3
$\begingroup$

We have one post tagged with games, and 4 tagged with puzzles. Do we need two separate tags for them ?

Proposal: RETAG the one games-tagged post (on international draughts) as puzzles.

I'd create a tag synonym for voting, but my AMP will force creation, and I'd rather get the community opinion.

Update: Correctly, people have pointed out that games is a generic name that applies to too many settings to be merged with puzzles, and that for this particular example, board-games might be a better tag. So I'm closing this request.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Or maybe a new tag that encompasses both? like "recreational"? $\endgroup$
    – Robin Kothari
    Commented Oct 7, 2010 at 0:49
  • $\begingroup$ that's also a possibility. $\endgroup$
    – Suresh Venkat Mod
    Commented Oct 7, 2010 at 4:44
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe board games is an accurate description of many of the problems Bob Hearn and John Conway have worked on. I'm not sure recreational quite captures their essence. $\endgroup$
    – András Salamon
    Commented Oct 8, 2010 at 0:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ so board-games seems like a good tag then. I'll retag that specific question and withdraw the general request. $\endgroup$
    – Suresh Venkat Mod
    Commented Oct 8, 2010 at 7:57

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

I oppose to the merge because I view games and puzzles as different things, although puzzles can be formulated as 1-player games in some cases. For example, it is confusing if a question about checkers/draughts is tagged as “puzzles.”

(Also, as a researcher working on multi-prover interactive proof systems (with some quantum twists), I may post a question about multi-player cooperative games in the future. I can imagine that the question will not be related to puzzles at all.)

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ At least on the second point, that would be a game-theory tag, not games or puzzles $\endgroup$
    – Suresh Venkat Mod
    Commented Oct 7, 2010 at 14:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Suresh: That may be a good point, but I am not sure if the study of games as in the computational complexity theory (such as games against nature) is considered as part of the game theory. $\endgroup$
    – Tsuyoshi Ito
    Commented Oct 7, 2010 at 15:37
  • $\begingroup$ @Suresh: I agree with Tsuyoshi. Classes like RG (Refereed Games) are about computational games, and results about them, like RG = EXP are complexity results. I don't think it would count as game theory. $\endgroup$
    – Robin Kothari
    Commented Oct 7, 2010 at 18:59
  • $\begingroup$ Another example: Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé games that are used in finite model theory would probably be uninteresting to people looking at puzzles. $\endgroup$
    – András Salamon
    Commented Oct 8, 2010 at 0:05
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think a single "game" tag would work. Different people seem to assign different meanings to it. Each of the cases mention above should have a more specific tag, e.g. EF-games or Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé-games would be more suitable for FMT setting, I don't think any FMTist would look under games tag for them. In summery, I think "games" is too general to be useful as a tag. $\endgroup$
    – Kaveh
    Commented Oct 8, 2010 at 2:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .