rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (09/24/84)
There is a strategy that I think can do better than tit-for-tat (tit-for-tat cooperates int the first round and in all other rounds does whatever its partner did in the last round). I call my strategy parting-shot. It plays as follows. All moves but the first and last - do what the opponent did in the last move First move - cooperate Last move - defect Regardless of the opponent, parting-shot always gets a better score than tit-for-tat. Ralph Hartley rlh@cvl siesmo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh
bae@fisher.UUCP (The Master of Sinanju) (09/26/84)
> There is a strategy that I think can do better than tit-for-tat > (tit-for-tat cooperates int the first round and in all other rounds > does whatever its partner did in the last round). > > I call my strategy parting-shot. It plays as follows. > > All moves but the first and last > - do what the opponent did in the last move > First move > - cooperate > Last move > - defect > > Regardless of the opponent, parting-shot always gets a better score > than tit-for-tat. > > Ralph Hartley Unfortunately, the rules of the game specify that competition shall continue for a random number of rounds, so it is not possible for your program to determine when the 'last move' will occur. -- Brian A. Ehrmantraut {ihnp4, twg, decvax, ucbvax}!allegra!fisher!bae