Finite and Infinite Games: Difference between revisions

Carse presents the “finite” versus “infinite” dichotomy through the prism of other dualities, which are interesting in themselves:

{{Quote|“To be prepared against surprise is to be ''trained''. To be prepared for surprise is to be ''educated''.”}}When we play finite games, we ''train'', but do not need ''education''. A tactician works out moves, devises playbooks, and solves equations, presenting all to the players for ingestion and later regurgitation. All being well, by clinical execution, players overcome their opposition. The team that wins is the one that executes most effectively. Players do not make up a plan as they go: their judgment is limited to selecting which part of the plan to execute when, and in response to what. Preparation is everything. The idea is to eliminate surprise by having, as far as possible, worked them out, and where computing all possible outcomes is not possible, to have computed more possible outcomes than your opponent.  

This strategy works where all parameters are fixed and all possible outcomes at least knowable in theory — [[zero-sum game]]s, [[simple system]]s, football matches — but does not ''always'' work in the dancing landscapes of [[Complex system|complex adaptive system]]s. If you prepared for chess, your work will be for naught if the game morphs into draughts — or, just as likely, cookery, music, or electronics. Here, instead of eliminating surprise, you equip yourself to deal with it: you need not answers but tools, [[heuristic]]s and a facility with [[:Category:Metaphor|metaphor]].

{{quote|“{{power versus strength quote}}”}}

It is [[Disdain fashionable things. Especially ideas.|fashionable]] to speak loosely about “power” in our time — much of [[critical theory]] is a manifesto against the violence [[Power structure|power structures]] do to the marginalised — and Carse’s distinction between “power” and “strength” reminds us to exercise care.