THE STR
TEGIST
THE KGPIAN GAME THEORY SOCIETY
OCT, 2014
Modi Wave
Prime TIme
FIFTH EDITION
To Shoot or Not To Shoot
Inherit -ance & Game Theory
It’s your move, Charlie Brown
I
n a recurring theme in the comic strip Peanuts, Lucy holds a football on the ground and invites Charlie Brown to run up and kick it. At the last moment, Lucy pulls the ball away. Charlie Brown, kicking only air, lands on his back, and this gives Lucy great perverse pleasure. Anyone could have told Charlie that he should refuse to play Lucy's game. Even if Lucy had not played this particular trick on him last year (and the year before and the year before that), he knows her character from other contexts and should be able to predict her action. But alas for poor ol' Charlie, he listened to a woman's tears, and falls for the Lucy's trick again. The situation can be better explained using, what we call, a game tree:
maybe). But it does well in showing how any situation that requires alternating moves on the part of the players can be modelled using game trees or decision trees - these situations are called sequential games and we solve them using backward reasoning. But enough game theoretic jargon for now.. Now imagine a parallel universe. The aliens (or whatever you want to call them) enjoy their daily dosage of Peanuts too, but they apparently have an intelligent Charlie Brown. And this Charlie did manage to kick the football “out of the universe”. Well, not literally of course. So can you think of how he ensured that Lucy would not pull the ball away at the last moment? Not yet, no? Well then, let's solve this together. We have to think of an incentive that Charlie
Game trees to our rescue again!
bring to you some very interesting articles and developments in the field of Game Theory. The Charlie Brown story dealt with one of the more important topics in game theory- backward induction. While the story was purely fictional, backward induction has its presence everywheresports, business, politics, even in movies! In fact, you would not achieve much in life if it were not for this method of reasoning. Nor would a company survive for long if they did not utilize this tool effectively. Still not convinced, eh? Read
on to find more.
So Charlie asks Lucy to promise that if she pulls the ball away, she would have to play the 'game' (of attempting to kick the football while the other person holds it) too- she would be at Charlie's mercy now. Solving this situation is a piece of cake now. Starting from the final node and reasoning backwards, Charlie would prefer to pull the ball away (he gains some sadistic pleasure from seeing In simple language, Charlie should reason Lucy fall) - Lucy knows this and will therefore that if he accepts Lucy's invitation, she would instead let Charlie kick - again, intelligent Charlie can see this and will therefore accept Lucy's proposal in the first place. We see how niftily Charlie Brown turned the situation to his advantage. One can always argue that bully Lucy could not have adhered to her promise- the situation would then reduce to the one in the comic, but that's altogether another issue, discussion of which is intended for another day. But food for surely pull the ball away as that is the could give Lucy so that she would not trick thought: how would affairs change if Lucy has dominant strategy for her (highlighted in him. In other words, Charlie has to change the to play the 'game' (after Charlie of course) bold lines). Thus he should reject the offer. structure of the game so that Lucy would now irrespective of whether or not she pulls the Yes, this story is ludicrously simple and be better off letting Charlie kick the ball than ball away? What would be the outcome of the anyone can determine the best strategy otherwise. How would he do that? Okay, what game then? Should Charlie accept Lucy's ('better' strategy in this case, Grammar if he tells Lucy that if she pulls the ball away, proposal in the first place? Nazis!) instinctively (except Charlie Brown he would repay her foul deed. How? - Naman Jain
Hello everyone! We are back with our fifth edition of The Strategist- a periodical that aims to spread the culture of game theory and strategic thinking among KGPians. For those who are going to read The Strategist for the first time, let us briefly introduce ourselves and The Strategist. Started in April 2012, The Strategist is an initiative by The KGPian Game Theory Society (KGTS) which is now the most widely read campus paper of IIT Kharagpur*. In this endeavor of ours, we try to
Find all this very interesting, huh? Well, you should. Follow us on our FB page: facebook.com/the.kgts The previous editions of The Strategist are available here: issuu.com/the.kgts
* as per number of views on issuu.com
THE KGPIAN GAME THEORY SOCIETY
OCT, 2014
FIFTH EDITION
Welcome! Life is a game and you are the player. Every time, the situations in life present a new game to you. But beware! You are not alone! There are many other players and all of them want to maximise their gain. You may adopt any strategy you like but remember that you can only control your move, not your opponents, and the game that you are playing is a part of a much bigger game! Even the dog that wags his tail to your whistle is doing so to maximise his profit, for he knows that soon that obnoxious ape calling his name will throw him a bone out on his plate! You cannot play your opponents move, but you can predict their motives based on your rationale and make the best response possible.You can fool him into misjudging your intentions and make him play the move that you want him to. But only he can play his moves, not you! That is the essence of game theory- to put yourself in your opponent's shoes and maximise your payoff. The games in this theory range from playing chess to managing your sex life, on
field strategies to business decisions, hall politics to wars between nations. All these games require some skill and knowledge but most importantly they require the best strategy. Who are we? Founded in 2011, the KGPian Game Theory Society is an initiative by Manoj Gadia.We have, in the past, conducted sessions of Strategia Hubs- fortnightly discussions on game theory, “The Finance Talk”; events like War of Wits by means of which we strive to promote awareness, k n ow l e d g e a n d a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s fascinating field called Game Theory. Last year, we launched a first-of-its-kind online game of strategy, Brethren of the Coast, based on the classic game of pirates. The event witnessed a staggering participation of 1500 odd people from all over India! Come spring, we conducted an on-spot strategy based competition, NASHIFY at Kshitij 2014, another huge success.You will get to read a summary
of it in this edition. We also have a collaboration with Economics Club, IIT Delhi for mutual exchange of articles in our respective publication. S o s e r i o u s ly, wh a t i s G a m e T h e o r y ? Succinctly put, Game Theory is the study of strategic decision making, that is, whenever two or more players are involved in any cooperation or conflict situation, game t h e o r y c a n c o m e i n h a n dy. I t f i n d s applications in business, economics, computer science, logic, political science, philosophy, biology… the list is long! We believe that if you explore the area of game theory you will be able to make better decisions in daily life. In this edition we have presented some original and inspired ideas in a manner that is easily comprehendible. As you read through the articles you will realize just how integral a role game theory plays in your day to day life.
Guess for the NaMo Wave? E >> hc/λ Yes, we are surely talking about Narendra Modi! Undoubtedly, his party and its alliances won 336 seats at the centre (much greater than 272 that are actually required to get a majority) and got a record 3 lakh votes over his congress rival in Vadodara. It not only takes wide publicity but also good tactics to inculcate one's image and name into the brains of a rather populous country like India. Let's see how Modi changed the rules of the game. He targeted the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh which together account for 210 Lok Sabha seats. He wanted to tur n around the percentage of votes received in these states as BJP had won a paltry 31 seats in 2009. He inspired investor confidence in Gujarat and had put development at the forefront. Both of these yielded huge returns for him. He got the best minds for advertising on board which included Sam Balsara, Prasoon Joshi and Piyush Pandey who have had a wealth of experience behind them. His two very easy, mind-catching and popular lines 'The NaMo wave is coming' and 'Abki Baar Modi Sarkaar' created a sense of unity and empowered him over others. He believed that the poster of a Hindutva boy would emerge as a vote multiplier. Also, Modi ensured fine-tuning of booth management so that it could end up with more hits than misses during the elections. Before even delivering his first speech, he used a much more convenient way to reach the public. He tweeted. A simple tweet of a few words that the whole world saw in a matter of seconds. It witnessed 70k tweets at the moment of writing and 40k retweets in 45 minutes which set a completely new record in India. Modi also had the fastest growing Facebook page (for the last day, week and
THE STRATEGIST
problem of wrong imaging abroad still remained. In May 2005, Modi was denied Visa to US just because the anti-Modi parties convinced the Americans of his involvement in the massacre of 2000 Muslims by the Hindu nationalists, which turned out to be a huge lie. To undo the damage that was done, he outlined a strategy whose first step was inviting the SAARC leaders which consisted of heads of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan to his swearing in. By this master stoke he sealed the mouth of those who questioned his desire for good relations with the neighbouring countries. While other Prime Ministers would visit the superpowers first, he instead visited India's neighbours, on his own terms. Next, he settled with Xi, the president of China, a peace treaty and requested him to move away his troops away from the Indo-China Border. On the account of everything he achieved, he was given a red-carpet welcome in US. He lectured to about 18,500 Indo-American audiences in Madison Square Garden which is otherwise known as the home of New York Knicks Basketball and New York Rangers Ice M o d i made a mark on the national scene by providing assistance for the shifting Hockey team. On a rotating stage, he vowed of Tata Motors in 2008 for production of the to fight corruption and touted India's promise car Nano which established him as the as a Tech-Giant. The speech which got a huge champion for industry and development. number of views not only on YouTube but also Modi, an excellent orator as he is, highlighted on local News channels was a major event in slowing economic growth, high inflation and righting his image which was otherwise lack of good jobs to resonate with the young intentionally distorted by his detractors. and urban voters by blaming Congress led Yes, the energy E of the NaMo wave is much greater than hc/λ. UPA for the problem. -Maunik Desai Such deeply strategized moves overthrew his opposition parties' big time. So after a 5 week election cycle which witnessed 537 million votes, he was elected the Prime Minister of India and created history. Even after becoming the PM of India, the month) of any politician or elected official worldwide. It was growing at 1.171% against Obama's 0.305%! In addition, the campaign mounted other support networks and communities on Facebook like “India272+” volunteering program, used the BJP's party's o f f i c i a l p a ge t o o rga n i s e a m a s s ive mobilization.
2
THE KGPIAN GAME THEORY SOCIETY
OCT, 2014
FIFTH EDITION
To Shoot Or Not To Shoot? Butch, a dreaded dacoit with a considerable bounty on his head, is out for yet another heist. After looting the entire bank on gun point and filling his bag with cash he was about to make an exit when he heard the hypnotizing sound of police siren. Clearly this time he was trapped. Charlyene was busy adjusting her attire which got somewhat disheveled by the snatching of her necklace and belongings by Butch. Her hands were trembling but still so far she had managed to maintain her composure. Not for long, she got company when Butch placed the gun on the side of her forehead and asked her to come with him. The cold metal felt like a melted piece of hot iron on her head. Now her entire body was trembling and her legs were shaking. Butch held her by the arm with his other hand tightly pressing the gun on her forehead and moved out in the open. He was welcomed by police vehicles and cops all around him holding guns in their hands with a clear aim towards him. Butch thought for a while of his situation. Clearly he was trapped. But was he really? Chief Of Police made the terms very clear to Butch that he would be given a considerably lesser sentence if he surrendered than if he killed the woman. Chief Of Police too had been debriefed by his superiors about his course of action. The first priority was to save all the hostages and second priority was to
catch Butch alive. It was also noted that under rare circumstances Butch might be caught dead as there was already a bounty on his head to catch him dead or alive. This poses an interesting set of choices in front of Butch and the Chief Of Police. It is always in the best interest of Butch to keep the woman alive as in that case his worst case scenario would be to get caught and bear a lesser sentence than if he killed the woman. Anyhow, to flee he would need the woman alive so in every situation Butch's best move is to not shoot the girl. Chief Of Police would have thought of this and since his top priority is the safe retrieval of all hostages he would do everything to save the girl. He knows now that Butch wouldn't shoot the girl as it is not in his interest and so the only possibility is that he would flee with the girl. However, since the chief cannot allow that and already knows that Butch isn't going to shoot the girl his best option is to shoot Butch and hope the bullet doesn't kill him. There is no other way for the police to not shoot Butch and yet retrieve the hostage. Butch too would have already worked this out and would have figured that the chief would anyhow shoot him given that he cannot shoot the girl and the chief cannot possibly hope to catch him unharmed. Considering this is Butch's best option to surrender to escape any harm? Chief Of Police, being the cunning man that he is would have worked this
possibility in his mind and so would have already known that Butch would surrender and so maybe, he is not at all prepared to shoot. This is a classic case of a balanced game in which the best outcome for both parties could be determined provided the parties are perfectly rational and have the mental capacity to work out all possibilities. But what if Butch hasn't thought so far ahead and makes his move understanding that chief wants him alive? In such a situation his best move would be to simply flee away with the girl. Surely he won't mind a bullet or two in his ankle or thigh if he is able to escape. But what if the Chief Of Police, given the smart man that he is, does not think smartly on this fateful day and doesn't consider that in no case Butch would hurt the girl. In such a scenario Chief Of Police's best move would be to allow Butch to flee given the top priority being the safety of all hostages. This scenario would surely result in the escape of Butch. But what if even after both of them having worked out all possibilities, Butch doesn't surrender playing on the fear in the minds of police. One slip of hand and a bullet could land into woman's head. Certainly chief would know that. Question is would he risk that? Would fear take the better of him? Would Butch consider this and knowing this would he make an attempt to flee? These practical considerations surely rig this problem and are a subject of much practical importance. - Kartik Srivastava (Author of “Game of Chess”, Member of KGTS)
Cab-booking at IIT KGP Fellas! Until now you must have realized that it takes a great toll on your purse or pocket to simply travel from Kharagpur railway station to your room with a cab especially with a luggage and at night. Reason being the unavailability of the shared-vehicles that supports transportation at daytime. But is it the only reason? Think!!! How do you find the taxi or the cab owners at the station; they do communicate with each other! Think a few years back or few halfdecades back, you can guess that the number of cabs going to and fro from the station would have been much lesser in number.What else? They would not have had a cooperation sense among them that would have greatly helped the customers (i.e. we KGPians) in the past. How exactly? We after clearing JEE or perhaps anyone is smart enough to reject the first cab and look for others who look at us with willing eyes and they would give a discount on their fare and we would be happy enough to travel with them just because they charge of 100 or 90 instead of 120. Why? nd Surely it saves us the 2 100-rupee note. Kidding!!! Obviously the charge is less, that's why. So what happened a few years back? The number of cabs increased from a few to 50. Now if analysed carefully, this is of further advantage to us as we have more option to choose. Now we can go on looking for more cabs who charge even less than 90. Great THE STRATEGIST
advantage to us! This is where the cab-owners put on their evil thinking caps and came up with a cooperative strategy to have one fixed fare for all the cabs. This won't give any added advantage to any cab owners and they would now gain higher profits than before. This cooperative action on one hand gives upper hand to the one providing services, the consumers i.e. KGPians are at severe loss. They have only one option – to definitely
choose a cab. You might be surprised that in many countries there are governments who have passed laws that bans the cooperation among the companies that collude together to have a fixed price for a particular good or service that acts against the interest of the general masses. Alas! We don't have one such 3
law. The monopoly of the cab-owners' association leave us at their mercy. Ever heard of the site www.carbuk.com? We bet you did. It offered great lucky chances to be the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or up till the first 10 car bookers on its website who would have to pay discounted fares to the cab-owners. So does this idea act in the interest of KGPians or against them. Surely it does only if goddess of chance smile upon you, i.e. you were the first one to see the flyers and were also the first one to make up your mind to book a cab. But what if not? Many in the hope of coming in first 10, booked their cabs that resulted in an increased number of KGPians who would take a taxi to go to station even including the ones who earlier would have used the shared autos. So the result being increased profits for cab drivers, though the first 10 are discounted however, they are only seen as additional profits after the ones who booked their cabs after the top 10 list. The probability of being selected in the lucky draw was very less.Well we are smart enough to deduce that, but we are compelled to compete in it. That is the very human nature. Even though the idea of the website provided some of the KGPians discounted price, at the end it resulted in increased profits for the cab-owners. Anything for the rest? Surely, it did provide an online cab-booking system which we will be always proud of. - Senchandra
OCT, 2014
Nashify is the first of its kind game theory based on spot inter-college event designed and conducted by The KGPian Game Theory Society (KGTS) for Kshiitj, the annual technomanagement fest of IIT Kharagpur. Drawing from the success of the in-house event War of Wits, Nashify challenged the participants to outwit, outplay and crush their opponents in an ultimate battle of minds. The event took place on 1st and 2nd February 2014 and saw a p a r t i c i p a t i o n f ro m 1 4 6 t e a m s ( 4 3 8 participants). The event took place in two stages:
THE KGPIAN GAME THEORY SOCIETY
had to submit their bids on chits provided to our volunteers (they do not know what other teams bid).The rules of the auction: the highest bidder wins the bag (i.e. 100,000) and pays the amount they bid the lowest bidder pays a penalty of R*20000, R being the round number - the second highest bidder loses the entire amount they bid - the rest of the teams do not gain or lose anything - there is an upper cap of 600,000 to the total amount bid in the 6 rounds for each of the teams The results of the auction for pool 1:
FIFTH EDITION
by the payoff table below.
It's evident that one is better off choosing to s t e a l , irrespective of whether the opponent opts to split or steal. Herein lies the dilemma- though the ideal strategy for both is to steal, yet both would have been better off opting to split. Selfishness never pays after all. A twist to the game was added: players were allowed to communicate for a minute with their opponents before they made a decision. PRELIMS: Their conversations involved some very A written quiz to test the participants' intriguing (and often funny!) means of general aptitude and sharp thinking and an convincing their opponents to split (on the intuitive understanding of cooperationpromise that they would split too), but would conflict situations. It consisted of 30 odd almost always result in both the parties original questions, which were to be stealing. 3 sets were played in this round. In answered in a total duration of 1 hour. The the 1st set, there was one case of split-split top 12 teams made it to the finals. scenario (surprisingly!) between team C and U and another case of split-steal scenario FINALS: between U and E. The result of the round was The finals were held on the second day of determinable after this set itself as the 2nd and the event. Not surprisingly, all the teams that rd 3 sets had players always stealing (with the qualified were from our college (tempo strategy obvious now). Another interesting shouts anyone?). The finals employed a Needles s to say, the ideal strategy for each series of elimination rounds modelled using team would be to bid low enough, but ensure occurrence: team T, who always chose to steal concepts of game theory like prisoner's that the bid isn't the lowest of all. Team E (the ideal strategy) were eliminated, while dilemma, traveller's dilemma, centipede and executed this strategy very well indeed (and teams C and U who split once atleast passed auctions. The games were so devised such were fortunate too), while team A were quite the hurdle. that they highlighted the social psychology unfortunate. Team C bid low on a consistent Grand Finals: The Ultimatum the teams deployed, and how it deviated from basis. While this worked in their favour in the A fast-paced game, this involved 2 players the ideal (100% rational) scenario. The initial few rounds, they ended up losing a lot from different teams being called for a sum of unique and challenging part of these later, as the penalty increased. Based on an 100,000 to be distributed between them. One elimination rounds was that each participant original idea of one of our society members, player would assumethe role of Master, the from each team was playing the game against a lot of time went into devising the rules of the other the role of Subject, which was decided another participant from another team and game to make it foolproof. And true to its by the organizer on spot. The Master had to he/she had to make his/her move based on name, the game did provide an enthralling propose a division of the sum, and the Subject had to decide to accept the distribution or their prediction of how their opponents and finish to the pool stage. reject (spontaneously). If the proposal is other team members might behave. One Elimination Stage: wrong move and they could have lost the After 3 rounds of intense competition among accepted, the sum is divided accordingly. If round for their team. teams, the best 6 teams (B,C,E,Q,T,U) rejected, both players get zero. Of course, Pool Stage: proceeded to face another series of battle of each team got to play Master and Subject The 12 teams were divided into two pools, wits. But things just turned more exciting, equal number of times. comprising 6 teams each (A to F and P to U). more was at stake as teams now got The ultimatum game is important from a A total of 3 rounds were conducted in the pool eliminated after every round! The first round sociological perspective, because it stage (quarter finals). The teams from each (semi final 1) brought down the number from illustrates the human unwillingness to accept pool competed among themselves only, and 6 to 4 teams (C,E,T,U). Here we review the justice. Our finalist teams (C,E,U) knew this the top 3 teams (on basis of cumulative score) semi final 2 (4 teams to 3) and the grand finals very well, and rarely did a Master propose a more partial distribution than 60:40. Team C from each pool went on to qualify for the (3 to 1): elimination stages. Here we analyse the final Semi Final 2: Split or Steal; based on a adopted a straightforward strategy- to round of pool stage: British game show, Golden Balls; a classic propose a fair distribution of 50:50 whenever they played Master, and accept whatever Round 3: The Grand Auction; a modified example of prisoner's dilemma. proposal (unless more biased than 60:40, version of the blind auction. The two players are jointly rewarded with an The auction consisted of 6 rounds. In every amount of 'c'. Then each was given an option which happened only once with them) when round, a bag worth 100,000 was put on stake. to either split the money with their opponents they played Subject. And rightly so, they This was a team-based event, so every team or steal. The entire game can be summarized emerged winners, followed by E and U.
THE KGPIAN GAME THEORY SOCIETY
OCT, 2014
FIFTH EDITION
Prime Time “Let's watch some NEWS! What the hell?! This is not the show I used to watch, they changed the timing.” Yep, they did.But why? Let's figure it out. These days news channels have become very much competitive. A good TRP requires a lot of effort on their part. Having a show at the right time pays a lot to the channel, whereas even a great show at an off-time may not bring much change in their fortunes. Let's talk about the two most important news shows- The Prime Time and The Late Night news. CBN-INN and TIMES THEN are two leading news channels in India. Presently both CBN-INN and TIMES THEN have Prime Time shows from 8 pm to 11 pm followed by their Late Night news show. nd Currently CBN-INN occupies 2 position in Prime Time, and because of TIMES THEN's very strong nd 10-11 pm lead-in to its late news, CBN-INN is 2 in late news too, even though its news product is st competitive. TIMES THEN then has 1 position in prime time and has excellent 10-11 pm network lead-ins to its 11 o'clock news show, which puts it in #1 position in the late news race. Other news channels have considerably lower viewer share and have negligible effect on these leading news channels. Now CBN-INN has #2 position in both Prime Time and Late Night shows even though it boasts of a competitive news product. So CBN-INN now wants to reschedule its Prime Time from 8-11 pm earlier to 7-10 pm. Do you think this is a good idea? What should be CBN-INN's best strategy? Let's analyse this problem with the help of game theory. Firstly it's a two player game and we should assume it to be a one-time game (i.e. not repetitive). The solution of such a problem is determined by the use of backward induction, i.e., looking forward and reasoning backward. We first need to make a decision tree.Then we need to make a payoff matrix for the two channels. A payoff matrix indicates the outcomes of the player for their corresponding decision as well as of their opponent's. We will make the payoff
matrix with the help of the conditions provided in the problem.
So we can say that when CBN-INN and TIMES THEN both switch, payoff of CBN-INN is 4 and that of TIMES THEN is 2, and so on. Assigning relevant values to the payoff matrix is very important and has to be done sincerely. The values have to be assigned according to the conditions given. For understanding this in a better way, let's see what the values in each cell signifies. Ø 4,2 = If CBN-INN switches to early prime and TIMES THEN also switches, both gain more revenue from higher ratings for 1010:30 p.m. late news. TIMES THEN doesn't gain as much as it would if CBN-INN switches and TIMES THEN doesn't (3,4). Try relating this to the conditions given in the beginning of the problem. Ø 3,4 = If CBN-INN switches and TIMES THEN doesn't switch, CBN-INN gains revenue with its 10-10:30 p.m. news, but the news is up against TIMES THEN's strong prime and TIMES THEN's late news gets higher ratings than before because
CBN-INN has dropped news from the time period. Ø 1,3 = If CBN-INN doesn't switch and TIMES THEN switches, CBN-INN loses big because its weaker 10-11 p.m. prime show is up against strong TIMES THEN's news which has strong lead-ins and strong late fringe. Ø 2,1 = If CBN-INN doesn't switch and TIMES THEN doesn't switch, nothing happens, but the outcome isn't as bad as if CBN-INN doesn't switch and TIMES THEN switches (1,3) If TIMES THEN switches, CBN-INN's best strategy is to switch (4 compared to 1). If TIMES THEN doesn't switch, CBN-INN's best strategy is still to switch (3 compared to 2). Therefore, CBN-INN's dominant strategy is to switch. Doing the same analysis for TIMES THEN, we find there is no dominant strategy for TIMES THEN. Now how should CBN-INN design its strategy, what should be its strategic move? We should note that CBN-INN's dominant strategy is to switch its Prime Time show. But it should also try to make TIMES THEN switch its Prime Time show as this gives more payoff (4) to CBN-INN than the case when TIMES THEN doesn't switch (3). Speaking of strategic moves, secrecy is most apt for CBN-INN in this situation and can suffice CBN-INN's need. Let's see how. CBN-INN's best strategy is to falsely announce it's staying with its current schedule. TIMES THEN hoping so, will try to gain an advantage and hurt CBN-INN. Thus, TIMES THEN will switch [(1,3) as opposed to (2,1)]. Now that TIMES THEN has made its move to switch its prime time show, CBNINN can, at the last moment, switch to early prime to gain its maximum outcome (4,2). Well, that's it for now.. Enjoy your new prime time and late night news. The next time you see such a change in timing of your favourite shows, you'll know why it happened. - Abhijeet Kant Sinha
Inheritance and Game Theory suffocate their parents with attention.) The children recognize that their parents are unwilling to disinherit all of them. As a result, they get together and agree to cut back the number of visits, potentially down to zero.
“Economists who study the motivation for inheritance intentions tend to probe two general areas. The first involves the moral obligation that parents feel toward their offspring, no matter how much support they may have given to them already. The other inheritance theory relates to exchanges. The assumption here is that parents wish to reward children who help them while they are still alive with an inheritance after they've died. They may even subtly (or not so subtly) dangle the prospect of a bequest in front of the children while they are still living to encourage the desired behavior or assistance.” King Lear was worried about how his children would treat him in his old age. Much to his regret, he discovered that children do not always deliver what they promise. In addition to love and respect, children are also motivated by the possibility of an inheritance. Here we look at how a strategic use of inheritance can manipulate children to visit their parents. Imagine that parents want each of their children to visit once and phone twice a week. To give their children the right incentives, they threaten to disinherit any child who fails to meet this quota. The estate will be
THE STRATEGIST
Tell me, my daughters Since now we will divest us both of rule, Interest of territory, cares of state, Which of you shall we say doth love us most? That we our largest bounty may extend Where nature doth with merit challenge. —Shakespeare, King Lear
evenly divided among all the children who meet this quota. (In addition to motivating visits, this scheme has the advantage for children to
5
The parents call you in and ask for some help in revising their will. Where there is a will, there is a way to make it work. But how? You are not allowed to disinherit all of the children. As before, any child who fails to meet the quota is disinherited. The problem is what to do if all of them are below the quota. In that case, give all of the estate to the child who visits the most. This will make the children's reduced visiting cartel impossible to maintain. We have put the children into a multiperson dilemma. The smallest amount of cheating brings a massive reward. A child who makes just one more phone call increases his or her inheritance from an equal share to 100 percent. The only escape is to go along with the parents' wishes. (Obviously, this strategy fails with only children. There is no good solution for couples with an only child. Sorry.) -Prabhat Agarwal
THE KGPIAN GAME THEORY SOCIETY
OCT, 2014
FIFTH EDITION
Catch-22 Till now, we have focussed our brainpower towards determining what would be the best move for us, i.e., the decision that gives us the maximum gain or payoff. In the Charlie Brown story, it was Charlie not kicking the ball, while in Butch's case, it was him not going for the shot. We then, also presented a more subjective procedure of strategizing in the contest between CBN-INN and TIMES THEN, and the moral conflict between parents and children with respect to inheritance. In all these situations, we saw how each party would be better off by acting upon this best decision. However, in real life, we often face what are known as no-win situations or lose-lose situations. Here, the person does have choices to make, but no choice leads to a net gain. In essence, a no-win situation is the ultimate experience of frustration and eventual resignation. Frustration, because any options available dismiss you equally, and resignation because you have no option to back out of it (or just pull through it). It's like being chased by angry militia out to kill you, and the only escape route is through a dense field of land mines, or having the option between consuming
cyanide and cobra venom. In either case, both ways lead to death. The optimist would pick cyanide to reduce the pain, but whatever you do, you still die. Of course, such a situation need not be this drastic. For example, students at our college often have to make a decision of whether or not to go to class when there is a test (a sound assumption being they did not study for it). In either case, they are worse off than if there had been no test. In the light of no-win situations, one of our fellow 9gaggers stumbled upon this:
The story starts simplistically with two professors playing chess, but it becomes convoluted when the game suddenly becomes live and the battle turns real. They try to figure out why and how it is so, or is it a reality; and in the process they uncover hidden truths about nature. Where the truth ultimately takes them is not only unexpected, it is startling and would leave the readers thinking for quite some time to fully assimilate its impact. The account of battles makes it even more engaging with graphic visual description and intense logical debates surrounding the game. At an instance old man II proposes an experiment to test whether both of them are dreaming is not only very well thought out but is fully backed by logical explanation and discussion. Detailed portrayal of battles leaves a lasting impression. There is convergence of science and psychology in the story and despite this being a fantasy none of the supernatural things seem illogical as the characters do not take anything at its face value unless backed with a logical explanation.
THE STRATEGIST
To which another had a witty counter:
“Wait, no, that one also loses. How about a nice game of chess?� And rightly so. It often happens in chess that one would be at a disadvantage if it were his/her turn to move. The fact that the player is compelled to move (because he/she cannot pass) means that his position will become significantly weaker- a no-win situation. Below is a review of the novel, 'Game of Chess', which has recently come into the limelight, not just among chess fans. - Naman Jain
TEAM STRATEGIST Mentor
Sub Editors
Manoj Gadia
Maunik Desai Mythri TG Prabhat Agarwal Rhushikesh Phadke Sashank Gambhira Shalvin Kumar Saha
Editors Abhijeet Kant Sinha Chandan Routray Naman Jain Senchandra
6
ATTENTION 1st & 2nd Years!! The KGPian Game Theory Society will soon be conducting its selections for Literary, Design and Web Teams. So keep your eyes and ears open!!