Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #3108

Re: Basic prisoner's dilemma?

From	Bent C Dalager <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Basic prisoner's dilemma?
Date	2011-04-18 13:38 +0000
Organization	Norwegian university of science and technology
Message-ID	<slrniqofmf.b05.bcd@decibel.pvv.ntnu.no> (permalink)
References	<d97822e4-ee7c-458d-8818-07007fb714e8@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2011-04-18, theglazeb <theglazeb@gmail.com> wrote:
> And perhaps try to avoid the "death spiral" from occurring when two
> players use the tit for tat strategy?

If both players use tit for tat then the death spiral doesn't ever
occur because both players start out by cooperating, and both players
continue cooperating.

The death spiral only occurs when one player deviates from tit for tat
for whatever reason and defects, while the other player continues a
straight tit for tat strategy, and the first player then also starts
adopting either tit for tat or always defect (which is effectively the
same thing in this case).

The obvious alternative to tit for tat in this situation is to
sometimes cooperate in spite of tit for tat dictating defect: either
by keeping track of the play history and doing periodic cooperates; or
alternatively by randomly cooperating (say, with 5% chance anytime you
would normally defect) if you don't want to keep track of state.

If memory serves, I think the general conclusion is that tit for tat
is always superior to trying to be clever, unless you have some
information about your opponent's algorithm (personality) that you can
exploit to your advantage.

Cheers,

Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Basic prisoner's dilemma? theglazeb <theglazeb@gmail.com> - 2011-04-17 19:51 -0700
  Re: Basic prisoner's dilemma? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-04-17 23:15 -0400
    Re: Basic prisoner's dilemma? Esmond Pitt <esmond.pitt@bigpond.com> - 2011-04-18 13:54 +1000
      Re: Basic prisoner's dilemma? theglazeb <theglazeb@gmail.com> - 2011-04-17 22:08 -0700
        Re: Basic prisoner's dilemma? Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-04-17 23:47 -0700
        Re: Basic prisoner's dilemma? markspace <-@.> - 2011-04-18 00:14 -0700
  Re: Basic prisoner's dilemma? rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com> - 2011-04-18 13:01 +0100
  Re: Basic prisoner's dilemma? Bent C Dalager <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> - 2011-04-18 13:38 +0000
  Re: Basic prisoner's dilemma? Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-04-18 19:22 +0200
    Re: Basic prisoner's dilemma? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-04-18 13:34 -0400
      Re: Basic prisoner's dilemma? Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-04-18 21:26 +0200
        Re: Basic prisoner's dilemma? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-04-18 16:33 -0400
          Re: Basic prisoner's dilemma? Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-04-18 23:50 +0200
            Re: Basic prisoner's dilemma? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-04-18 18:37 -0400
              Re: Basic prisoner's dilemma? markspace <-@.> - 2011-04-18 15:51 -0700
    Re: Basic prisoner's dilemma? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-04-19 16:14 -0400

csiph-web