Quantum Information Processing

, Volume 14, Issue 11, pp 4027–4038 | Cite as

Do quantum strategies always win?



In a seminal paper, Meyer (Phys Rev Lett 82:1052, 1999) described the advantages of quantum game theory by looking at the classical penny flip game. A player using a quantum strategy can win against a classical player almost 100 % of the time. Here we make a slight modification to the quantum game, with the two players sharing an entangled state to begin with. We then analyze two different scenarios: First in which quantum player makes unitary transformations to his qubit, while the classical player uses a pure strategy of either flipping or not flipping the state of his qubit. In this case, the quantum player always wins against the classical player. In the second scenario, we have the quantum player making similar unitary transformations, while the classical player makes use of a mixed strategy wherein he either flips or not with some probability “p.” We show that in the second scenario, 100 % win record of a quantum player is drastically reduced and for a particular probability “p” the classical player can even win against the quantum player. This is of possible relevance to the field of quantum computation as we show that in this quantum game of preserving versus destroying entanglement a particular classical algorithm can beat the quantum algorithm.


Quantum strategy Games Algorithms 



Colin Benjamin would like to thank Dept. of Science and Technology (Nanomission), Govt. of India, for funding via Grant No. SR/NM/NS-1101/2011.


  1. 1.
    Eisert, J., et al.: Quantum games and quantum strategies. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3077 (1999)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Du, J., et al.: Experimental realization of quantum games on a quantum computer. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 137902 (2002)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iqbal, A.: Studies in the Theory of Quantum Games. arXiv:quant-ph/0503176
  4. 4.
    Guo, H., Zhang, J., Koehler, G.J.: A survey of quantum games. Decis. Support Syst. 46, 318 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Levine, D.K.: Quantum games have no news for economists. dklevine.com/papers/quantumnonews
  6. 6.
    van Enk, S.J., Pike, R.: Classical rules in quantum games. Phys. Rev. A 66, 024306 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meyer, D.: Quantum strategies. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1052 (1999)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khan, F.S., Phoenix, S.J.: Gaming the quantum. Quantum Inf. Comput. 13(3&4), 0231 (2013)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Balakrishnan, S., Sankaranarayanan, R.: Classical rules and quantum strategies in penny flip game. Quantum Inf. Process 12, 1261 (2013)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iqbal, A., Abbott, D.: Quantum matching pennies game (cross-disciplinary physics and related areas of science and technology). J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 78/1, 014803 (2009)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang, L.-H., et al.: Direct measurement of the concurrence of two-photon polarization-entangled states. Phys. Rev. A 88, 062342 (2013)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang, Y.-F., et al.: Experimental measurement of lower and upper bounds of concurrence for mixed quantum states. Phys. Rev. A 79, 052338 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schmid, C., et al.: Experimental direct observation of mixed state entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 260505 (2008)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Science Education and ResearchBhubaneswarIndia

Personalised recommendations