  We propose a new model of provenance, based on a game-theoretic approach to
query evaluation. First, we study games G in their own right, and ask how to
explain that a position x in G is won, lost, or drawn. The resulting notion of
game provenance is closely related to winning strategies, and excludes from
provenance all "bad moves", i.e., those which unnecessarily allow the opponent
to improve the outcome of a play. In this way, the value of a position is
determined by its game provenance. We then define provenance games by viewing
the evaluation of a first-order query as a game between two players who argue
whether a tuple is in the query answer. For RA+ queries, we show that game
provenance is equivalent to the most general semiring of provenance polynomials
N[X]. Variants of our game yield other known semirings. However, unlike
semiring provenance, game provenance also provides a "built-in" way to handle
negation and thus to answer why-not questions: In (provenance) games, the
reason why x is not won, is the same as why x is lost or drawn (the latter is
possible for games with draws). Since first-order provenance games are
draw-free, they yield a new provenance model that combines how- and why-not
provenance.
