No Game No Life - Episode 9 Discussion / Poll

[GDB]

I'm just waiting for the day a race realizes that Imanity can turn around any game that they set up to give them an advantage, and the best chance is to bank on a 50/50 pure game of chance. Not like the kind Steph was trying where she thought it was chance but wasn't, but something like rolling a D20.

Or better yet, get in their head with their whole "Blank doesn't lose" thing, and set up a game where the winner is the one who loses. Even if they win in the end, they had to lose to do it, so they'd have a moral victory, at least.

[Gan_HOPE326]

Originally Posted by GDB

Or better yet, get in their head with their whole "Blank doesn't lose" thing, and set up a game where the winner is the one who loses. Even if they win in the end, they had to lose to do it, so they'd have a moral victory, at least.

Or they could just find an awesome way to lose, which shows both their superiority AND leads them to the actual "victory" (which is what counts to them imho).

Reminds me of an Hikaru no Go episode where a very strong and proud player is asked to play 4 matches at once against a politician and his secretaries, and not to win against the politician to make him happy. Except the politician is also a vulgar and stupid man who pisses him off. So he manages to get an EXACT TIE with all 4 players, while playing them AT THE SAME TIME. Which is incredibly hard to do in a game like Go where scores usually are in the dozens. He doesn't win, sure, but he basically makes his message come across anyway - said message being "I'm as strong as you couldn't hope to become in 100 years".

[kagato3]

Originally Posted by GDB

I'm just waiting for the day a race realizes that Imanity can turn around any game that they set up to give them an advantage, and the best chance is to bank on a 50/50 pure game of chance. Not like the kind Steph was trying where she thought it was chance but wasn't, but something like rolling a D20.

Or better yet, get in their head with their whole "Blank doesn't lose" thing, and set up a game where the winner is the one who loses. Even if they win in the end, they had to lose to do it, so they'd have a moral victory, at least.

Oh yes lets see just how Blank can scam a die roll.

The winner is the one that loses doesn't work even if you change the rules so that you had a game lets call inverse black jack (the highest number over 21 wins) it's still not a loss since the win conditions are still set. you can't even really mess with them via the bets

[Jan-Poo]

Hmmm well the issue here wasn't much about whether Tet is fair or not, but whether if a game that is impossible to win is (according to Tet) cheating or not.

This is also something that has a lot of grey areas. For example a game where "the one who fly (unaided) faster wins" would be impossible to win for a human if the opponent was a flugel.

But here is the obvious issue that a human would refuse to play such game to begin with. Hence why I was wondering if a game that is practically impossible to win but fair in appearance would be allowed.


I'll make an example of such game, this is a tricky game that you can play at a pub.

TL;DR…

Long explanation of the game

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

This kind of game seems in appearance impossible to win for the challenger but is in fact impossible to win for the challenged.
It is an unfair game, however it is not cheating because no rule is broken and there isn't even a real deceit nor lie involved.
The game works as long as the challenged does not understand what kind of move the challenger can make in accordance to the rules that will make him win with a 100% certainty.

Of course this game wouldn't work a second time, but what if you can erase the memory of the loser?

[kukuru]

Since you are directly linking to future of a game as an example, that's spoiler Territory.

So read and find out, is the only answer.

On the question at hand, again [ ] and thus the audience will get more answers as they further test the oaths.

[quigonkenny]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

The hypothesis was actually "a game that is fundamentally impossible to win". Of course perhaps it's just that Sora and Shiro weren't pedantic enough to specify the small details.

There's this thing called "context". The exact terms may have been "a game that is impossible to win" (I'm not going to spend hours trying to find the conversation to see if I can parse the original Japanese for exact meanings), but the context colored it such that the meaning was "a game that is impossible for the challenger to win". Again, a small phrase that makes all the difference. Games where one side has an advantage—even an overwhelming advantage—are fine, like the drinking "game" you mentioned. If the challenger is your example is dumb enough to not know he can cover up the shotglass and win, or screws it up in some way (bumps the shotglass, spills a drop of beer into it, etc.), then it's not impossible for the challenged to win. That's not what they were talking about in the novel.

Speaking of your drinking game description, you left a bit of a rules-lawyerly opening in the description. "As soon as the first glass touches the table" could be taken to mean any of the three glasses, and since it comes after the rule about the challenged not doing anything until the (first) empty beer glass hits the table, it supersedes it.

[Gan_HOPE326]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Hmmm well the issue here wasn't much about whether Tet is fair or not, but whether if a game that is impossible to win is (according to Tet) cheating or not.

This is also something that has a lot of grey areas. For example a game where "the one who fly (unaided) faster wins" would be impossible to win for a human if the opponent was a flugel.

But here is the obvious issue that a human would refuse to play such game to begin with. Hence why I was wondering if a game that is practically impossible to win but fair in appearance would be allowed.


I'll make an example of such game, this is a tricky game that you can play at a pub.

TL;DR…

Long explanation of the game

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

This kind of game seems in appearance impossible to win for the challenger but is in fact impossible to win for the challenged.
It is an unfair game, however it is not cheating because no rule is broken and there isn't even a real deceit nor lie involved.
The game works as long as the challenged does not understand what kind of move the challenger can make in accordance to the rules that will make him win with a 100% certainty.

Of course this game wouldn't work a second time, but what if you can erase the memory of the loser?

I think that game would be okay by Tet's logic. It's not too different from what Sora pulled off with the birds when betting against Steph, for example - what allows the challenger to win is a loophole in the rules the challenged didn't see. Too bad for him, by Tet logic. Disboard is a game where violence is forbidden but it's not a FAIR world in this sense - brute strength is replaced by cunning as the way of oppressing others, that's all.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by quigonkenny

There's this thing called "context". The exact terms may have been "a game that is impossible to win" (I'm not going to spend hours trying to find the conversation to see if I can parse the original Japanese for exact meanings), but the context colored it such that the meaning was "a game that is impossible for the challenger to win". Again, a small phrase that makes all the difference.

From the beginning I always expressed my doubts that that statement was precise, I brought it up to hear other people's insight of whether according to them "a game that is impossible to win" can be considered "cheating", just that.

Originally Posted by quigonkenny

Games where one side has an advantage—even an overwhelming advantage—are fine, like the drinking "game" you mentioned. If the challenger is your example is dumb enough to not know he can cover up the shotglass and win, or screws it up in some way (bumps the shotglass, spills a drop of beer into it, etc.), then it's not impossible for the challenged to win. That's not what they were talking about in the novel.

If you stretch it enough then perhaps there isn't such a thing as a game that is impossible to win from Tet's point of view since it is possible to disregard the rules completely as long as the opponent doesn't notice.

For example in the game that I mentioned one could still win if he moved the opponent's glass without him noticing.

[risingstar3110]

Damn, so close to a yuri and incest ending