Talk:Minimax

cases where minimax does *not* give the optimal strategy

 * games where at least one of the players doesn't seem to play rationally (such as when a non-zero-sum game is converted to a zero-sum game by adding "nature": we can often predict exactly what nature would do. Nature hardly ever acts like a "rational" Homo economicus.)
 * infinite games

Are there any other cases where minimax is non-optimal? --DavidCary 07:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Prisoner's dilemma for one --D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Who invented?
If this is a theory someone had to invent it. Anyone know who? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 17:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * von Neumann and Morgenstern, for starters. Needs a history section; who developed it when; why -- e.g. minimax played an important role in WWII strategy. The whole article seems way out of balance & non-encyclopedic to me; all tech talk with a lot of repetition, no history, applications other than pure game theory, no examples where minimax fails & other context, critical reception…. --D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

maximin vs minimax
I think there's already too much going on in this article (minimax equilibrium concept; for statistics; for social welfare...). In any case, I think I want to un-redirect maximin back to its own article. In a few cases (such as zero-sum games) maximizing the minimum of one thing (maximin) is equivalent to minimizing the maximum of another thing (minimax). But it's certainly not always the case.

There is enough room in this article for both, with reorganization, but would it make more sense to have them both in the same article, or separate? Cretog8 (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * why isn't it always the case? minimax of a loss function f is always the same as maximin of the utility function -f. Zvika (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking in game theory terms. In a zero-sum game, minimax is usually described as minimizing the maximum payoff to the other guy. It could instead be minimizing your own maximum loss, or maximizing your own minimum gain. But I usually see the first description. In a non-zero-sum game, maximin (maximizing your own minimum gain) still has some appeal, and that's the same as minimizing your own maximum loss, but it's not the same as minimizing the other guy's maximum gain. whew!
 * So, technically, you're right that you can redefine the problem so any maximin is a minimax instead, but I think the exposition would be unpleasant. Probably that's also true for Rawls' stuff. Cretog8 (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is way too much going on here for someone looking for something specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.40.80.138 (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Pseudocode does not corresponds to equation in terms of recursion depth
The equation puts both a min and a max in one line. The pseudocode does one or the other in each recursion. While the pseudocode might "work" in practice, perhaps there should be a mention about how the recursion depth differs be a factor of 2 between the pure math and the pseudocode. 75.164.46.94 (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"Planet Fun" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Planet Fun and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 14 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)