Complete information
≈ 5 min read
Names in other languages
No names in other languages are held for this entry yet.
Article bodies are English and are not machine-translated. A name in another language is not a translation of the article.
, a typical example of complete information In economics and game theory, complete information is an economic situation or game in which knowledge about other market participants or players is available to all participants. The utility functions (including risk aversion), payoffs, strategies and "types" of players are thus common knowledge. Complete information is the concept that each player in the game is aware of the sequence, strategies, and payoffs throughout gameplay. Given this information, the players have the ability to plan accordingly based on the information to maximize their own strategies and utility at the end of the game. A typical example is the prisoner's dilemma. Inversely, in a game with incomplete information, players do not possess full information about other players. Some players possess private information, a fact that the others should take into account when forming expectations about how those players will behave. A typical example is an auction: each player knows their own utility function (valuation for the item), but does not know the utility function of the other players.
, a typical example of complete information]] In economics and game theory, complete information is an economic situation or game in which knowledge about other market participants or players is available to all participants. The utility functions (including risk aversion), payoffs, strategies and "types" of players are thus common knowledge. Complete information is the concept that each player in the game is aware of the sequence, strategies, and payoffs throughout gameplay. Given this information, the players have the ability to plan accordingly based on the information to maximize their own strategies and utility at the end of the game. A typical example is the prisoner's dilemma. Inversely, in a game with incomplete information, players do not possess full information about other players. Some players possess private information, a fact that the others should take into account when forming expectations about how those players will behave. A typical example is an auction: each player knows their own utility function (valuation for the item), but does not know the utility function of the other players.
Complete versus perfect information
Complete information is importantly different from perfect information. In a game of complete information, the structure of the game and the payoff functions of the players are commonly known but players may not see all of the moves made by other players (for instance, the initial placement of ships in Battleship); there may also be a chance element (as in most card games). Conversely, in games of perfect information, every player observes other players' moves, but may lack some information on others' payoffs, or on the structure of the game. A game with complete information may or may not have perfect information, and vice versa. Examples of games with imperfect but complete information are card games, where each player's cards are hidden from other players but objectives are known, as in contract bridge and poker, if the outcomes are assumed to be binary (players can only win or lose in a zero-sum game). Games with complete information generally require one player to outwit the other by forcing them to make risky assumptions. Examples of games with incomplete but perfect information are conceptually more difficult to imagine, such as a Bayesian game. A game of chess is a commonly given example to illustrate how the lack of certain information influences the game, without chess itself being such a game. One can readily observe all of the opponent's moves and viable strategies available to them but never ascertain which one the opponent is following until this might prove disastrous for one. Games with perfect information generally require one player to outwit the other by making them misinterpret one's decisions.
See also
Bayesian game Handicap principle Market impact Screening game Signaling game Small talk Trash-talk
References
Bibliography
Watson, J. (2015) Strategy: An Introduction to Game Theory. Volume 139. New York, WW Norton Fudenberg, D. and Tirole, J. (1993) Game Theory. MIT Press. (see Chapter 6, sect 1) Gibbons, R. (1992) A primer in game theory. Harvester-Wheatsheaf. (see Chapter 3) Ian Frank, David Basin (1997), Artificial Intelligence 100 (1998) 87-123. "Search in games with incomplete information: a case study using Bridge card play".
Text derived from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1324735702 under CC BY-SA 4.0; modifications have been made.