game theory

[BARTELBYVQF at cs.com]

In my non-expert opinion, game theory seems reductionist. The establishment 
of such a theory requires reducing the number of variables until the choices 
left are the ones deemed 'essential' or 'most revealing' then the results are 
extrapolated. The process of deciding which factors are to be subject to 
choice and the extrapolation are, in a relative sense, subjective, ultimately 
may have a material/objective basis . Could the decisions implicit in these 
components of the process be measured through a 'game theory' scenario?

I will stop short of deconstructing the scientific method but I will further 
give examples from real live games. I gather in this instance games are more 
analagous. In chess the first move can be only one of 18 , while in go the 
first move can be one of 161 and it goes from there. The number of variables 
in go decreases by at least 1 per player/turn more or less depending upon the 
style of play. In chess (and I should add that I lose at chess *every* time,  
Kasparov v. deep blue) as far as I can tell the number of possibilities never 
gets much higher than 18 and is often significantly lower. As per my previous 
post-machines can consistently beat humans in chess, while this is not the 
case with go.
By defining the rules in a game theory scenario to the point that there are a 
small number of variables less is revealed, not more.

mcapri