The Economics of Chess conventions
Observation: Competitive chess players often use clocks to ration time. Seems logical - conserve your time for important or difficult move. Straight forward budget constraint. Question: Chess players often use the "touch rule" - you touch a piece, you move it. Is there any economic motivation for this rule? Question: Any other games use economic insights to make playing and spectating more fun? -fabio
Re: The Economics of Chess conventions
Question: Chess players often use the "touch rule" - you touch a piece, you move it. Is there any economic motivation for this rule? Minimizes the number of "Oh, wait, I didn't want to do that - can I take that back?" claims, which (A) makes the game go faster, and (B) makes opponents less concerned about hastily revealing their plans (e.g., if I move my queen to a certain spot, THEN notice that you're about to take that queen with one of your pieces, and ask to 'take the move back', it makes you less likely to follow through on other plans of yours - which makes the game more frustrating for both of us). Question: Any other games use economic insights to make playing and spectating more fun? _Diplomacy_ (formerly by Milton Bradley, currently owned by Hasbro) is a great game for economic analysis. A brief summary, for those who've never played it: The board for _Diplomacy_ is a simplified map of Western and Eastern Europe, and a bit of North Africa. Each region of a country is one space, with some regions containing valuable 'supply centers.' Each country (made up of several regions) has a number of armies and fleets. The interesting part is - each army and fleet is equal in strength to every other army / fleet. The only way to dislodge a defending army is with overwhelming force (two armies to their one, for instance). Because of the way the countries and supply centers are laid out, countries often have to work together to oust a common enemy. Each country's moves are resolved at once; moves are written down on slips of paper, put in a hat, and read simultaneously. Thus, it's possible to promise aid to someone, and end up not delivering it (or, in fact, turning against that person). _Diplomacy_ is one of the most intriguing games I've ever come across (I'm engaged in a game by e-mail currently). I think some interesting economic speculations can be derived from it. -JP _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: The Economics of Chess conventions
On 19 Sep 2000, at 19:12, John Perich wrote:
_Diplomacy_ is one of the most intriguing games I've ever come across
(I'm engaged in a game by e-mail currently). I think some interesting
economic speculations can be derived from it.
That's putting it lightly. On the most popular Diplomacy ezine
("The Diplomatic Pouch"), it's rare to see an issue without at least
one article on Diplomacy and game theory. Dip attracts a lot of
mathematicians and economists. There was even a fascinating
"study" done wherein article readers saw different web pages (but
didn't know that) and while they thought they were being asked
opinions on a particular map position, the web pages showed the
same positions subtly differently (the pieces were in different
*places* in their spaces) to see if that influenced perception of the
situation. (It did.)
On the question of other boardgames -- many, many, many
boardgames involve substantial economic reasoning, but they are
rarely "common" games in this country. Instead, serious boardgame
hobbyists play European imports, which are usually much more
well designed. One game that took the hobby world by storm about
five years ago is called "The Settlers of Catan." The board is a
randomly generated assortment of resources and ports, and players
must build their settlements and roads to produce as efficiently as
they can. It is difficult to win without trading shrewdly with your
opponents. In fact, trade is central to the game. Each resource (there
are 5) is uniquely difficult to produce each game, so you are never
sure what will be scarce and what won't.
Other "German games" or "Eurogames" involve other economic
mechanisms -- some of the first ones I played were fascinating
auction games, where the idea was to make the most money. In
"Modern Art", you have a hand of paintings (cards), and each player
plays one in turn. When a player plays a card, the card specifies the
type of auction... free-for-all, reserve price, one bid in turn, etc. At
the end of each round, all paintings "won" by each player are cashed,
depending on *how many* of those paintings were put up for sale.
So ideally you want your own paintings to go for the most money,
but for that to happen other people have to play them, not just you.
However, if only you own a particular artist's work, then no one else
will have an incentive to auction off more of his work... which leads
to a lot of interesting auction strategy. And, of course, you can try to
win just by collecting the cash from selling your cards, rather than
accumulating a collection of paintings each round.
I could go on (and on, and on) -- but my point is that there are a ton
of games out there for which economic reasoning is central.
Boardgaming is a great hobby for economists, if you know where to
look for the good games.
Ananda Gupta
Some folks are dissatisfied with the free market if it doesn't work perfectly, and
satisfied with government if it works at all
.
-- Daniel B. Klein
Re: some history
I remember hearing a talk a very long time ago by someone who had tried to estimate the costs and benefits to Britain of the empire, and concluded that on net it cost more than it was worth. David Friedman I had also sent my second question to the "Ask the Professor" service at EH.net. THe professor on duty turned out to be Robert Whaples of Wake Forest University, who actually teaches the Industrial Revolution. He sent me the following: ___ Probably the best work on this subject is Mammon and the Pursuit of Empire: The Political Economy of British Imperialism, 1860-1912 by Lance E. Davis, Robert A. Huttenback, Susan Gray Davis. Their evidence shows that Britain generally transfered resource _to_ its self-governing colonies. Very few economic historians would accept the notion that British capitalism depended much on its imperial activities, which were probably a net drain on the economy. This book is packed full of information and discusses India at length. R. Whaples Wake Forest University He also clarified later that "self-governing" colonies was not an oxymoron and was actually part of the classification used in the book. Places like India, which had partially a local government. -- Chirag _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: some history
What about the benefits of free trade (efficiency, economies of scale etc...). If the nations outside the empire have protectionist policies and there are gains from international free trade, could not the gains of free trade justify the expense of the empire? What is the value of an economic union (even if this is accomplished by force)? Does the previously mentioned cost benefit analysis include this? Andrew Nigrinis - Original Message - From: "Chirag Kasbekar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 7:16 PM Subject: Re: some history I remember hearing a talk a very long time ago by someone who had tried to estimate the costs and benefits to Britain of the empire, and concluded that on net it cost more than it was worth. David Friedman I had also sent my second question to the "Ask the Professor" service at EH.net. THe professor on duty turned out to be Robert Whaples of Wake Forest University, who actually teaches the Industrial Revolution. He sent me the following: ___ Probably the best work on this subject is Mammon and the Pursuit of Empire: The Political Economy of British Imperialism, 1860-1912 by Lance E. Davis, Robert A. Huttenback, Susan Gray Davis. Their evidence shows that Britain generally transfered resource _to_ its self-governing colonies. Very few economic historians would accept the notion that British capitalism depended much on its imperial activities, which were probably a net drain on the economy. This book is packed full of information and discusses India at length. R. Whaples Wake Forest University He also clarified later that "self-governing" colonies was not an oxymoron and was actually part of the classification used in the book. Places like India, which had partially a local government. -- Chirag _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
