tegwick
55a475b1a9
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
Two questions from the maintainer — is there a game-theory mapping to Ludii's language, and is that language formal enough to derive one from. Yes, no, and the no does not matter. The mapping is proven, not to be invented: "The Ludii Game Description Language is Universal" shows the language can represent an equivalent game for any finite, non-deterministic, imperfect-information game, extending earlier work limited to finite deterministic fully-observable extensive-form games. EFG is also OpenSpiel's object, so the same formalism connects description to analysis: Ludii -> EFG <- OpenSpiel. Ludii's syntax is formal and unusually so — a class grammar derived automatically from its source. Its semantics are its Java: a ludeme means what its class does, and Ludii effectively makes Java the game description language. So there is no independent calculus to extract. The formality lives in the universality RESULT, not in a definition of meaning. GDL has the semantics and pays for it in speed — six times on Gomoku, twenty on Amazons and Hex, over two hundred on Chess. Conclusion: do not derive a language from Ludii; target the EFG directly. And we are closer than the tracks assumed. The journal is the history, Outcome is the payoff, legal_commands gives the actions — and project(Viewer::Player(seat)) IS the information partition, built so a player is not shown another's hand and unremarked as exactly the machinery imperfect information needs. Three gaps: chance is folded into a seed so a game is one realisation rather than a game with chance nodes; perfect recall is unasserted, which CFR and exploitability both assume; and commit/reveal is the standard EFG encoding of simultaneity but is never stated as such. Perfect recall is checkable from the journal today and is now Track B's first task — if it fails, every equilibrium concept we might quote is unsound here. Also re-vendored the catalog twice: ground-game added H2 — scoped problem stress, applying End Stress by personal/bond/global scope instead of flat to everyone, which is a direct response to our reading that H1's tax scales with the Problems while its intended effect does not. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| ai-ai.md | ||
| browne-criteria.md | ||
| gdl-ggp.md | ||
| ludii.md | ||
| machinations.md | ||
| openspiel.md | ||
| play-substrates.md | ||
| rbg.md | ||
| README.md | ||
Simulators — profiles of systems adjacent to clay-borg
Persisted research, not a link dump. Each profile answers the same questions in the same order so the systems can be compared, and each carries what we actually checked.
Written for ../specs/Positioning.md §1 and
§4 — the field we sit in, and the three tracks. Track A (a second game)
and Track B (game theory as the lens on dynamics) both depend on knowing
what already exists.
The confidence rule
Every claim in a profile carries its source, and a claim from background knowledge is marked
unverified.
This directory was written immediately after three adversarial review
rounds whose entire yield was claims that outran what had been checked
(../reviews/). A profile that quietly mixes a fetched fact
with a half-remembered one is the same failure in a new place — and here
it would be worse, because these profiles are meant to inform whether we
build something or adopt it.
| marker | means |
|---|---|
checked |
read from a source this session, cited at the foot of the profile |
unverified |
from background knowledge; plausible, not confirmed, and must be before it decides anything |
open |
a question we want answered and did not answer |
The schema
# <name>
owner · first release · licence · language (checked/unverified)
## What it optimises for
## How a game is defined
## What it can analyse
## What it does not do
## Relevance to clay-borg — which track, and how
## What to steal
## What to avoid
## Open questions
## Sources
Index
| profile | in one line | track |
|---|---|---|
ludii.md |
the closest relative: ludemes, breadth, speed — syntax formal, semantics is its Java | A |
gdl-ggp.md |
the academic ancestor; agent generality over designer support | A |
rbg.md |
regular boardgames — a speed-focused rival description language | A |
ai-ai.md |
the closest relative for what we want to become: GGP with designer-facing metrics | A, C |
openspiel.md |
the game-theory workbench: CFR, exploitability, social dilemmas | B |
browne-criteria.md |
not a simulator — the canonical attempt to measure whether a game is good | C |
machinations.md |
economy and feedback loops, diagrammatic | — |
play-substrates.md |
Tabletop Simulator, boardgame.io — play without analysis | — |
The formal question, answered
Is there a game-theory mapping to Ludii's language, and is that language formal enough to derive one from?
Yes to the first, no to the second, and the second does not matter. Ludii's universality result grounds it in finite, non-deterministic, imperfect-information extensive-form games — the same object OpenSpiel's CFR and exploitability consume. Ludii's grammar is formal (derived from its class hierarchy) but its semantics are its Java, so there is no independent calculus to extract.
Conclusion: target the extensive-form game directly, not a language
derived from Ludii. Worked through in
../research/CB-RES-0009-extensive-form-is-the-lingua-franca.md.
What this survey has already changed
Ai Ai and Browne's criteria are the finding. Track C was written in
Positioning.md as though "assimilate knowledge about why games work"
were open ground. It is not: Browne published 57 criteria for game
quality, and Ai Ai already computes designer-facing measures — drama,
lead changes, branching factor, completion, duration — from played games.
That does not close Track C. It moves it from invent to adopt, credit, and find the gap, which is a much better position and a much smaller claim than the one we were about to make.