Posted ByStu Vessant on April 06, 2002 at 20:53:18:
In Reply to: RPS and Nash posted byDave Childs on April 06, 2002 at 10:25:29:
: Therefore the Nash Equilibrium states that it would be in the best interest of all players to Stalemate.
: Since this is obviously not the case with RPS the Nash Equilibrium is refuted!
Ah, not so fast, Dave. You seem to be forgetting here that RPS is a non zero-sum game. There is no "in the best interests of all players", as in a zero-sum game, because only one player may win. Your option "second best [outcome] is to stalemate" is not quite true, as a stalemate is not truly an "outcome". A stalemate simply results in another round being played, until the desired number of wins is obtained. Anyone who can recall the interminable snorefest of the '74 US Nationals (in which average RPMs (rounds per match) was 23) will argue that constant stalemates are in no one's best interests.
Stu Vessant
Part-time Operator Developmental Affairs