That's not much of a crux then. Since you chose to bring the origins of very old games into doubt, we have to question how long ago Nim was solved, and whether it's creator(s) realized it was a solvable game. Now what? You've got to demonstrate that in order to demonstrate that it was never for fun. Furthermore, you assert that the purpose is trickery. Even if we assume this (and I don't think we should), is trickery not fun when you are doing the tricking?Limewater wrote:No, actually it isn't. Tic Tac Toe is solved in that, if played right, it will resolve to a CAT game. Nim is solved in that, if you play right, you will win. If both people know the trick, then whoever goes first will win.
This difference is not trivial. It is the crux of my point, and why I feel comfortable talking about "intent" in this case. Its purpose is trickery.
I don't recall mentioning stratego, but whatever. Anyway, don't look at me. I'm not the one who decided to declare the purpose of ancient games to be unknowable.You've felt pretty comfortable up until this point making broad statements about the original intent of chess, stratego, and I think maybe a couple more games of hazy origin. Why are you suddenly being so picky?
First of all, it's not my favorite reference, and is only one of two sources I cited. Honestly, it's not the best dictionary out there, as I think you've been noticing, but it is convenient. I'm liking it less now that has its own definitions rather than collecting definitions from other established dictionaries.I just looked up "game" on your reference of choice-- reference.com. Out of fifteen definitions, only one mentioned a requirement of having players (and that definition, oddly enough, mentioned that games are only "usually" played for amusement). That definition also specifies that a game has two or more players-- a requirement that excludes more video games. None directly mention that a game must have an objective.
Anyway, here's definition 3 a (1) from Merriam-Webster:
"a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other"
That's not their primary definition, which is:
"activity engaged in for diversion or amusement : play"
As "play" requires a player, and since the computer is a participant (but does not "play" per se), a conventional video game matches both definitions. Conway's Game of Life matches neither of these, unless one chooses to engage in it for "diversion or amusement"--which are synonymous with "fun".
For good measure, here's the primary definition from Oxford:
"1. a form or spell of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck."
...and from Cambridge:
"[C] an entertaining activity or sport, especially one played by children, or the equipment needed for such an activity"
Good for you? I suppose it would be convenient in these cases if you could just make up your own definitions for things to suit your own purposes. However, if we're discussing definitions, dictionaries are the best rule book available.I'm not a huge fan of appealing to the dictionary.
Go ahead and finish with the example they provide with that definition: "the game of diplomacy." It's a definition of an idiomatic use of the word, and does not describe something that is itself a game. In short, it supports exactly what I was saying about Conway's "game" of Life.Again, from reference.com
anything resembling a game, as in requiring skill, endurance, or adherence to rules
This could have been made more obvious, but the fragment "resembling a game" should be a huge clue-in. How can a thing be defined as something that resembles itself? If that were the intent, this would be a self-referencing definition, and those are useless. I hope this was an oversight on your part and that you were not being disingenuous.
