of playing A, regardless of what the other player does. This section should at least be changed, and any reference to PD with regard to similarity with Chicken should be justified properly. Currently the article contributes to misconception about the mechanism that leads to the outcome of the Prisoner's dilemma.

I agree that the section is confusing. The connection between Chicken and the Prisoner's dilemma is either (a) deep, or (b) misleading, and I think the current text goes toward misleading. It also doesn't have any references, so I'm going to pull it out. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban Missile Crisis

It might be a good idea to include a couple of real life examples... I think the Cuban Missile Crisis illustrates the nature of the political chicken game perfectly.--86.138.113.101 (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any such examples should be discussed by others, so if there's a book/article that talks about the Cuban Missile Crisis in terms of chicken, that could be good. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge?

Why does this particular type of simple game merit a separate article? Having articles for coordination game, chicken, prisoner's dilemma is one way to go; another would be incorporation into an article about basic games. Crasshopper (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chicken (game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031216212124/http://www.gametheory.net:80/Dictionary/Games/GameofChicken.html to http://www.gametheory.net/Dictionary/Games/GameofChicken.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removes the useless "penis" game please?

In the current form it's not even related to the Chicken game and it's not well-known either. A low quality paragraph imo.

"Penis game" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Penis game. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Zugzwang from "see also" list

Currently Zugzwang is listed in the "see also" list. I don't think it should be listed, because I don't think Zugzwang is related to Game of Chicken. Hkfscp11 (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]