3 ms·
This is a non sequitur. One can lose by not appearing, by violating rules, by exposing yourself to the spectators, etc. Because the solution space for “win-lo
by aj7 8y ago
This is a non sequitur. One can lose by not appearing, by violating rules, by exposing yourself to the spectators, etc. Because the solution space for “win-losing” is infinite, there is no game, hence no winning or losing.
- s-shellfish 8y agoI don't think that's the point of the article. It's to appear within the confines of the game to pursue winning, while retaining losing as the goal. Perhaps it makes the game more challenging when, for whatever reason, the game is no longer fun to play. I imagine athletes at their peak fitness and training would be performing in a way that can become routine, repetitive, and restrictive.
- LanceH 8y agoSimilarly, 5 red cards would end the game in soccer (must field 7). If that's considered forfeiting and not just playing to lose, there would then be stalling when the other team scores to waste time. This is something that is a part of the game today. One team passes the ball back to score an own goal, the other team has someone sprint after it and go down with a hamstring injury. Injury time will be added, but it never quite adds up to the amount of time actually wasted. In this style of game, I have Italy edging out Brazil in the finals.
- benjaminl 8y ago> But what if we relax the second requirement to only apply to intentional resignations, forfeitures, and fouls? What if we had a game where both sides were trying their absolute hardest to make the other side win? The article address that. You still have to follow the rules of the game.
- vinchuco 8y agoNo, you see, the article author is playing a supergame which is won by finding a play-to-lose version of a game. The parent commenter is simply playing the play-to-lose version of that supergame.