Solitaire

[Isianya]

This has always puzzled me. This game-we call it Solitaire. As in solitary-alone, remote, without others involved-lonely. I really don't get it. You try to get rid of all the cards. If you do, you win. And yet no one loses. Ridiculous! One can't win without another losing. That’s preposterous. If I play a game with you and I win, then you would lose. And if, in our hypothetical situation, you won, I would lose. The only possible scenarios where there isn't both a winner and a loser are: the game is (a) not completed, (b) is a draw, or of course, (c) not played at all (which doesn't fall into our scenario of the game being played in the first place). Hmm...well there you have it, a or b. Now we play this game by ourselves and in the event we get rid of all our cards, we declare ourselves a winner, but in effect we too are a loser, because we’re the only one who played and you can’t have a winner without also having a loser, we have, in effect, also won, for we had to lose to someone.  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

On a personal note, please change your text color, if only for this particular forum. It's very difficult to read your posts in light colors.

I think you may have to re-evaluate your definitions of winning and losing, as your definitions may be what's causing you so much trouble. Solitaire isn't so much a game as it is a puzzle. You can solve the puzzle (eliminating all the cards on the table) or you can fail at solving the puzzle (locking yourself into a loop). One is clearly winning, while the other is clearly losing.

It is not always the case that in order for one to win one must lose. In the event of a race, there is one winner, but how many losers? would you consider the runners in second or third losers, because they didn't reach first? What about whoever finishes last? All those in between? There is more to the debate than the cursory glance you've given it.  

[Isianya]

You have a point about solitaire being more of a puzzle rather than a competition with one's self.

However, in the event of a race, there can be some grey areas with winning and losing because there is more than two people competing. In solitaire, we play ourselves-where we could win or lose. What I was asking is how can someone win without a loser? Simply putting it, there aren't enough people playing solitaire so the player must be both a winner and loser. How else would you declare yourself a winner unless you have triumphed over someone in some way? Seeing as how winning and losing are direct opposites, it seems impossible to me to be only a winner.

Yet, in a race, there are multiple contestants. There is plently of room for a winner, 2nd place, 3rd so on and so forth until you have a clear loser. One the other hand, 2nd place has lost to 1st and 3rd to 2nd...etc. Yet in solitaire, there is only one place it seems because there's again only one person involved.

Hypothetically, if you and I were in a race with 4 other people and you won while I came in 6th, who would be the winner? You, correct? There's no argument that you have won since you are in 1st place. Now, let's examine the person in 3rd place-true, they did not beat me in the race so in essence they won compared to me, but lost to you. I have lost to everyone no matter which way you compare it. But, in solitaire, who is there to compare to? There's no 2nd (or 3rd, 4th...) in solitaire because there was only one player.  

[KaguraOfTheWind]

You have a hard time with the concept of "who" loses if you win, yet "who" wins if you lose? As in all card games there are two other players you must always consider that work together. These are the cards themself and random chance. If you lose, chance has beaten you by making the cards fall in a way such that there is no solution. If you win, you've beaten the odds so to speak. In some games, chance is a predicable opponent. It becomes less predictable as the number of variables increase.