Talk:Game theory#"interact"/"compete"

In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_theory&oldid=1044106617 this edit] I partially restored [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_theory&oldid=1044093326 this edit] which was reverted in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_theory&oldid=1044095064 this edit]. A review article of the use of tool X in field Y is exactly the correct type of WP:RS to establish a claim of the form "X is a commonly used tool in Y field". I also added in coverage in the popular media for good measure. It certainly looks to me like game theory is used enough in epidemiology to warrant including a section about it in this article. The second half of the material that was reverted, in contrast, is WP:UNDUE focus on a single paper for inclusion in a general encyclopedia article on game theory, and I have not restored that. - Astrophobe (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

"As of 2014, with the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences going to game theorist Jean Tirole, eleven game theorists have won the economics Nobel Prize. John Maynard Smith was awarded the Crafoord Prize for his application of evolutionary game theory."

This is pretty out of date. If I'm not mistaken the 2016 and 2020 Nobel Prizes were awarded for work in Game Theory. If someone is able to confirm this understanding, I suggest an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.209 (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The introduction mentions von Neumann and Morgenstern, but doesn't mention John Nash or Nash equilibria. It probably should, though. Macoroni (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

In the Disgrace of Gijón of the 1982 Football World Cup, Germany and Austria played a day later than two other teams. They exactly knew beforehand which result would qualify one team for the next round, the other, or even both. With a score of 1-0 benefitting both, even the losing team as it would advance as 2nd seed to play weaker opponents while winning 1st place would match them with stronger ones, both teams seemingly settled for this result. The winning team was in a "do or die" game, they had to win and become 1st, or would have been eliminated as 3rd. The only option would have been trying to win by four goals or more which would have kicked out the losers and would have helped one of the other, absent teams, which had managed to beat the eventual winners in the first round.

What does game theory say about playing according to the real existing rules instead of playing for absent third parties?I'd say the "Disgrace" tag should be applied to the hosts having organized an asymmetric schedule of games, not to the final game or to the teams playing it. 2003:C6:3735:25D2:D97C:2C9D:E62F:DEA2 (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)