IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v40y2002i2p185-202.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cooperative vs non-cooperative truels: little agreement, but does that matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Bossert, Walter
  • Brams, Steven J.
  • Kilgour, D. Marc

Abstract

It is well-known that non-cooperative and cooperative game theory may yield different solutions to games. These differences are particularly dramatic in the case of truels, or three-person duels, in which the players may fire sequentially or simultaneously, and the games may be one-round or n-round. Thus, it is never a Nash equilibrium for all players to hold their fire in any of these games, whereas in simultaneous one-round and n-round truels such cooperation, wherein everybody survives, is in both the a -core and ß -core. On the other hand, both cores may be empty, indicating a lack of stability, when the unique Nash equilibrium is one survivor. Conditions under which each approach seems most applicable are discussed. Although it might be desirable to subsume the two approaches within a unified framework, such unification seems unlikely since the two approaches are grounded in fundamentally different notions of stability.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Bossert, Walter & Brams, Steven J. & Kilgour, D. Marc, 2002. "Cooperative vs non-cooperative truels: little agreement, but does that matter?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 185-202, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:40:y:2002:i:2:p:185-202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899-8256(02)00004-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brams, S. J. & Kilgour, M. D., 2001. "Games That End in a Bang or a Whimper," Working Papers 01-05, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
    2. Steven Brams & D. Kilgour, 1998. "Backward Induction Is Not Robust: The Parity Problem and the Uncertainty Problem," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 263-289, December.
    3. Brams, Steven J. & Kilgour, D. Mark, 1997. "The Truel," Working Papers 97-05, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David Rietzke & Brian Roberson, 2013. "The robustness of ‘enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend’ alliances," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 937-956, April.
    2. Athanasios Kehagias, 2024. "On the Nash equilibria of a simple discounted duel," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 34(2), pages 65-84.
    3. Gonzalez, Luis J. & Castaneda, Marco & Scott, Frank, 2019. "Solving the simultaneous truel in The Weakest Link: Nash or revenge?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 56-72.
    4. Stefan Napel & Mika Widgren, 2004. "Power Measurement as Sensitivity Analysis," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(4), pages 517-538, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jean-Marie Dufour, 2000. "Économétrie, théorie des tests et philosophie des sciences," CIRANO Working Papers 2000s-47, CIRANO.
    2. Andrea Gallice, 2008. "Preempting versus Postponing: the Stealing Game," ICER Working Papers 02-2008, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    3. Athanasios Kehagias, 2023. "On the Nash Equilibria of a Duel with Terminal Payoffs," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-12, September.
    4. Edwin Woerdman, 2000. "Rationality And Stability In The Theory Of Moves," Rationality and Society, , vol. 12(1), pages 67-86, February.
    5. Solan, Eilon & Vieille, Nicolas, 2003. "Deterministic multi-player Dynkin games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 911-929, November.
    6. David Rietzke & Brian Roberson, 2013. "The robustness of ‘enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend’ alliances," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 937-956, April.
    7. Brams Steven J., 2000. "Game Theory: Pitfalls and Opportunities in Applying It to International Relations," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-11, April.
    8. Brams, S. J. & Kilgour, M. D., 2001. "Games That End in a Bang or a Whimper," Working Papers 01-05, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
    9. Dufwenberg, Martin & Van Essen, Matt, 2018. "King of the Hill: Giving backward induction its best shot," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 125-138.
    10. Dao-Zhi Zeng & Liping Fang & Keith Hipel & D. Kilgour, 2004. "Policy Stable States in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 345-365, December.
    11. Kress, Moshe & Caulkins, Jonathan P. & Feichtinger, Gustav & Grass, Dieter & Seidl, Andrea, 2018. "Lanchester model for three-way combat," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(1), pages 46-54.
    12. Athanasios Kehagias, 2024. "On the Nash equilibria of a simple discounted duel," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 34(2), pages 65-84.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:40:y:2002:i:2:p:185-202. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.