Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site amdcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!amdcad!phil
From: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.women
Subject: Re: Win/Win Players vs. Win/Lose Players
Message-ID: <10844@amdcad.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Mar-86 02:33:08 EST
Article-I.D.: amdcad.10844
Posted: Wed Mar 19 02:33:08 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Mar-86 03:32:07 EST
References: <1270@decwrl.DEC.COM> <439@ccivax.UUCP> <12@umcp-cs.UUCP> <459@ccivax.UUCP> <5776@kestrel.ARPA> <698@hounx.UUCP>
Reply-To: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai)
Organization: AMD, Sunnyvale, California
Lines: 23
Xref: watmath net.singles:11042 net.women:9788

In article <698@hounx.UUCP> kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) writes:
>Has anyone worked out the dynamics where one player is using Win/Win
>and the other is using Win/Lose?  Seems to me the outcome is generally
>Lose/Lose?  Does anyone have a strategy  for dealing with a Win/Lose
>partner?

There was an interesting article in Scientific American about a
computer simulation of various strategies. The most generally
successful strategy was one called "tit for tat". You assume
cooperation until proved otherwise, but you remember the bad guys and
treat them according. A population of such players would take over a
population of bad guys if introduced and would dominate if
contaminated with bad guys.

It's a satisfying result, I think.
-- 
 "We must welcome the future, remembering that soon it will become the
  present, and respect the past, knowing that once it was all that was
  humanly possible."

 Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720
 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
 ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com