Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In a course I'm taking, the professor mentioned that a zero sum games are only interesting for 2 players.
Can someone explain me that?

share|cite|improve this question
It's an online course with thousands of students, the support will be limited. He explained that a n-1 players general game can be expressed as a n players zero sum game (which I understand). But I don't see as obvious that any n players zs game can be reduced to a 2 players zs game. – julio.g Mar 17 '12 at 21:27
The course by Jackson and Shoham? – Michael Greinecker Mar 17 '12 at 21:52
Hey, I know the coursera game theory course! I know lots of people doing that one - I think it will be pretty slick. – mixedmath Mar 17 '12 at 21:59
@MichaelGreinecker, mixedmath: Yes, that's exactly the one: – julio.g Mar 18 '12 at 0:53

By definition of the zero-sum game, the losses of player p1 are entirely added the wining of player p2 and vice verse. If you introduce a third player, p3, and say if p1 losses 5 points, we can't move the 5 points to both players p2 and p3 simultaneously, otherwise the game will not be a zero-sum game. Also, we can't introduce a new distribution rule because the current methods will not then be valid.

For more insight take a look at the Google Books book:Quantitative tech. for management decisions

share|cite|improve this answer
Are you saying that there can't be a n-player zero sum game? – julio.g Mar 18 '12 at 5:15
There are zero-sum games for two and more players, however, according the source quoted in the answer body, "Solution for n-person games is still being developed". – NoChance Mar 18 '12 at 7:58

Take any $n$-player game. Add a $n+1$th dummy player who has a single action available and a payoff function $u_{n+1}$ given by $u_{n+1}(a_1,\ldots,a_n,a_{n+1})=-\sum_{i=1}^n u_i(a_1,\ldots,a_n)$. This $n+1$-player game is a zero-sum game that is strategically equivalent to the original $n$-player game.

share|cite|improve this answer
Michael, that I understand, what I can't get is how to go from that to the 2-players zs game's conclusion our teacher mentioned. – julio.g Mar 18 '12 at 0:41
One cannot reduce any n-player 0-sum game to a two player 0-sum game. The point is simply that 0-sum is an assumption with little interesting consequences for general games. – Michael Greinecker Mar 18 '12 at 1:02

My guess on why n-person zerosum games are "not interesting" is that we don't have nice general results such as the minimax theorem(of 2-player zerosum games) for n-player zerosum games. I think one reason why the 2-player cases are so widely studied is because there are many interesting results on the whole class of such games.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.