Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Different Forms of Imbalance in Strongly Playable Discrete Games I: Two-Player RPS Games

Itai Maimon

TL;DR

The paper investigates how imbalance and playability can be rigorously defined and maximized within discrete two-player games, focusing on $n$-RPS on unlabeled $n$-tournaments. It develops multiple imbalance metrics (including $UI_v$, $UI_e$, $N_e$, and $N_t$) and organizes them via Schur majorization classes, proving that a specific $(2n+1)$-$RPS$ (and its countably infinite analogue) is simultaneously maximally imbalanced across these metrics among playable games. The authors establish constructive least-balanced playable $RPS$ designs, proving uniqueness under several imbalance criteria, and provide kernel-based arguments alongside majorization results. They further illustrate the relevance of imbalanced playable games through ecological dynamics and competitive card-game narratives, and introduce a blow-up operation to enable scalable, modular construction of larger imbalanced games, setting the stage for multiplayer extensions in follow-up work.

Abstract

We construct several definitions of imbalance and playability, both of which are related to the existence of dominated strategies. Specifically, a maximally balanced game and a playable game cannot have dominated strategies for any player. In this context, imbalance acts as a measure of inequality in strategy, similar to measures of inequality in wealth or population dynamics. Conversely, playability is a slight strengthening of the condition that a game has no dominated strategies. It is more accurately aligned with the intuition that all strategies should see play. We show that these balance definitions are natural by exhibiting a (2n+1)-RPS that maximizes all proposed imbalance definitions among playable RPS games. We demonstrate here that this form of imbalance aligns with the prevailing notion that different definitions of inequality for economic and game-theoretic distributions must agree on both the maximal and minimal cases. In the sequel paper, we utilize these definitions for multiplayer games to demonstrate that a generalization of this imbalanced RPS is at least nearly maximally imbalanced while remaining playable for under 50 players.

Different Forms of Imbalance in Strongly Playable Discrete Games I: Two-Player RPS Games

TL;DR

The paper investigates how imbalance and playability can be rigorously defined and maximized within discrete two-player games, focusing on -RPS on unlabeled -tournaments. It develops multiple imbalance metrics (including , , , and ) and organizes them via Schur majorization classes, proving that a specific - (and its countably infinite analogue) is simultaneously maximally imbalanced across these metrics among playable games. The authors establish constructive least-balanced playable designs, proving uniqueness under several imbalance criteria, and provide kernel-based arguments alongside majorization results. They further illustrate the relevance of imbalanced playable games through ecological dynamics and competitive card-game narratives, and introduce a blow-up operation to enable scalable, modular construction of larger imbalanced games, setting the stage for multiplayer extensions in follow-up work.

Abstract

We construct several definitions of imbalance and playability, both of which are related to the existence of dominated strategies. Specifically, a maximally balanced game and a playable game cannot have dominated strategies for any player. In this context, imbalance acts as a measure of inequality in strategy, similar to measures of inequality in wealth or population dynamics. Conversely, playability is a slight strengthening of the condition that a game has no dominated strategies. It is more accurately aligned with the intuition that all strategies should see play. We show that these balance definitions are natural by exhibiting a (2n+1)-RPS that maximizes all proposed imbalance definitions among playable RPS games. We demonstrate here that this form of imbalance aligns with the prevailing notion that different definitions of inequality for economic and game-theoretic distributions must agree on both the maximal and minimal cases. In the sequel paper, we utilize these definitions for multiplayer games to demonstrate that a generalization of this imbalanced RPS is at least nearly maximally imbalanced while remaining playable for under 50 players.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 12 sections, 10 theorems, 70 equations, 2 figures.

Key Result

Lemma 1.6

In a weakly playable $RPS$, $G$, there is a unique Nash equilibrium, which must be symmetric. Thus, if $G$ is weakly playable, it must also be $2$-strongly playable. In particular, this condition is equivalent to the unique Nash equilibrium being totally mixed for both players.

Figures (2)

  • Figure 1: A visual representation of the $k$-minimizing objects in gray, containing the object $b$. The set of objects that beat a $k$-minimizing object is green, and the set of objects that lose to a $k$-minimizing object is red. It is clear that the green and grey sets weakly dominate the red set.
  • Figure 2: A visual representation of blowing up in $3$-$RPS$. The light gray circle is a blow-up at $s$ in the top $3$-$RPS$. We can again blow up with this game in the dark gray circle to continue this process recursively.

Theorems & Definitions (40)

  • Definition 1.1: $RPS$
  • Definition 1.2: $k$-Playable
  • Example 1.3: $4$-$RPS$
  • Definition 1.4: Combinatorial Balance
  • Definition 1.5: Distributional Imbalance
  • Lemma 1.6
  • Definition 1.7
  • Lemma 1.8
  • Lemma 1.9
  • proof
  • ...and 30 more