# Singles Tennis Viewed as a PCT Interaction

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519>\
**Category:** CSG2011\
**Created:** [August 26, 2011, 3:41pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519 "2011-08-26T15:41:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kenneth\_Kitzke\_Value](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/bc79bd/32.png) [@Kenneth\_Kitzke\_Value](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Kenneth_Kitzke_Value)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 3:41pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519/1 "2011-08-26T15:41:54Z")

</div>

[Kenny Kitzke (2011.08.26)]

I am interested. If you could tell me more of what you have in mind, it would intensify my interest.

In a message dated 8/26/2011 7:34:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [davidmg@VERIZON.NET](mailto:davidmg@VERIZON.NET) writes:

> **···**
>
> > [David Goldstein (2011.08.26.0726 EDT)]
> 
> > Perhaps, we could consider the game of singles tennis from a PCT view.
> 
> > It involves an interaction between two individuals. The interaction is
> 
> > structured by the game rules, but every match is different in its specifics.
> 
> > Anybody interested?
> 
> > David

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Carol\_Kiran](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/46a35a/32.png) [@Carol\_Kiran](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Carol_Kiran)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 9:37pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519/2 "2011-08-26T21:37:56Z")

</div>

Hi! I would be interested. Am an armchair CSGer from 1990 B:CP class at NEIU. Have been playing tennis (mostly singles) for 40+ years and still going. PCT taught me that the environment did NOT control me, but that I controlled it. I learned that I did not have to let opponents, court conditions or equipment decide how I would play. That choice was mine. That may sound simple, but it was quite profound to me. Strong interest in practicality of application to my own lifestyle changes limited involvement in the models and science of PCT to the theoretical proofs they provided… Seeing how a singles game might be viewed from a PCT perspective would be fun and maybe even show some new shots to try on court. Thanks. Carol . .

> **···**
>
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> From: Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems [KJKitzke@AOL.COM](mailto:KJKitzke@AOL.COM)
> 
> To: CSGNET [CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU](mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU)
> 
> Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2011 10:42 am
> 
> Subject: Singles Tennis Viewed as a PCT Interaction
> 
> [Kenny Kitzke (2011.08.26)]
> 
> I am interested. If you could tell me more of what you have in mind, it would intensify my interest.
> 
> In a message dated 8/26/2011 7:34:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [davidmg@VERIZON.NET](mailto:davidmg@VERIZON.NET) writes:
> 
> > [David Goldstein (2011.08.26.0726 EDT)]
> 
> > Perhaps, we could consider the game of singles tennis from a PCT view.
> 
> > It involves an interaction between two individuals. The interaction is
> 
> > structured by the game rules, but every match is different in its specifics.
> 
> > Anybody interested?
> 
> > David

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dmg](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/5e9695/32.png) [@dmg](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/dmg)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 10:30pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519/3 "2011-08-26T22:30:29Z")

</div>

[David Goldstein (2011.08.26.1828 EDT)]

Dear Carol and Kenny:

Here is my first try–

The Game of Tennis from a PCT view

Controlled Variables—Play by the rules; Hit the ball over the net and in the other person’s court one more time than the other person; have fun; socialize; get exercise; follow a strategy based on the specific knowledge about the other person.

Disturbances—The other person returns the ball into your side of the court and it is not entirely possible to predict where the ball will go. The kind of court makes a difference. The weather conditions make a difference.

Errors—You hit the ball and it goes into the net or goes outside the bounds of the other person’s court. You mishit the ball. You hit the ball after it bounces twice.

Behaviors/actions—Hit forehands, backhands, volleys, serves; learn to do these things in special ways. Run to the place where the ball lands.

> **···**
>
> **From:** Carol Kiran
> 
> **Sent:** Friday, August 26, 2011 5:37 PM
> 
> **To:** CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
> 
> **Subject:** Re: Singles Tennis Viewed as a PCT Interaction
> 
> Hi! I would be interested. Am an armchair CSGer from 1990 B:CP class at NEIU. Have been playing tennis (mostly singles) for 40+ years and still going. PCT taught me that the environment did NOT control me, but that I controlled it. I learned that I did not have to let opponents, court conditions or equipment decide how I would play. That choice was mine. That may sound simple, but it was quite profound to me. Strong interest in practicality of application to my own lifestyle changes limited involvement in the models and science of PCT to the theoretical proofs they provided… Seeing how a singles game might be viewed from a PCT perspective would be fun and maybe even show some new shots to try on court. Thanks. Carol . .
> 
> -----Original Message-----  
> From: Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems [KJKitzke@AOL.COM](mailto:KJKitzke@AOL.COM)  
> To: CSGNET [CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU](mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU)  
> Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2011 10:42 am  
> Subject: Singles Tennis Viewed as a PCT Interaction
> 
> [Kenny Kitzke (2011.08.26)]
> 
> I am interested. If you could tell me more of what you have in mind, it would intensify my interest.
> 
> In a message dated 8/26/2011 7:34:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [davidmg@VERIZON.NET](mailto:davidmg@VERIZON.NET) writes:
> 
> > [David Goldstein (2011.08.26.0726 EDT)]
> 
> > Perhaps, we could consider the game of singles tennis from a PCT view.
> 
> > It involves an interaction between two individuals. The interaction is
> 
> > structured by the game rules, but every match is different in its specifics.
> 
> > Anybody interested?
> 
> > David

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/frednickols/32/2645_2.png) [@FredNickols](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/FredNickols)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2011, 10:49pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519/4 "2011-08-26T22:49:21Z")

</div>

[From Fred Nickols (2011.08.26.1644 MDT)]

David:

A couple of comments.

Your “run to the place where the ball lands� sounds a lot like Wayne Gretzky’s “skate to where the puck will be.� I suspect Rick Marken might suggest some kind of optical/angular velocity as the controlled variable and instead of predicting where the ball will land the player is unable to return the ball because he/she is incapable of controlling that optical angle/velocity.

If by “weather� you mean “wind� I think that is also a disturbance. In addition, what I know of tennis (and golf) a key factor is the player’s “concentration.� Anything that breaks that concentration would be a disturbance. While I’m at it, I rather imagine than “concentration� might be a controlled variable all its own.

I’ve never played tennis and I’ve only played a little golf so I’ll forego saying any more.

I do hope what I have said is helpful and clarifying.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

Managing Partner

**Distance Consulting LLC**

1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

Mount Vernon, OH 43050

[www.nickols.us](http://www.nickols.us) | [fred@nickols.us](mailto:fred@nickols.us)

_“Assistance at a Distance�_

> **···**
>
> **From:** Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU](mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU)] **On Behalf Of** David Goldstein  
> **Sent:** Friday, August 26, 2011 4:30 PM  
> **To:** CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU  
> **Subject:** Re: Singles Tennis Viewed as a PCT Interaction
> 
> [David Goldstein (2011.08.26.1828 EDT)]
> 
> Dear Carol and Kenny:
> 
> Here is my first try–
> 
> The Game of Tennis from a PCT view
> 
> Controlled Variables—Play by the rules; Hit the ball over the net and in the other person’s court one more time than the other person; have fun; socialize; get exercise; follow a strategy based on the specific knowledge about the other person.
> 
> Disturbances—The other person returns the ball into your side of the court and it is not entirely possible to predict where the ball will go. The kind of court makes a difference. The weather conditions make a difference.
> 
> Errors—You hit the ball and it goes into the net or goes outside the bounds of the other person’s court. You mishit the ball. You hit the ball after it bounces twice.
> 
> Behaviors/actions—Hit forehands, backhands, volleys, serves; learn to do these things in special ways. Run to the place where the ball lands.Â
> 
> **From:** Carol Kiran
> 
> **Sent:** Friday, August 26, 2011 5:37 PM
> 
> **To:** CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
> 
> **Subject:** Re: Singles Tennis Viewed as a PCT Interaction
> 
> Hi! I would be interested. Am an armchair CSGer from 1990 B:CP class at NEIU. Have been playing tennis (mostly singles) for 40+ years and still going. PCT taught me that the environment did NOT control me, but that I controlled it. I learned that I did not have to let opponents, court conditions or equipment decide how I would play. That choice was mine. That may sound simple, but it was quite profound to me. Strong interest in practicality of application to my own lifestyle changes limited involvement in the models and science of PCT to the theoretical proofs they provided… Seeing how a singles game might be viewed from a PCT perspective would be fun and maybe even show some new shots to try on court. Thanks. Carol . .
> 
> -----Original Message-----  
> From: Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems [KJKitzke@AOL.COM](mailto:KJKitzke@AOL.COM)  
> To: CSGNET [CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU](mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU)  
> Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2011 10:42 am  
> Subject: Singles Tennis Viewed as a PCT Interaction
> 
> [Kenny Kitzke (2011.08.26)]
> 
> I am interested. If you could tell me more of what you have in mind, it would intensify my interest.
> 
> In a message dated 8/26/2011 7:34:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [davidmg@VERIZON.NET](mailto:davidmg@VERIZON.NET) writes:
> 
> > [David Goldstein (2011.08.26.0726 EDT)]
> 
> > Perhaps, we could consider the game of singles tennis from a PCT view.
> 
> > It involves an interaction between two individuals. The interaction is
> 
> > structured by the game rules, but every match is different in its specifics.
> 
> > Anybody interested?
> 
> > David

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 1:30am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519/5 "2011-08-27T01:30:51Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2011.08.26.1830)]

> David Goldstein (2011.08.26.1828 EDT)
> 
> DG: Dear Carol and Kenny:  
> Here is my first try--
> 
> The Game of Tennis from a PCT view
> 
> DG: Controlled Variables—Play by the rules; Hit the ball over the net and in the other person’s  
> court one more time than the other person; have fun; socialize; get exercise; follow a  
> strategy based on the specific knowledge about the other person

I think these are certainly reasonable possibilities. But going with  
the idea that the goal here is to consider tennis as an illustration  
of the PCT view of the interaction between two individual control  
systems I would focus on the interaction part; and I would make it as  
simple as possible. The main controlled variable involved in the  
interaction of the two players is probably the one you describe as  
"Hit the ball over the net and in the other person’s court one more  
time than the other person". Both players are controlling this  
variable but with opposite references, which puts them in conflict.

To make this simpler to model quantitatively, I will define the  
controlled variable as the position of the tennis ball after it  
bounces in the opponent's court. Let's say the two players are Federer  
and Sampras (the only two names that come to mind; I don't even know  
if they ever played each other) .Here's a simplified picture of the  
situation when Federer (F) plays Sampras (S):

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;F S  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-10 -5 0 5 10

The numbers are measures of yards from the net (the 0 position); -5  
is F's outside line and 5 is S's. To win a point, F must bounce the  
ball past S's outside and S must bounce it past F. So I'll assume  
that F's reference for the controlled variable (ball position) is 10  
and S's is -10. Since the two players are controlling the same  
variable relative to different references, there is a conflict.

I have cobbled together a little spreadsheet model of this conflict  
which is attached. To "run" it, just hit F9; each press of F9 can be  
thought of as a game (4 games for a set; 3 sets for a match; you know  
the drill;-). When the controlled variable (cv) ends up positive, the  
game goes to F (because his reference for the ball is positive); when  
it ends up negative, the game goes to S. The simulation starts with  
the gains (skill levels) of the two players (gain F and gain S in the  
spreadsheet) exactly equal. So whether S or F wins (whether the cv  
ends up positive or negative on after each game) depends mainly on the  
state of the random disturbance (which can be though of as wind  
direction, I suppose).

If you count the number of wins for S and F after each game you should  
end up with a draw (in the long run). If you increase the gain (skill)  
slightly for F or S (for example, change F's gain value from 10 to  
10.2) you will see that the person with the higher gain now wins more  
often. If the gain for one player is much higher than that for the  
other, then that player always wins (which would be what would happen  
if either of those guys played me;-)

I know this is a pretty simple minded model but I think it captures  
the essentials of the kind of conflictual interaction that occurs in a  
game like tennis.

Best

Rick

[Tennis.xls](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/short-url/uNye5TSxbCNyiSEUjGzbCkbUGvL.xls) (13.5 KB)

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> rsmarken@gmail.com  
> www.mindreadings.com
> 
> Content-Type: application/vnd.ms-excel; name="Tennis.xls"  
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Tennis.xls"  
> X-Attachment-Id: f\_grtwkhsw0

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dmg](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/5e9695/32.png) [@dmg](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/dmg)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 8:10am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519/6 "2011-08-27T08:10:46Z")

</div>

Dear Rick, Kenny and Carol,

[From David Goldstein (2011.08.27.0346 EDT)]  
About Rick Marken (2011.08.26.1830)]

Cool Rick.  
Can you please explain the equations.  
Also, if only the disturbance is acting, what does the cv mean?  
Also, if we were going to observe a tennis match, how would we measure the  
gain of F and S independent of o?

Your facts about tennis are a little off.

Please note:

Tennis Rules Simplified  
The rules of tennis are quite simple. The game itself is complex. "  
Rule 1. Opponents stand on opposite sides of the court. The player who  
delivers the ball to start the point is called the server. The player who  
stands opposite and cross-court from the server is the receiver.

Rule 2. The right to serve, receive, choose your side, or give the opponent  
these choices is decided by a toss of a coin or racquet. If the choice of  
service or receiver is chosen, the opponent chooses which side to start.

Rule 3. The server shall stand behind the baseline on the deuce court within  
the boundaries of the singles court when playing singles and within the  
doubles sideline when playing doubles. See court dimensions. All even points  
are played from the deuce court and odd number points played from the  
advantage court. The server shall not serve until the receiver is ready.  
Serves are made from the deuce court to the opponents service box on the  
deuce court. Advantage court to advantage box. If the server misses his  
target twice, he loses the point. If the ball hits the net and goes in the  
correct service box, another serve is granted. If the server steps on the  
baseline before contact is made, the serve is deemed a fault.

Rule 4. The receiver is deemed ready if an attempt is made to return the  
server's ball. The receiver can stand where he likes but must let the ball  
bounce in the service box. If the ball does not land in the service box, it  
is deemed a fault and a second serve is given. If the ball is hit by either  
opponent before the ball bounces, the server wins the point.

Rule 5. The server always calls his score first. If the server wins the  
first point, he gets a score of 15. Scoring is done like a clock. See  
example below. Love means zero in tennis. The second point is called 30. The  
third point is called 45 (now-a-days known as 40) and game is won when the  
score goes back to love. If the score is 40-40, also known as deuce, one  
side must win by two points. Advantage-In means if the server wins the next  
point, he wins the game. Advantage-Out means the receiver has a chance to  
win the game on the next point.

LOVE 15-30-40

Rule 5. After the game, the opponents serve. Games equal 1. The first to win  
6 games, by two, wins the set. The first to win 2 sets wins the match. If  
the score is 6-6, a tie-breaker is played. This is scored by one's. The  
first team to score 7 points winning by two wins the set. The tiebreaker  
continues until one side wins by two. Hence, Game-Set-Match.

Rule 6. If the ball goes into the net, or outside the boundaries of the  
court, the player who hit that ball loses the point. If the ball hits the  
net during the point and goes into the opponents court, the ball is in play.  
A player loses the point if he touches the net, drops his racquet while  
hitting the ball, bounces the ball over the net, hits a part of the  
surroundings such as the roof, or a tree, the ball touches him or his  
partner, he deliberately tries to distract the opponent.

Rule 7. A let is called during the point if a ball rolls on the court or  
there is a distraction from someone besides the players on the court.

Rule 8. A ball that lands on the line is good.

Rule 9. If players serve out of turn or serve to the wrong person or court,  
the point or game will stand and order will be resumed following the point  
or game.

The dimensions of an actual tennis court are shown in the attached jpg file.

David

![tennis court.jpg](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/default/original/2X/6/639c0c7876fdf86717ac21dadf9939c496cd5996.jpeg)

> **···**
>
> -----Original Message-----  
> From: Richard Marken  
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 9:30 PM  
> To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU  
> Subject: Re: Singles Tennis Viewed as a PCT Interaction
> 
> [From Rick Marken (2011.08.26.1830)]
> 
> > David Goldstein (2011.08.26.1828 EDT)
> > 
> > DG: Dear Carol and Kenny:  
> > Here is my first try--
> > 
> > The Game of Tennis from a PCT view
> > 
> > DG: Controlled Variables—Play by the rules; Hit the ball over the net and  
> > in the other person’s  
> > court one more time than the other person; have fun; socialize; get  
> > exercise; follow a  
> > strategy based on the specific knowledge about the other person
> 
> I think these are certainly reasonable possibilities. But going with  
> the idea that the goal here is to consider tennis as an illustration  
> of the PCT view of the interaction between two individual control  
> systems I would focus on the interaction part; and I would make it as  
> simple as possible. The main controlled variable involved in the  
> interaction of the two players is probably the one you describe as  
> "Hit the ball over the net and in the other person’s court one more  
> time than the other person". Both players are controlling this  
> variable but with opposite references, which puts them in conflict.
> 
> To make this simpler to model quantitatively, I will define the  
> controlled variable as the position of the tennis ball after it  
> bounces in the opponent's court. Let's say the two players are Federer  
> and Sampras (the only two names that come to mind; I don't even know  
> if they ever played each other) .Here's a simplified picture of the  
> situation when Federer (F) plays Sampras (S):
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;F S  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-10 -5 0 5 10
> 
> The numbers are measures of yards from the net (the 0 position); -5  
> is F's outside line and 5 is S's. To win a point, F must bounce the  
> ball past S's outside and S must bounce it past F. So I'll assume  
> that F's reference for the controlled variable (ball position) is 10  
> and S's is -10. Since the two players are controlling the same  
> variable relative to different references, there is a conflict.
> 
> I have cobbled together a little spreadsheet model of this conflict  
> which is attached. To "run" it, just hit F9; each press of F9 can be  
> thought of as a game (4 games for a set; 3 sets for a match; you know  
> the drill;-). When the controlled variable (cv) ends up positive, the  
> game goes to F (because his reference for the ball is positive); when  
> it ends up negative, the game goes to S. The simulation starts with  
> the gains (skill levels) of the two players (gain F and gain S in the  
> spreadsheet) exactly equal. So whether S or F wins (whether the cv  
> ends up positive or negative on after each game) depends mainly on the  
> state of the random disturbance (which can be though of as wind  
> direction, I suppose).
> 
> If you count the number of wins for S and F after each game you should  
> end up with a draw (in the long run). If you increase the gain (skill)  
> slightly for F or S (for example, change F's gain value from 10 to  
> 10.2) you will see that the person with the higher gain now wins more  
> often. If the gain for one player is much higher than that for the  
> other, then that player always wins (which would be what would happen  
> if either of those guys played me;-)
> 
> I know this is a pretty simple minded model but I think it captures  
> the essentials of the kind of conflictual interaction that occurs in a  
> game like tennis.
> 
> Best
> 
> Rick  
> --  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> rsmarken@gmail.com  
> www.mindreadings.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bob\_Hintz](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/db5fbb/32.png) [@Bob\_Hintz](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bob_Hintz)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 4:02pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519/7 "2011-08-27T16:02:40Z")

</div>

bob.hintz (2011.08.27)

Do you want to consider how the game is different when there is no third party making the calls regarding nets, lets, in bounds, etc.? There is an element of trust required when only two players are involved. I believe the receiver gets to make the calls on his own side of the court. Disagreement about calls is always possible even with a third-party making them and involves additional rules (perhaps meta-rules regarding the application of game rules). Some individuals will not play with some others because of past experience in this regard.

The concept of “ready” is important at the beginning of each point. Some players are very slow, while others are very fast. Differences in this regard can drive people crazy. Servers must wait until receivers are ready and receivers must wait until servers hit the ball. I don’t know if receivers can back off if servers take too much time, like batters in baseball can step out of the batter’s box to halt the game.

Just some initial thoughts on the interpersonal aspects of the game

bob

> **···**
>
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 3:10 AM, David Goldstein [davidmg@verizon.net](mailto:davidmg@verizon.net) wrote:
> 
> > Dear Rick, Kenny and Carol,
> > 
> > [From David Goldstein (2011.08.27.0346 EDT)]
> > 
> > About Rick Marken (2011.08.26.1830)]
> > 
> > Cool Rick.
> > 
> > Can you please explain the equations.
> > 
> > Also, if only the disturbance is acting, what does the cv mean?
> > 
> > Also, if we were going to observe a tennis match, how would we measure the gain of F and S independent of o?
> > 
> > Your facts about tennis are a little off.
> > 
> > Please note:
> > 
> > Tennis Rules Simplified
> > 
> > The rules of tennis are quite simple. The game itself is complex. "
> > 
> > Rule 1. Opponents stand on opposite sides of the court. The player who delivers the ball to start the point is called the server. The player who stands opposite and cross-court from the server is the receiver.
> > 
> > Rule 2. The right to serve, receive, choose your side, or give the opponent these choices is decided by a toss of a coin or racquet. If the choice of service or receiver is chosen, the opponent chooses which side to start.
> > 
> > Rule 3. The server shall stand behind the baseline on the deuce court within the boundaries of the singles court when playing singles and within the doubles sideline when playing doubles. See court dimensions. All even points are played from the deuce court and odd number points played from the advantage court. The server shall not serve until the receiver is ready. Serves are made from the deuce court to the opponents service box on the deuce court. Advantage court to advantage box. If the server misses his target twice, he loses the point. If the ball hits the net and goes in the correct service box, another serve is granted. If the server steps on the baseline before contact is made, the serve is deemed a fault.
> > 
> > Rule 4. The receiver is deemed ready if an attempt is made to return the server’s ball. The receiver can stand where he likes but must let the ball bounce in the service box. If the ball does not land in the service box, it is deemed a fault and a second serve is given. If the ball is hit by either opponent before the ball bounces, the server wins the point.
> > 
> > Rule 5. The server always calls his score first. If the server wins the first point, he gets a score of 15. Scoring is done like a clock. See example below. Love means zero in tennis. The second point is called 30. The third point is called 45 (now-a-days known as 40) and game is won when the score goes back to love. If the score is 40-40, also known as deuce, one side must win by two points. Advantage-In means if the server wins the next point, he wins the game. Advantage-Out means the receiver has a chance to win the game on the next point.
> > 
> > LOVE 15-30-40
> > 
> > Rule 5. After the game, the opponents serve. Games equal 1. The first to win 6 games, by two, wins the set. The first to win 2 sets wins the match. If the score is 6-6, a tie-breaker is played. This is scored by one’s. The first team to score 7 points winning by two wins the set. The tiebreaker continues until one side wins by two. Hence, Game-Set-Match.
> > 
> > Rule 6. If the ball goes into the net, or outside the boundaries of the court, the player who hit that ball loses the point. If the ball hits the net during the point and goes into the opponents court, the ball is in play. A player loses the point if he touches the net, drops his racquet while hitting the ball, bounces the ball over the net, hits a part of the surroundings such as the roof, or a tree, the ball touches him or his partner, he deliberately tries to distract the opponent.
> > 
> > Rule 7. A let is called during the point if a ball rolls on the court or there is a distraction from someone besides the players on the court.
> > 
> > Rule 8. A ball that lands on the line is good.
> > 
> > Rule 9. If players serve out of turn or serve to the wrong person or court, the point or game will stand and order will be resumed following the point or game.
> > 
> > The dimensions of an actual tennis court are shown in the attached jpg file.
> > 
> > David
> > 
> > -----Original Message----- From: Richard Marken
> > 
> > Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 9:30 PM
> > 
> > To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
> > 
> > Subject: Re: Singles Tennis Viewed as a PCT Interaction
> 
> > [From Rick Marken (2011.08.26.1830)]
> > 
> > > David Goldstein (2011.08.26.1828 EDT)
> > > 
> > > DG: Dear Carol and Kenny:
> > > 
> > > Here is my first try–
> > > 
> > > The Game of Tennis from a PCT view
> > > 
> > > DG: Controlled Variables—Play by the rules; Hit the ball over the net and in the other person’s
> > > 
> > > court one more time than the other person; have fun; socialize; get exercise; follow a
> > > 
> > > strategy based on the specific knowledge about the other person
> > 
> > I think these are certainly reasonable possibilities. But going with
> > 
> > the idea that the goal here is to consider tennis as an illustration
> > 
> > of the PCT view of the interaction between two individual control
> > 
> > systems I would focus on the interaction part; and I would make it as
> > 
> > simple as possible. The main controlled variable involved in the
> > 
> > interaction of the two players is probably the one you describe as
> > 
> > "Hit the ball over the net and in the other person’s court one more
> > 
> > time than the other person". Both players are controlling this
> > 
> > variable but with opposite references, which puts them in conflict.
> > 
> > To make this simpler to model quantitatively, I will define the
> > 
> > controlled variable as the position of the tennis ball after it
> > 
> > bounces in the opponent’s court. Let’s say the two players are Federer
> > 
> > and Sampras (the only two names that come to mind; I don’t even know
> > 
> > if they ever played each other) .Here’s a simplified picture of the
> > 
> > situation when Federer (F) plays Sampras (S):
> > 
> > ```
> > F S
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > -10 -5 0 5 10
> > 
> > The numbers are measures of yards from the net (the 0 position); -5
> > 
> > is F’s outside line and 5 is S’s. To win a point, F must bounce the
> > 
> > ball past S’s outside and S must bounce it past F. So I’ll assume
> > 
> > that F’s reference for the controlled variable (ball position) is 10
> > 
> > and S’s is -10. Since the two players are controlling the same
> > 
> > variable relative to different references, there is a conflict.
> > 
> > I have cobbled together a little spreadsheet model of this conflict
> > 
> > which is attached. To “run” it, just hit F9; each press of F9 can be
> > 
> > thought of as a game (4 games for a set; 3 sets for a match; you know
> > 
> > the drill;-). When the controlled variable (cv) ends up positive, the
> > 
> > game goes to F (because his reference for the ball is positive); when
> > 
> > it ends up negative, the game goes to S. The simulation starts with
> > 
> > the gains (skill levels) of the two players (gain F and gain S in the
> > 
> > spreadsheet) exactly equal. So whether S or F wins (whether the cv
> > 
> > ends up positive or negative on after each game) depends mainly on the
> > 
> > state of the random disturbance (which can be though of as wind
> > 
> > direction, I suppose).
> > 
> > If you count the number of wins for S and F after each game you should
> > 
> > end up with a draw (in the long run). If you increase the gain (skill)
> > 
> > slightly for F or S (for example, change F’s gain value from 10 to
> > 
> > 10.2) you will see that the person with the higher gain now wins more
> > 
> > often. If the gain for one player is much higher than that for the
> > 
> > other, then that player always wins (which would be what would happen
> > 
> > if either of those guys played me;-)
> > 
> > I know this is a pretty simple minded model but I think it captures
> > 
> > the essentials of the kind of conflictual interaction that occurs in a
> > 
> > game like tennis.
> > 
> > Best
> > 
> > Rick
> > 
> > –
> > 
> > Richard S. Marken PhD
> > 
> > [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)
> > 
> > [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 5:00pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519/8 "2011-08-27T17:00:32Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2011.08.27.1000)]

> David Goldstein (2011.08.27.0346 EDT)--  
> Cool Rick.  
> Can you please explain the equations.

Sure. The equations in row p sets the perception for each player to  
the value of the cv (in cell C6). The equations in row e compute the  
error signals for each player: r - p. The equations in row o compute  
the outputs for each player as a leaky integration of the error  
signal: o = o + slow\*(gain\*e-o). The value of the cv (in cell C6) is  
the sum of the outputs of the two players plus the value of the  
prevailing disturbance: cv = oF+oS+d

> Also, if only the disturbance is acting, what does the cv mean?

The cv is the position of the ball, which is influence by the outputs  
of both players as well as by the disturbance. Among the simplifying  
assumptions in this simulation is that players have simultaneous  
effects on the ball (as in a tug of war); a better simulation (which  
would be hard to put into a spreadsheet but could be written in visual  
basic) would have the position of the ball affected by each player  
only when the ball arrived on that player's side. But then we're  
getting into some relatively serious modeling, for which I don't  
really have time now. But it might be something you would like to do  
as an exercise while waiting for Irene to hit.

> Also, if we were going to observe a tennis match, how would we measure the  
> gain of F and S independent of o?

Precise measures would be impossible. But if one player clearly  
dominated the other you could certainly infer that the dominating  
player's gain was higher than that of the loser.

> Your facts about tennis are a little off.

I was trying to make simplifying assumptions. If you want to write a  
model for a real tennis game, incorporating all the rules and physics,  
be my guest! I prefer Galileo's approach; try to abstract out the  
essence and test that.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> > Please note:
> > 
> > Tennis Rules Simplified  
> > The rules of tennis are quite simple. The game itself is complex. "  
> > Rule 1. Opponents stand on opposite sides of the court. The player who  
> > delivers the ball to start the point is called the server. The player who  
> > stands opposite and cross-court from the server is the receiver.
> > 
> > Rule 2. The right to serve, receive, choose your side, or give the opponent  
> > these choices is decided by a toss of a coin or racquet. If the choice of  
> > service or receiver is chosen, the opponent chooses which side to start.
> > 
> > Rule 3. The server shall stand behind the baseline on the deuce court within  
> > the boundaries of the singles court when playing singles and within the  
> > doubles sideline when playing doubles. See court dimensions. All even points  
> > are played from the deuce court and odd number points played from the  
> > advantage court. The server shall not serve until the receiver is ready.  
> > Serves are made from the deuce court to the opponents service box on the  
> > deuce court. Advantage court to advantage box. If the server misses his  
> > target twice, he loses the point. If the ball hits the net and goes in the  
> > correct service box, another serve is granted. If the server steps on the  
> > baseline before contact is made, the serve is deemed a fault.
> > 
> > Rule 4. The receiver is deemed ready if an attempt is made to return the  
> > server's ball. The receiver can stand where he likes but must let the ball  
> > bounce in the service box. If the ball does not land in the service box, it  
> > is deemed a fault and a second serve is given. If the ball is hit by either  
> > opponent before the ball bounces, the server wins the point.
> > 
> > Rule 5. The server always calls his score first. If the server wins the  
> > first point, he gets a score of 15. Scoring is done like a clock. See  
> > example below. Love means zero in tennis. The second point is called 30. The  
> > third point is called 45 (now-a-days known as 40) and game is won when the  
> > score goes back to love. If the score is 40-40, also known as deuce, one  
> > side must win by two points. Advantage-In means if the server wins the next  
> > point, he wins the game. Advantage-Out means the receiver has a chance to  
> > win the game on the next point.
> > 
> > LOVE 15-30-40
> > 
> > Rule 5. After the game, the opponents serve. Games equal 1. The first to win  
> > 6 games, by two, wins the set. The first to win 2 sets wins the match. If  
> > the score is 6-6, a tie-breaker is played. This is scored by one's. The  
> > first team to score 7 points winning by two wins the set. The tiebreaker  
> > continues until one side wins by two. Hence, Game-Set-Match.
> > 
> > Rule 6. If the ball goes into the net, or outside the boundaries of the  
> > court, the player who hit that ball loses the point. If the ball hits the  
> > net during the point and goes into the opponents court, the ball is in play.  
> > A player loses the point if he touches the net, drops his racquet while  
> > hitting the ball, bounces the ball over the net, hits a part of the  
> > surroundings such as the roof, or a tree, the ball touches him or his  
> > partner, he deliberately tries to distract the opponent.
> > 
> > Rule 7. A let is called during the point if a ball rolls on the court or  
> > there is a distraction from someone besides the players on the court.
> > 
> > Rule 8. A ball that lands on the line is good.
> > 
> > Rule 9. If players serve out of turn or serve to the wrong person or court,  
> > the point or game will stand and order will be resumed following the point  
> > or game.
> > 
> > The dimensions of an actual tennis court are shown in the attached jpg file.
> > 
> > David
> > 
> > -----Original Message----- From: Richard Marken  
> > Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 9:30 PM  
> > To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU  
> > Subject: Re: Singles Tennis Viewed as a PCT Interaction
> > 
> > [From Rick Marken (2011.08.26.1830)]
> > 
> > > David Goldstein (2011.08.26.1828 EDT)
> > > 
> > > DG: �Dear Carol and Kenny:  
> > > Here is my first try--
> > > 
> > > The Game of Tennis from a PCT view
> > > 
> > > DG: Controlled Variables�Play by the rules; Hit the ball over the net and  
> > > in the other person�s  
> > > court one more time than the other person; have fun; socialize; get  
> > > exercise; follow a  
> > > strategy based on the specific knowledge about the other person
> > 
> > I think these are certainly reasonable possibilities. But going with  
> > the idea that the goal here is to consider �tennis as an illustration  
> > of the PCT view of the interaction between two individual control  
> > systems I would focus on the interaction part; and I �would make it as  
> > simple as possible. The main controlled variable involved in the  
> > interaction of the two players is probably the one you describe as  
> > "Hit the ball over the net and in the other person�s court one more  
> > time than the other person". Both players are controlling this  
> > variable but with opposite references, which puts them in conflict.
> > 
> > To make this simpler to model quantitatively, I will define the  
> > controlled variable as the position of the tennis ball after it  
> > bounces in the opponent's court. Let's say the two players are Federer  
> > and Sampras (the only two names that come to mind; I don't even know  
> > if they ever played each other) .Here's a simplified picture of the  
> > situation when Federer (F) plays Sampras (S):
> > 
> > � � � � F � � � � � � � � � � � �S  
> > �-10 � � -5 � � �0 � � �5 � � 10
> > 
> > The numbers are measures of yards from the net �(the 0 position); -5  
> > is F's outside line and 5 is S's. �To win a point, F must bounce the  
> > ball past S's outside and S must bounce it past F. �So I'll assume  
> > that F's reference for the controlled variable (ball position) is 10  
> > and S's is -10. �Since the two players are controlling the same  
> > variable relative to different references, there is a conflict.
> > 
> > I have cobbled together a little spreadsheet model of this conflict  
> > which is attached. To "run" it, just hit F9; each press of F9 can be  
> > thought of as a game (4 games for a set; 3 sets for a match; you know  
> > the drill;-). When the controlled variable (cv) ends up positive, the  
> > game goes to F (because his reference for the ball is positive); when  
> > it ends up negative, the game goes to S. The simulation starts with  
> > the gains (skill levels) of the two players (gain F and gain S in the  
> > spreadsheet) exactly equal. So whether S or F wins (whether the cv  
> > ends up positive or negative on after each game) depends mainly on the  
> > state of the random disturbance (which can be though of as wind  
> > direction, I suppose).
> > 
> > If you count the number of wins for S and F after each game you should  
> > end up with a draw (in the long run). If you increase the gain (skill)  
> > slightly for F or S (for example, change F's gain value from 10 to  
> > 10.2) you will see that the person with the higher gain now wins more  
> > often. If the gain for one player is much higher than that for the  
> > other, then that player always wins (which would be what would happen  
> > if either of those guys played me;-)
> > 
> > I know this is a pretty simple minded model but I think it captures  
> > the essentials of the kind of conflictual interaction that occurs in a  
> > game like tennis.
> > 
> > Best
> > 
> > Rick  
> > --  
> > Richard S. Marken PhD  
> > rsmarken@gmail.com  
> > www.mindreadings.com
> 
> --  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> rsmarken@gmail.com  
> www.mindreadings.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [August 28, 2011, 5:37am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519/9 "2011-08-28T05:37:27Z")

</div>

(Gavin Ritz 2011.08.28.17.33NZT)  
[From Rick Marken (2011.08.27.1000)]

> David Goldstein (2011.08.27.0346 EDT)--  
> Cool Rick.  
> Can you please explain the equations.

GR: May I also get a copy of the spreadsheet with the equations please.

Sure. The equations in row p sets the perception for each player to  
the value of the cv (in cell C6). The equations in row e compute the  
error signals for each player: r - p. The equations in row o compute  
the outputs for each player as a leaky integration of the error  
signal: o = o + slow\*(gain\*e-o). The value of the cv (in cell C6) is  
the sum of the outputs of the two players plus the value of the  
prevailing disturbance: cv = oF+oS+d

> Also, if only the disturbance is acting, what does the cv mean?

The cv is the position of the ball, which is influence by the outputs  
of both players as well as by the disturbance.

GR: Can I get a diagram of this please?

Among the simplifying  
assumptions in this simulation is that players have simultaneous  
effects on the ball (as in a tug of war); a better simulation (which  
would be hard to put into a spreadsheet but could be written in visual  
basic) would have the position of the ball affected by each player  
only when the ball arrived on that player's side. But then we're  
getting into some relatively serious modeling, for which I don't  
really have time now. But it might be something you would like to do  
as an exercise while waiting for Irene to hit.

> Also, if we were going to observe a tennis match, how would we measure the  
> gain of F and S independent of o?

Precise measures would be impossible. But if one player clearly  
dominated the other you could certainly infer that the dominating  
player's gain was higher than that of the loser.

> Your facts about tennis are a little off.

I was trying to make simplifying assumptions. If you want to write a  
model for a real tennis game, incorporating all the rules and physics,  
be my guest! I prefer Galileo's approach; try to abstract out the  
essence and test that.

Best

Rick

> Please note:
> 
> Tennis Rules Simplified  
> The rules of tennis are quite simple. The game itself is complex. "  
> Rule 1. Opponents stand on opposite sides of the court. The player who  
> delivers the ball to start the point is called the server. The player who  
> stands opposite and cross-court from the server is the receiver.
> 
> Rule 2. The right to serve, receive, choose your side, or give the

opponent

> these choices is decided by a toss of a coin or racquet. If the choice of  
> service or receiver is chosen, the opponent chooses which side to start.
> 
> Rule 3. The server shall stand behind the baseline on the deuce court

within

> the boundaries of the singles court when playing singles and within the  
> doubles sideline when playing doubles. See court dimensions. All even

points

> are played from the deuce court and odd number points played from the  
> advantage court. The server shall not serve until the receiver is ready.  
> Serves are made from the deuce court to the opponents service box on the  
> deuce court. Advantage court to advantage box. If the server misses his  
> target twice, he loses the point. If the ball hits the net and goes in the  
> correct service box, another serve is granted. If the server steps on the  
> baseline before contact is made, the serve is deemed a fault.
> 
> Rule 4. The receiver is deemed ready if an attempt is made to return the  
> server's ball. The receiver can stand where he likes but must let the ball  
> bounce in the service box. If the ball does not land in the service box,

it

> is deemed a fault and a second serve is given. If the ball is hit by

either

> opponent before the ball bounces, the server wins the point.
> 
> Rule 5. The server always calls his score first. If the server wins the  
> first point, he gets a score of 15. Scoring is done like a clock. See  
> example below. Love means zero in tennis. The second point is called 30.

The

> third point is called 45 (now-a-days known as 40) and game is won when the  
> score goes back to love. If the score is 40-40, also known as deuce, one  
> side must win by two points. Advantage-In means if the server wins the

next

> point, he wins the game. Advantage-Out means the receiver has a chance to  
> win the game on the next point.
> 
> LOVE 15-30-40
> 
> Rule 5. After the game, the opponents serve. Games equal 1. The first to

win

> 6 games, by two, wins the set. The first to win 2 sets wins the match. If  
> the score is 6-6, a tie-breaker is played. This is scored by one's. The  
> first team to score 7 points winning by two wins the set. The tiebreaker  
> continues until one side wins by two. Hence, Game-Set-Match.
> 
> Rule 6. If the ball goes into the net, or outside the boundaries of the  
> court, the player who hit that ball loses the point. If the ball hits the  
> net during the point and goes into the opponents court, the ball is in

play.

> A player loses the point if he touches the net, drops his racquet while  
> hitting the ball, bounces the ball over the net, hits a part of the  
> surroundings such as the roof, or a tree, the ball touches him or his  
> partner, he deliberately tries to distract the opponent.
> 
> Rule 7. A let is called during the point if a ball rolls on the court or  
> there is a distraction from someone besides the players on the court.
> 
> Rule 8. A ball that lands on the line is good.
> 
> Rule 9. If players serve out of turn or serve to the wrong person or

court,

> the point or game will stand and order will be resumed following the point  
> or game.
> 
> The dimensions of an actual tennis court are shown in the attached jpg

file.

> **···**
>
> > David
> > 
> > -----Original Message----- From: Richard Marken  
> > Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 9:30 PM  
> > To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU  
> > Subject: Re: Singles Tennis Viewed as a PCT Interaction
> > 
> > [From Rick Marken (2011.08.26.1830)]
> > 
> > > David Goldstein (2011.08.26.1828 EDT)
> > > 
> > > DG: �Dear Carol and Kenny:  
> > > Here is my first try--
> > > 
> > > The Game of Tennis from a PCT view
> > > 
> > > DG: Controlled Variables�Play by the rules; Hit the ball over the net and  
> > > in the other person�s  
> > > court one more time than the other person; have fun; socialize; get  
> > > exercise; follow a  
> > > strategy based on the specific knowledge about the other person
> > 
> > I think these are certainly reasonable possibilities. But going with  
> > the idea that the goal here is to consider �tennis as an illustration  
> > of the PCT view of the interaction between two individual control  
> > systems I would focus on the interaction part; and I �would make it as  
> > simple as possible. The main controlled variable involved in the  
> > interaction of the two players is probably the one you describe as  
> > "Hit the ball over the net and in the other person�s court one more  
> > time than the other person". Both players are controlling this  
> > variable but with opposite references, which puts them in conflict.
> > 
> > To make this simpler to model quantitatively, I will define the  
> > controlled variable as the position of the tennis ball after it  
> > bounces in the opponent's court. Let's say the two players are Federer  
> > and Sampras (the only two names that come to mind; I don't even know  
> > if they ever played each other) .Here's a simplified picture of the  
> > situation when Federer (F) plays Sampras (S):
> > 
> > � � � � F � � � � � � � � � � � �S  
> > �-10 � � -5 � � �0 � � �5 � � 10
> > 
> > The numbers are measures of yards from the net �(the 0 position); -5  
> > is F's outside line and 5 is S's. �To win a point, F must bounce the  
> > ball past S's outside and S must bounce it past F. �So I'll assume  
> > that F's reference for the controlled variable (ball position) is 10  
> > and S's is -10. �Since the two players are controlling the same  
> > variable relative to different references, there is a conflict.
> > 
> > I have cobbled together a little spreadsheet model of this conflict  
> > which is attached. To "run" it, just hit F9; each press of F9 can be  
> > thought of as a game (4 games for a set; 3 sets for a match; you know  
> > the drill;-). When the controlled variable (cv) ends up positive, the  
> > game goes to F (because his reference for the ball is positive); when  
> > it ends up negative, the game goes to S. The simulation starts with  
> > the gains (skill levels) of the two players (gain F and gain S in the  
> > spreadsheet) exactly equal. So whether S or F wins (whether the cv  
> > ends up positive or negative on after each game) depends mainly on the  
> > state of the random disturbance (which can be though of as wind  
> > direction, I suppose).
> > 
> > If you count the number of wins for S and F after each game you should  
> > end up with a draw (in the long run). If you increase the gain (skill)  
> > slightly for F or S (for example, change F's gain value from 10 to  
> > 10.2) you will see that the person with the higher gain now wins more  
> > often. If the gain for one player is much higher than that for the  
> > other, then that player always wins (which would be what would happen  
> > if either of those guys played me;-)
> > 
> > I know this is a pretty simple minded model but I think it captures  
> > the essentials of the kind of conflictual interaction that occurs in a  
> > game like tennis.
> > 
> > Best
> > 
> > Rick  
> > --  
> > Richard S. Marken PhD  
> > rsmarken@gmail.com  
> > www.mindreadings.com
> 
> --  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> rsmarken@gmail.com  
> www.mindreadings.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/e8c25b/32.png) [@\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Boris_Hartman)\
**Post date:** [August 28, 2011, 1:50pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519/10 "2011-08-28T13:50:15Z")

</div>



Hi David !

> **···**
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> 
> > **From:**  
> > David Goldstein
> 
> > **To:** CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
> 
> > **Sent:** Saturday, August 27, 2011 12:30 AM
> 
> > **Subject:** Re: Singles Tennis Viewed as a PCT Interaction
> 
> > [David Goldstein (2011.08.26.1828 EDT)]
> 
> > Dear Carol and Kenny:
> 
> > Here is my first try–
> 
> > The Game of Tennis from a PCT view
> 
> > Controlled Variables—Play by the rules; Hit the ball over the net and in the other person’s court one more time than the other person; have fun; socialize; get exercise; follow a strategy based on the specific knowledge about the other person.
> 
> > I think that problem with Rick lies maybe in the dual nature of Tennis game as probably with any other game.Your “first try” definition above is a little tricky. I’ll try to explain what I think you should make more clear.
> 
> > You wrote several goals of Tennis game that can be by my oppinion devided among people (so different people can have different goals from your list, why playing Tennis ) or the goals y ou mentioned can be aranged hierarchically in one person. By arranging goals we can probably get several possible reasons why people play Tennis.
> 
> > If you have in mind “Competition Tennis” then main goal is probaly to win and earn money and other goals can be subordered to the main goal. So behaviors that are subordered to this goal can look like : training (technic, tactics), physical condition, psychical training and so on. This takes 5-8 hours a day and all the life (food, work, rest, slippnig…) is mostly subordered to main startegic goal of winning. I suppose that Rick had in mind this kind of Tennis as simulation and some modeling of the game usually come into players plans of trainning when perfecting the game to win. So if I understood Rick right he wanted to make some modeling of Tennis as PCT analysis. Although his analysis is very simple and in this form useless for any serious talk, I think he can improve it during the discussion if there will be any. I don’t know if he is still playing some similar game to Tennis (I forget the name), bu I know he is very good in using experiances from the “Racket games” and putting them into PCT analysis, as we had quite long conversation some 5 years ago. Well I don’t know, maybe he starts to play Tennis in meanwhile 🙂
> 
> > If you have in mind Recreatioal Tennis, things are mostly different, although there we can find people with the same goal as Competitive Tennis players : to win. But what is meant here to win ? Does it have the same meanning as in Compettiive Tennis ? I met also many people who play Tennis, as you mentioned, because of fun, socialization, widening social net (knowing new people), doing exrcise for helth, going to drink after Tennis in pub, etc. They train once or twice a week or no training at all. They are probably employed and they go usually in weekends to play with friends. So following all kind of other goals as main, puts the goal of winning in subordered position if there is any winning spirit. The purpose of the game is different.
> 
> > I see the point of winning in Recreational Tennis somehow useless, as people are not training enough to become fast enough, with strong and precise shots, to perform any of top Tennis tactics to win in the game with serious players. So they probably play with friends and they maybe enjoy beating them. But I still didn’t find out what’s the sense of beating someone they know. To talk arroung how good they are ? That could feet the control nature of human.
> 
> > I think that b ehavior (actions) in both cases will be different as will follow from different goals or better “perceptual error”, so there can be huge differences in what we are talking about. So what did you mean by your proposal ? I think that in any case we have to start from position of goal directed behavior as control of perception as that is probably the essence of PCT. Maybe Bill could say something ?.
> 
> > Best,
> 
> > Boris

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [August 28, 2011, 4:18pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519/11 "2011-08-28T16:18:13Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2011.08.28.0920)]

> Gavin Ritz (2011.08.28.17.33NZT)

> > David Goldstein (2011.08.27.0346 EDT)--  
> > Cool Rick.  
> > Can you please explain the equations.
> 
> GR: May I also get a copy of the spreadsheet with the equations please.

I attached it to the earlier post but here it is again.

RSM

[Tennis1.xls](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/short-url/dwvqnlMrjMstXU1BraApWqMNdVg.xls) (13.5 KB)

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> rsmarken@gmail.com  
> www.mindreadings.com
> 
> Content-Type: application/vnd.ms-excel; name="Tennis.xls"  
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Tennis.xls"  
> X-Attachment-Id: f\_grw82upk0

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [August 28, 2011, 11:34pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519/12 "2011-08-28T23:34:49Z")

</div>

(Gavin Ritz 2011.08.28.11.29NZT)

[From Rick Marken  
(2011.08.28.0920)]

> Gavin Ritz (2011.08.28.17.33NZT)

> > David Goldstein (2011.08.27.0346 EDT)–

> > Cool Rick.

> > Can you please explain the equations.

> 

> GR: May I also get a copy of the spreadsheet with  
> the equations please.

I attached it to the earlier post but here it is  
again.

Thank you.

What I don’t understand  
is this. How come there is only one controlled variable and one disturbance for  
both players. If this is the case then the integrity of the control system  
seems to break down.

Should there not be separate  
controlled variables for each player and hence each one has a separate disturbance.  
So the integrity of each control system (tennis player) is maintained. In that  
model the feedback loop looks like it’s lost.

How can the cv be the  
addition of outputs and a single disturbance. This assumes both disturbances of  
each player is identical.

I guess I don’t understand  
PCT well enough.

This model makes no sense  
too me.

Regards

Gavin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 11:34pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519/13 "2011-08-29T23:34:54Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2011.08.29.1630)]

> Gavin Ritz (2011.08.28.11.29NZT)

> > Rick Marken (2011.08.28.0920)--
> 
> > RM: I attached it to the earlier post but here it is again.

> GR: Thank you.

> GR: What I don’t understand is this. How come there is only one controlled  
> variable and one disturbance for both players.

That's because the controlled variable is each player's perceptual  
signal. The variable labelled cv is actually an environmental  
variable, qi, the position of the ball. Since the perceptual signal  
for each player was equivalent to qi in the simulation (a physical  
impossibility), I called qi the cv, which is misleading.

I have changed the simulation a bit to make the distinction between  
controlled variable and environmental variable clear. The new  
simulation is attached. The main change is that I have labelled ball  
position -- the environmental variable -- qi. Each player controls a  
different perceptual function of qi.

I have assumed that the players are perceiving the visual angle made  
by the ball as it travels towards or away from them. The angle is  
computed as the arc tangent of the tangent of the ball's optical  
position. It's assumed that the ball moves in a straight line 4 ft  
above the ground toward the player (no gravity) and that each player  
stands 12 yards from the net on opposite sides of the court. So the  
tangent of the ball's position relative to player F is 4/(12-qi),where  
4 is the length of the opposite and 12-qi the length of the adjacent  
side of the right triangle with the player at the the point where  
adjacent and hypotenuse meet. The tangent of the ball's position  
relative to palyer S is 4/(-12-qi); the difference is only in the  
field location of each player; F is at position 12; S is at position  
-12. So the controlled variables are the arc tangents of the two  
tangents (the perceptual functions for these cvs are shown in the  
spreadsheet, where C16 is the location of variable qi).

So each player controls a different controlled variable but \_both\_ are  
functions of the \_same\_ environmental variable (qi, representing ball  
position). The cv for player F is

pF= cvF = ATAN(4/(12-qi))

and the cv for player S is

pS= cvS = ATAN(4/(-12-qi))

There is one disturbance that influences the one environmental  
variable. The disturbance can be thought of as a randomly changing  
wind that affects the position of the ball independent of the actions  
of the two players (control systems).

The reference values for each player have been changed to reflect the  
fact that the variable being controlled is an angle (in radians, so  
it's range is from 1 to 2 pi). The reference for player F is for a  
small positive angle, which will send the ball deep into player S's  
territory; the reference for player S is also for a small angle but  
the negative sign means that if this perception were achieved it would  
put the ball deep into player F's territory.

The simulation is still unrealistic because it assumes that both  
players have simultaneous effects on the ball; more like (American)  
football than tennis with qi being the line of scrimmage and the  
outputs being the force exerted in opposite directions by the linemen.  
But if there is any serious interest I might write a program (in  
Visual Basic in Excel, which would leave those of you with certain  
versions of Excel -- I think it's 2007 out) where the players take  
alternate hits at the ball.

> GR: If this is the case then the  
> integrity of the control system seems to break down.

The "integrity" of the control systems in the original simulation was  
just fine, in the sense that both systems were controlling; only the  
conflict prevented these systems from reaching their goals  
(references). The main problem with the original simulation was that  
it assumed that both systems perceived the environment in exactly the  
same way, so they were both controlling exactly the same variable.  
That is unrealistic but not incorrect control system design; the  
systems controlled.

RSM

[Tennis2.xls](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/short-url/j5LEfRcRDNp3IPHZ2DvgtjPTvwb.xls) (15 KB)

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> rsmarken@gmail.com  
> www.mindreadings.com
> 
> Content-Type: application/vnd.ms-excel; name="Tennis2.xls"  
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Tennis2.xls"  
> X-Attachment-Id: f\_gry2vuhg0

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@BUSINESS\_GAVIN\_HERMA](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA)\
**Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 9:38pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519/14 "2011-08-30T21:38:05Z")

</div>

(Gavin Ritz 2011.08.31.9.34NZT)

[From Rick Marken  
(2011.08.29.1630)]

> Gavin Ritz (2011.08.28.11.29NZT)

> > Rick Marken (2011.08.28.0920)—

GR: can you please give  
me a diagram for your model. I would really appreciate that. I think it’s  
a very important model, because this is no different to an economic relationship,  
between two people.

> 

> > RM: I attached it to the earlier post but here  
> > it is again.

> GR: Thank you.

> GR: What I don’t understand is this.  
> How come there is only one controlled

> variable and one disturbance for both players.

That’s because the controlled variable is each  
player’s perceptual

signal. The variable labelled cv is actually an  
environmental

variable, qi, the position of the ball. Since  
the perceptual signal

for each player was equivalent to qi in the simulation  
(a physical

impossibility), I called qi the cv, which is  
misleading.

I have changed the simulation a bit to make the  
distinction between

controlled variable and environmental variable clear.  
The new

simulation is attached. The main change is that I have  
labelled ball

position – the environmental variable – qi. Each  
player controls a

different perceptual function of qi.

I have assumed that the players are perceiving the  
visual angle made

by the ball as it travels towards or away from them.  
The angle is

computed as the arc tangent of the tangent of the  
ball’s optical

position. It’s assumed that the ball moves in a  
straight line 4 ft

above the ground toward the player (no gravity) and  
that each player

stands 12 yards from the net on opposite sides of the  
court. So the

tangent of the ball’s position relative to player F is  
4/(12-qi),where

4 is the length of the opposite and 12-qi the length  
of the adjacent

side of the right triangle with the player at  
the the point where

adjacent and hypotenuse meet. The tangent of the  
ball’s position

relative to palyer S is 4/(-12-qi); the difference is only  
in the

field location of each player; F is at position 12; S  
is at position

-12. So the controlled variables are the arc  
tangents of the two

tangents (the perceptual functions for these cvs are  
shown in the

spreadsheet, where C16 is the location of variable  
qi).

So each player controls a different controlled  
variable but _both_ are

functions of the _same_ environmental variable (qi,  
representing ball

position). The cv for player F is

pF= cvF = ATAN(4/(12-qi))

and the cv for player S is

pS= cvS = ATAN(4/(-12-qi))

There is one disturbance that influences the one  
environmental

variable. The disturbance can be thought of as a  
randomly changing

wind that affects the position of the ball independent  
of the actions

of the two players (control systems).

The reference values for each player have been changed  
to reflect the

fact that the variable being controlled is an angle  
(in radians, so

it’s range is from 1 to 2 pi). The reference for  
player F is for a

small positive angle, which will send the ball deep  
into player S’s

territory; the reference for player S is also for a  
small angle but

the negative sign means that if this perception were  
achieved it would

put the ball deep into player F’s territory.

The simulation is still unrealistic because it assumes  
that both

players have simultaneous effects on the ball; more  
like (American)

football than tennis with qi being the line of  
scrimmage and the

outputs being the force exerted in opposite directions  
by the linemen.

But if there is any serious interest I might write a  
program (in

Visual Basic in Excel, which would leave those of you  
with certain

versions of Excel – I think it’s 2007 out) where the  
players take

alternate hits at the ball.

> GR: If this is the case then the

> integrity of the control system seems to break  
> down.

The “integrity” of the control systems in  
the original simulation was

just fine, in the sense that both systems were  
controlling; only the

conflict prevented these systems from reaching their  
goals

(references). The main problem with the original  
simulation was that

it assumed that both systems perceived the environment  
in exactly the

same way, so they were both controlling exactly the  
same variable.

That is unrealistic but not incorrect control system  
design; the

systems controlled.

RSM

> **···**
>
> –
> 
> Richard S. Marken PhD
> 
> [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)
> 
> [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 11:18pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519/15 "2011-08-30T23:18:59Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2011.08.30.1620)]

> Gavin Ritz (2011.08.31.9.34NZT)--

> GR: can you please give me a diagram for your model. I would really  
> appreciate that. I think it’s a very important model, because this is no  
> different to an economic relationship, between two people.

I've re-architected the spreadsheet so that the control systems are  
arranged as in the conventional PCT diagrams and and inserted labels  
and arrows. This was the easiest way to do it using a spreadsheet; I  
think it should be clear.

What we have here is simply two separate input control systems acting  
(swinging tennis racquets) on the same environmental variable (the  
tennis ball's position), and trying to get that ball's position (as  
perceived) into two different reference states; the different  
reference states for the perception imply two different physical  
states for the ball (qi), so there is a conflict. Each system is  
acting to bring the ball's position (as perceived) to two different  
states.

There is nothing in this model of interacting control systems that you  
could not have derived by simply understanding how any individual  
control system works.

RSM

[Tennis3.xls](http://discourse.iapct.org/uploads/short-url/6QK3nsCtVvATmaHr1tYzY6SvSFF.xls) (18 KB)

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> rsmarken@gmail.com  
> www.mindreadings.com
> 
> Content-Type: application/vnd.ms-excel; name="Tennis3.xls"  
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Tennis3.xls"  
> X-Attachment-Id: f\_grzi006f0

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/e8c25b/32.png) [@\_Boris\_Hartman](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Boris_Hartman)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 5:06pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519/16 "2011-08-31T17:06:31Z")

</div>

...the different reference states for the perception imply two different  
physical states for the ball (qi), so there is a conflict. Each system is  
acting to bring the ball's position (as perceived) to two different  
states.

Hi Rick,

quite interesting view point you opened

I think that you are doing fine in simplifying the understanding of tennis  
game, although this form is not yet enough to really understand the essence  
of it. And there is one thing about your explanation that I didn't  
understand quite well. You know my American ...:))

Is everything what you wrote above happening in the same moment ? Is  
conflict something that is happening in the same moment ?

Best,

Boris

> **···**
>
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:18:59 -0700, Richard Marken \<[rsmarken@GMAIL.COM](mailto:rsmarken@GMAIL.COM)\> wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 6:20pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519/17 "2011-08-31T18:20:31Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2011.08.31.1120)]

> BH: I think that you are doing fine in simplifying the understanding of tennis  
> game, although this form is not yet enough to really understand the essence  
> of it.

It seems to me I'm capturing the essence but not the "frills" (the  
higher level goals like strategy and reasons for playing at all).

> BH: And there is one thing about your explanation that I didn't  
> understand quite well. You know my American ...:))
> 
> BH: Is everything what you wrote above happening in the same moment ? Is  
> conflict something that is happening in the same moment ?

Yes, everything is happening at the same time, in the sense that both  
players have opposing references for the state of the ball and are  
acting at the same time to bring the ball's perceived position to the  
intended state. What is incorrect about the simulation is that both  
players affect the ball's position simultaneously. In real tennis, of  
course, one person hits the ball and then the other does. I could make  
the simulation act this way; maybe I should since it may be confusing  
people the way it is. But even when there is alternation in the shots,  
both players are controlling for ball position at the same time, they  
just can't have an effect on the ball at the same time (as in the  
present simulation).

I'm beginning to think that maybe a simulation of a more realistic  
tennis dual may be in order. This would mean putting physics into the  
simulation, which will be a pain for a soft-headed psychologist like  
me. But it may be worth the effort.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> 2011/8/31 Boris Hartman \<boris.hartman@masicom.net\>:  
> --  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> rsmarken@gmail.com  
> www.mindreadings.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dmg](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/5e9695/32.png) [@dmg](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/dmg)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 10:05pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519/18 "2011-08-31T22:05:58Z")

</div>

[From David Goldstein(2011.08.31.1614 EDT)]

Rick,

The idea of making it sequential makes it more realistic.  
Also, I was thinking that the biggest disturbance is where the other  
person hits the ball, how far it is from you, whether you are fast enough to reach  
the ball, what kind of spin the person puts on the ball (flat, topspin, slice). Each  
person is a disturbance for the other person.

This is not taking away from the fact that we have an interpersonal conflict going with  
one person winning and the other person losing a point.

David

> **···**
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Richard Marken  
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 2:20 PM  
> To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU  
> Subject: Re: Singles Tennis Viewed as a PCT Interaction
> 
> [From Rick Marken (2011.08.31.1120)]
> 
> 2011/8/31 Boris Hartman \<boris.hartman@masicom.net\>:
> 
> > BH: I think that you are doing fine in simplifying the understanding of tennis  
> > game, although this form is not yet enough to really understand the essence  
> > of it.
> 
> It seems to me I'm capturing the essence but not the "frills" (the  
> higher level goals like strategy and reasons for playing at all).
> 
> > BH: And there is one thing about your explanation that I didn't  
> > understand quite well. You know my American ...:))
> > 
> > BH: Is everything what you wrote above happening in the same moment ? Is  
> > conflict something that is happening in the same moment ?
> 
> Yes, everything is happening at the same time, in the sense that both  
> players have opposing references for the state of the ball and are  
> acting at the same time to bring the ball's perceived position to the  
> intended state. What is incorrect about the simulation is that both  
> players affect the ball's position simultaneously. In real tennis, of  
> course, one person hits the ball and then the other does. I could make  
> the simulation act this way; maybe I should since it may be confusing  
> people the way it is. But even when there is alternation in the shots,  
> both players are controlling for ball position at the same time, they  
> just can't have an effect on the ball at the same time (as in the  
> present simulation).
> 
> I'm beginning to think that maybe a simulation of a more realistic  
> tennis dual may be in order. This would mean putting physics into the  
> simulation, which will be a pain for a soft-headed psychologist like  
> me. But it may be worth the effort.
> 
> Best
> 
> Rick  
> --  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> rsmarken@gmail.com  
> www.mindreadings.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 11:13pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519/19 "2011-08-31T23:13:11Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2011.08.31.1615)

> David Goldstein (2011.08.31.1614 EDT)

> DG: The idea of making it sequential makes it more realistic.

Yes, of course. I guess I'll give it a try. It will require a major  
rewrite, I think. But maybe it's worth it. Why don't you try it, too?

> Also, I was thinking that the biggest disturbance is where the other  
> person hits the ball, how far it is from you, whether you are fast enough to  
> reach the ball, what kind of spin the person puts on the ball (flat, topspin,  
> slice). Each person is a disturbance for the other person.

Yes, this is true in all interpersonal conflicts (and, of course, it's  
true in my little simulation). The other person's output joins with  
any other prevailing environmental disturbances (like the wind) to  
disturb the perception controlled by the other person. The other  
person's output in a conflict is, by definition, a disturbance because  
it is an effect on a controlled variable that is independent of the  
actions of the controller. But whereas environmental disturbances are  
random and unsystematic; the disturbance created by an opponent is  
systematic -- it is actively working against your efforts to work  
against it (and prevent it from affecting the state of the variable  
you are controlling).

> This is not taking away from the fact that we have an interpersonal conflict  
> going with one person winning and the other person losing a point.

It's not only not taking away from the fact that there is a conflict;  
it is the essence of the conflict.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> > David  
> > -----Original Message----- From: Richard Marken  
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 2:20 PM  
> > To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU  
> > Subject: Re: Singles Tennis Viewed as a PCT Interaction
> > 
> > [From Rick Marken (2011.08.31.1120)]
> > 
> > 2011/8/31 Boris Hartman \<boris.hartman@masicom.net\>:
> > 
> > > BH: �I think that you are doing fine in simplifying the understanding of  
> > > tennis  
> > > game, although this form is not yet enough to really understand the  
> > > essence  
> > > of it.
> > 
> > It seems to me I'm capturing the essence but not the "frills" (the  
> > higher level goals like strategy and reasons for playing at all).
> > 
> > > BH: And there is one thing about your explanation that I didn't  
> > > understand quite well. You know my American ...:))
> > > 
> > > BH: �Is everything what you wrote above happening in the same moment ? Is  
> > > conflict something that is happening in the same moment ?
> > 
> > Yes, everything is happening at the same time, in the sense that both  
> > players have opposing references for the state of the ball and are  
> > acting at the same time to bring the ball's perceived position to the  
> > intended state. What is incorrect about the simulation is that both  
> > players affect the ball's position simultaneously. In real tennis, of  
> > course, one person hits the ball and then the other does. I could make  
> > the simulation act this way; maybe I should since it may be confusing  
> > people the way it is. But even when there is alternation in the shots,  
> > both players are controlling for ball position at the same time, they  
> > just can't have an effect on the ball at the same time (as in the  
> > present simulation).
> > 
> > I'm beginning to think that maybe a simulation of a more realistic  
> > tennis dual may be in order. This would mean putting physics into the  
> > simulation, which will be a pain for a soft-headed psychologist like  
> > me. But it may be worth the effort.
> > 
> > Best
> > 
> > Rick  
> > --  
> > Richard S. Marken PhD  
> > rsmarken@gmail.com  
> > www.mindreadings.com
> 
> --  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> rsmarken@gmail.com  
> www.mindreadings.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bob\_Hintz](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/db5fbb/32.png) [@Bob\_Hintz](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bob_Hintz)\
**Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 12:37am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519/20 "2011-09-01T00:37:20Z")

</div>

bob hintz - 2011.08.31

I believe that each hit is organized not only to get the ball over the net and in bounds, but also to make it as difficult as possible for the other player to return the ball over the net and in bounds. If one has no awareness of where the other player is on the court, it becomes more difficult to achieve this second part of the reference goal. Each player is simultaneously taking the other player’s observable behavior into account as each continuously organizes his own. I have no idea how this could be included in a spreadsheet.

bob

> **···**
>
> On , Richard Marken [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> > [From Rick Marken (2011.08.31.1615)
> > 
> > > David Goldstein (2011.08.31.1614 EDT)
> > 
> > > DG: The idea of making it sequential makes it more realistic.
> > 
> > Yes, of course. I guess I’ll give it a try. It will require a major
> > 
> > rewrite, I think. But maybe it’s worth it. Why don’t you try it, too?
> > 
> > > Also, I was thinking that the biggest disturbance is where the other
> > 
> > > person hits the ball, how far it is from you, whether you are fast enough to
> > 
> > > reach the ball, what kind of spin the person puts on the ball (flat, topspin,
> > 
> > > slice). Each person is a disturbance for the other person.
> > 
> > Yes, this is true in all interpersonal conflicts (and, of course, it’s
> > 
> > true in my little simulation). The other person’s output joins with
> > 
> > any other prevailing environmental disturbances (like the wind) to
> > 
> > disturb the perception controlled by the other person. The other
> > 
> > person’s output in a conflict is, by definition, a disturbance because
> > 
> > it is an effect on a controlled variable that is independent of the
> > 
> > actions of the controller. But whereas environmental disturbances are
> > 
> > random and unsystematic; the disturbance created by an opponent is
> > 
> > systematic – it is actively working against your efforts to work
> > 
> > against it (and prevent it from affecting the state of the variable
> > 
> > you are controlling).
> > 
> > > This is not taking away from the fact that we have an interpersonal conflict
> > 
> > > going with one person winning and the other person losing a point.
> > 
> > It’s not only not taking away from the fact that there is a conflict;
> > 
> > it is the essence of the conflict.
> > 
> > Best
> > 
> > Rick
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > David
> > 
> > > -----Original Message----- From: Richard Marken
> > 
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 2:20 PM
> > 
> > > To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
> > 
> > > Subject: Re: Singles Tennis Viewed as a PCT Interaction
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > [From Rick Marken (2011.08.31.1120)]
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > 2011/8/31 Boris Hartman [boris.hartman@masicom.net](mailto:boris.hartman@masicom.net)\>:
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > BH: I think that you are doing fine in simplifying the understanding of
> > 
> > > > tennis
> > 
> > > > game, although this form is not yet enough to really understand the
> > 
> > > > essence
> > 
> > > > of it.
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > It seems to me I’m capturing the essence but not the “frills” (the
> > 
> > > higher level goals like strategy and reasons for playing at all).
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > BH: And there is one thing about your explanation that I didn’t
> > 
> > > > understand quite well. You know my American …:))
> > 
> > > >
> > 
> > > > BH: Is everything what you wrote above happening in the same moment ? Is
> > 
> > > > conflict something that is happening in the same moment ?
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > Yes, everything is happening at the same time, in the sense that both
> > 
> > > players have opposing references for the state of the ball and are
> > 
> > > acting at the same time to bring the ball’s perceived position to the
> > 
> > > intended state. What is incorrect about the simulation is that both
> > 
> > > players affect the ball’s position simultaneously. In real tennis, of
> > 
> > > course, one person hits the ball and then the other does. I could make
> > 
> > > the simulation act this way; maybe I should since it may be confusing
> > 
> > > people the way it is. But even when there is alternation in the shots,
> > 
> > > both players are controlling for ball position at the same time, they
> > 
> > > just can’t have an effect on the ball at the same time (as in the
> > 
> > > present simulation).
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > I’m beginning to think that maybe a simulation of a more realistic
> > 
> > > tennis dual may be in order. This would mean putting physics into the
> > 
> > > simulation, which will be a pain for a soft-headed psychologist like
> > 
> > > me. But it may be worth the effort.
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > Best
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > Rick
> > 
> > > –
> > 
> > > Richard S. Marken PhD
> > 
> > > [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)
> > 
> > > [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)
> > 
> > –
> > 
> > Richard S. Marken PhD
> > 
> > [rsmarken@gmail.com](mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com)
> > 
> > [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

[Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/singles-tennis-viewed-as-a-pct-interaction/10519.md?page=2)