I wrote recently about the evolution of cooperation, and its implications for Iraq and the Middle East. I noted that the winning strategy in an iterated prisoner's dilemma game was "Tit for Tat."

Now I discover that on the twentieth anniversary of the original computer tournament, a new, even better strategy has been discovered.

Interesting implications, given the willingness of certain of our enemies to sacrifice themselves for the good of the order. One point raised often in the difference between the COld War and this war is, of course, the fact that the Russians wanted to go home at the end of the day.

Would you be the slave or the master?

It's not a better strategy, it's the same strategy warped somewhat by the rules of the competition.

In the original article (and indeed in much of the literature surrounding the IPD) it's long been noted that a society/grouping of cooperators have an advantage over non-cooperators in a common enviroment. In the linked article we see.. A society/grouping of cooperators prevailing over non-cooperators in a common enviroment.

Oh, should have included third parties in there. Like, do you intend to vote for a third party? (No)

Arrgh. clicked on the wrong comment button (hangs head in shame ...)

I was a bit disappointed to discover that this new strategy requires a change to the rules (that's cheatin', isn't it?) but interesting never-the-less.

OTOH, thinking about the rules opens other possibilities. Typically, with the iterative prisoners dilemma I always thought of it in terms of nation verses nation... but perhaps the units should/could be political groupings (which are less discrete) and the communications and memory factors are likewise less discrete (a biased media, reporting other than facts? A voting public less motivated by 9-11 after time?)

To me, Bush seems to play well in this environment (even being quite inarticulate.) He's much more intelligent about it than most anyone seems to give him credit for (I don't particularly like the way he's played up to Putin or the Saudi's, but in terms of game strategy it might be the right moves.) Anywho, that's my 3 cents.

The new strategy involves a back-channel of communication, to allow notionally independant "players" to be sock-puppets of a wider entity.

I expect that the next time, there will be systems that attempt to determine and mimic the "sign-on signature", and take advantage of their knowledge, while co-operating with each other. Call it Evolution in action. This time, it's designed: but a Genetic Algorithm with sufficient iterations would come up with the same thing, or better.