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 ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!brahms!weemba
From: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.women
Subject: Re: Win/Win Players vs. Win/Lose Players
Message-ID: <12588@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sun, 23-Mar-86 06:24:04 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12588
Posted: Sun Mar 23 06:24:04 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Mar-86 03:32:39 EST
References: <1270@decwrl.DEC.COM> <439@ccivax.UUCP> <12@umcp-cs.UUCP> <10844@amdcad.UUCP> <536@mordred.purdue.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 17
Xref: watmath net.singles:11124 net.women:9834

In article <536@mordred.purdue.UUCP> chk@purdue.UUCP (Chuck Koelbel) writes:
>What I wanted to point out is that "playing nice" like "tit for tat" does
>is not always the best strategy.  In a replay of the computer simulation
>with different (sometimes more complicated) strategies, "tit for tat" did
>not win - a program that "probed" its opponents to see their reactions
>did better.  The conclusion is that no one strategy is best.  Your reactions
>should be based on your environment.  (For the win/win players out there
>I should point out that not attacking until provoked does seem a robust
>strategy, i.e. it does well in most environments.)

What do you mean by "best strategy"?  "tit for tat" is best against ALL
the competition.  In other words, it can be beaten, but only barely.  The
other known strategies, including the "prober", will lose spectactularly
against certain other strategies, and so on average, do worse than "tit for
tat".

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720