LAST UPDATED: Oct 18, 2019 See Article History<\/a> ARTICLE CONTENTS<\/p>\n\n\n\n Game theory<\/strong>, branch of applied mathematics<\/a> that provides tools for analyzing situations in which parties, called players, make decisions that are interdependent. This interdependence causes each player to consider the other player\u2019s possible decisions, or strategies, in formulating his own strategy. A solution to a game describes the optimal decisions of the players, who may have similar, opposed, or mixed interests, and the outcomes that may result from these decisions.Game theoryQUICK FACTSKEY PEOPLE<\/p>\n\n\n\n RELATED TOPICS<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although game theory can be and has been used to analyze parlour games, its applications are much broader. In fact, game theory was originally developed by the Hungarian-born American mathematician John von Neumann<\/a> and his Princeton University<\/a> colleague Oskar Morgenstern<\/a>, a German-born American economist, to solve problems in economics<\/a>. In their book The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior<\/a><\/em> (1944), von Neumann and Morgenstern asserted that the mathematics developed for the physical sciences, which describes the workings of a disinterested nature, was a poor model for economics. They observed that economics is much like a game, wherein players anticipate each other\u2019s moves, and therefore requires a new kind of mathematics, which they called game theory. (The name may be somewhat of a misnomer\u2014game theory generally does not share the fun or frivolity associated with games.)ADVERTISEMENT<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n Game theory has been applied to a wide variety of situations in which the choices of players interact to affect the outcome. In stressing the strategic aspects of decision making<\/a>, or aspects controlled by the players rather than by pure chance, the theory both supplements and goes beyond the classical theory of probability<\/a>. It has been used, for example, to determine what political coalitions or business conglomerates are likely to form, the optimal price at which to sell products or services in the face of competition, the power of a voter or a bloc of voters, whom to select for a jury, the best site for a manufacturing plant, and the behaviour of certain animals and plants in their struggle for survival. It has even been used to challenge the legality of certain voting systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n It would be surprising if any one theory could address such an enormous range of \u201cgames,\u201d and in fact there is no single game theory. A number of theories have been proposed, each applicable to different situations and each with its own concepts of what constitutes<\/a> a solution. This article describes some simple games, discusses different theories, and outlines principles underlying game theory. Additional concepts and methods that can be used to analyze and solve decision problems are treated in the article optimization<\/a>.Facts Matter. Support the truth and unlock all of Britannica\u2019s content.Start Your Free Trial Today<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Games can be classified according to certain significant features, the most obvious of which is the number of players. Thus, a game can be designated as being a one-person, two-person, or n<\/em>-person (with n<\/em> greater than two) game, with games in each category having their own distinctive features. In addition, a player need not be an individual; it may be a nation, a corporation, or a team comprising<\/a> many people with shared interests.ADVERTISEMENT<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n In games of perfect information, such as chess<\/a>, each player knows everything about the game at all times. Poker<\/a>, on the other hand, is an example of a game of imperfect information because players do not know all of their opponents\u2019 cards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The extent to which the goals of the players coincide or conflict is another basis for classifying games. Constant-sum games<\/a> are games of total conflict, which are also called games of pure competition. Poker, for example, is a constant-sum game because the combined wealth of the players remains constant, though its distribution shifts in the course of play.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n Players in constant-sum games have completely opposed interests, whereas in variable-sum games<\/a> they may all be winners or losers. In a labour-management dispute, for example, the two parties certainly have some conflicting interests, but both will benefit if a strike is averted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Variable-sum games can be further distinguished as being either cooperative or noncooperative. In cooperative<\/a> games players can communicate and, most important, make binding agreements; in noncooperative games players may communicate, but they cannot make binding agreements, such as an enforceable contract. An automobile salesperson and a potential customer will be engaged in a cooperative game if they agree on a price and sign a contract. However, the dickering that they do to reach this point will be noncooperative. Similarly, when people bid independently at an auction<\/a> they are playing a noncooperative game, even though the high bidder agrees to complete the purchase.ADVERTISEMENT<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n Finally, a game is said to be finite when each player has a finite number of options, the number of players is finite, and the game cannot go on indefinitely. Chess, checkers<\/a>, poker<\/a>, and most parlour games are finite. Infinite games are more subtle and will only be touched upon in this article.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A game can be described in one of three ways: in extensive, normal, or characteristic-function form. (Sometimes these forms are combined, as described in the section Theory of moves<\/a>.) Most parlour games, which progress step by step, one move at a time, can be modeled as games in extensive form. Extensive-form games can be described by a \u201cgame tree,\u201d in which each turn is a vertex of the tree, with each branch indicating the players\u2019 successive choices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n The normal (strategic) form is primarily used to describe two-person games. In this form a game is represented by a payoff matrix, wherein each row describes the strategy of one player and each column describes the strategy of the other player. The matrix<\/a> entry at the intersection of each row and column gives the outcome of each player choosing the corresponding strategy. The payoffs to each player associated with this outcome are the basis for determining whether the strategies are \u201cin equilibrium,\u201d or stable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The characteristic-function form is generally used to analyze games with more than two players. It indicates the minimum value that each coalition of players\u2014including single-player coalitions\u2014can guarantee for itself when playing against a coalition made up of all the other players.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One-person games are also known as games against nature. With no opponents, the player only needs to list available options and then choose the optimal outcome. When chance is involved the game might seem to be more complicated, but in principle the decision is still relatively simple. For example, a person deciding whether to carry an umbrella weighs the costs and benefits of carrying or not carrying it. While this person may make the wrong decision, there does not exist a conscious opponent. That is, nature is presumed to be completely indifferent to the player\u2019s decision, and the person can base his decision on simple probabilities. One-person games hold little interest for game theorists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The simplest game of any real theoretical interest is a two-person constant-sum game of perfect information. Examples of such games include chess<\/a>, checkers, and the Japanese game of go<\/a>. In 1912 the German mathematician Ernst Zermelo proved that such games are strictly determined; by making use of all available information, the players can deduce strategies that are optimal, which makes the outcome preordained (strictly determined). In chess, for example, exactly one of three outcomes must occur if the players make optimal choices: (1) White wins (has a strategy that wins against any strategy of Black); (2) Black wins; or (3) White and Black draw. In principle, a sufficiently powerful supercomputer<\/a> could determine which of the three outcomes will occur. However, considering that there are some 1043<\/sup> distinct 40-move games of chess possible, there seems no possibility that such a computer will be developed now or in the foreseeable future. Therefore, while chess is of only minor interest in game theory, it is likely to remain a game of enduring intellectual<\/a> interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n A \u201csaddlepoint<\/a>\u201d in a two-person constant-sum game is the outcome that rational players would choose. (Its name derives from its being the minimum of a row that is also the maximum of a column in a payoff matrix\u2014to be illustrated shortly\u2014which corresponds to the shape of a saddle.) A saddlepoint always exists in games of perfect information but may or may not exist in games of imperfect information. By choosing a strategy<\/a> associated with this outcome, each player obtains an amount at least equal to his payoff at that outcome, no matter what the other player does. This payoff is called the value of the game; as in perfect-information games, it is preordained by the players\u2019 choices of strategies associated with the saddlepoint, making such games strictly determined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The normal-form game in Table 1 is used to illustrate the calculation of a saddlepoint. Two political parties, A<\/em> and B<\/em>, must each decide how to handle a controversial issue in a certain election. Each party can either support the issue, oppose it, or evade it by being ambiguous<\/a>. The decisions by A<\/em> and B<\/em> on this issue determine the percentage of the vote that each party receives. The entries in the payoff matrix<\/a> represent party A<\/em>\u2019s percentage of the vote (the remaining percentage goes to B<\/em>). When, for example, A<\/em> supports the issue and B<\/em> evades it, A<\/em> gets 80 percent and B<\/em> 20 percent of the vote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Assume that each party wants to maximize its vote. A<\/em>\u2019s decision seems difficult at first because it depends on B<\/em>\u2019s choice of strategy. A<\/em> does best to support if B<\/em> evades, oppose if B<\/em> supports, and evade if B<\/em> opposes. A<\/em> must therefore consider B<\/em>\u2019s decision before making its own. Note that no matter what A<\/em> does, B<\/em> obtains the largest percentage of the vote (smallest percentage for A<\/em>) by opposing the issue rather than supporting it or evading it. Once A<\/em> recognizes this, its strategy obviously should be to evade, settling for 30 percent of the vote. Thus, a 30 to 70 percent division of the vote, to A<\/em> and B<\/em> respectively, is the game\u2019s saddlepoint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A more systematic way of finding a saddlepoint is to determine the so-called maximin and minimax values. A<\/em> first determines the minimum<\/a> percentage of votes it can obtain for each of its strategies; it then finds the maximum<\/a> of these three minimum values, giving the maximin. The minimum percentages A<\/em> will get if it supports, opposes, or evades are, respectively, 20, 25, and 30. The largest of these, 30, is the maximin value. Similarly, for each strategy B<\/em> chooses, it determines the maximum percentage of votes A<\/em> will win (and thus the minimum that it can win). In this case, if B<\/em> supports, opposes, or evades, the maximum A<\/em> will get is 80, 30, and 80, respectively. B<\/em> will obtain its largest percentage by minimizing A<\/em>\u2019s maximum percent of the vote, giving the minimax. The smallest of A<\/em>\u2019s maximum values is 30, so 30 is B<\/em>\u2019s minimax value. Because both the minimax and the maximin values coincide, 30 is a saddlepoint. The two parties might as well announce their strategies in advance, because the other party cannot gain from this knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When saddlepoints exist, the optimal strategies and outcomes can be easily determined, as was just illustrated. However, when there is no saddlepoint the calculation is more elaborate, as illustrated in Table 2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A guard is hired to protect two safes in separate locations: S<\/em>1 contains $10,000 and S<\/em>2 contains $100,000. The guard can protect only one safe at a time from a safecracker. The safecracker and the guard must decide in advance, without knowing what the other party will do, which safe to try to rob and which safe to protect. When they go to the same safe, the safecracker gets nothing; when they go to different safes, the safecracker gets the contents of the unprotected safe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n In such a game, game theory does not indicate that any one particular strategy is best. Instead, it prescribes that a strategy be chosen in accordance with a probability distribution<\/a>, which in this simple example is quite easy to calculate. In larger and more complex games, finding this strategy involves solving a problem in linear programming<\/a>, which can be considerably more difficult.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To calculate the appropriate probability distribution in this example, each player adopts a strategy that makes him indifferent to what his opponent does. Assume that the guard protects S<\/em>1 with probability p<\/em> and S<\/em>2 with probability 1 \u2212 p<\/em>. Thus, if the safecracker tries S<\/em>1, he will be successful whenever the guard protects S<\/em>2. In other words, he will get $10,000 with probability 1 \u2212 p<\/em> and $0 with probability p<\/em> for an average gain of $10,000(1 \u2212 p<\/em>). Similarly, if the safecracker tries S<\/em>2, he will get $100,000 with probability p<\/em> and $0 with probability 1 \u2212 p<\/em> for an average gain of $100,000p<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The guard will be indifferent to which safe the safecracker chooses if the average amount stolen is the same in both cases\u2014that is, if $10,000(1 \u2212 p<\/em>) = $100,000p<\/em>. Solving for p<\/em> gives p<\/em> = 1\/11. If the guard protects S<\/em>1 with probability 1\/11 and S<\/em>2 with probability 10\/11, he will lose, on average, no more than about $9,091 whatever the safecracker does.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Using the same kind of argument, it can be shown that the safecracker will get an average of at least $9,091 if he tries to steal from S<\/em>1 with probability 10\/11 and from S<\/em>2 with probability 1\/11. This solution in terms of mixed strategies, which are assumed to be chosen at random with the indicated probabilities, is analogous<\/a> to the solution of the game with a saddlepoint (in which a pure, or single best, strategy exists for each player).<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n The safecracker and the guard give away nothing if they announce the probabilities with which they will randomly choose their respective strategies. On the other hand, if they make themselves predictable by exhibiting any kind of pattern in their choices, this information can be exploited by the other player.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The minimax theorem, which von Neumann proved in 1928, states that every finite, two-person constant-sum game has a solution in pure or mixed strategies. Specifically, it says that for every such game between players A<\/em> and B<\/em>, there is a value v<\/em> and strategies for A<\/em> and B<\/em> such that, if A<\/em> adopts its optimal (maximin) strategy, the outcome will be at least as favourable to A<\/em> as v<\/em>; if B<\/em> adopts its optimal (minimax) strategy, the outcome will be no more favourable to A<\/em> than v<\/em>. Thus, A<\/em> and B<\/em> have both the incentive and the ability to enforce an outcome that gives an (expected) payoff of v<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the previous example it was tacitly assumed that the players were maximizing their average profits, but in practice players may consider other factors. For example, few people would risk a sure gain of $1,000,000 for an even chance of winning either $3,000,000 or $0, even though the expected (average) gain from this bet is $1,500,000. In fact, many decisions that people make, such as buying insurance policies, playing lotteries, and gambling at a casino, indicate that they are not maximizing their average profits. Game theory does not attempt to state what a player\u2019s goal should be; instead, it shows how a player can best achieve his goal, whatever that goal is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Von Neumann and Morgenstern understood this distinction; to accommodate all players, whatever their goals, they constructed a theory of utility<\/a>. They began by listing certain axioms that they thought all rational decision makers would follow (for example, if a person likes tea better than coffee, and coffee better than milk, then that person should like tea better than milk). They then proved that it was possible to define a utility function<\/a> for such decision makers that would reflect their preferences<\/a>. In essence, a utility function assigns a number to each player\u2019s alternatives<\/a> to convey their relative attractiveness. Maximizing someone\u2019s expected utility<\/a> automatically determines a player\u2019s most preferred option. In recent years, however, some doubt has been raised about whether people actually behave in accordance with these axioms, and alternative<\/a> axioms have been proposed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n Much of the early work in game theory was on two-person constant-sum games because they are the easiest to treat mathematically. The players in such games have diametrically opposed interests, and there is a consensus<\/a> about what constitutes<\/a> a solution (as given by the minimax theorem). Most games that arise in practice, however, are variable-sum games; the players have both common and opposed interests. For example, a buyer and a seller are engaged in a variable-sum game (the buyer wants a low price and the seller a high one, but both want to make a deal), as are two hostile nations (they may disagree about numerous issues, but both gain if they avoid going to war).<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n READ MORE ON THIS TOPICaggressive behaviour: Game theory: the Hawk-Dove modelThe effect of increasing competitor density on territorial defense shows that the fitness consequences\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Some \u201cobvious\u201d properties of two-person constant-sum games are not valid in variable-sum games. In constant-sum games, for example, both players cannot gain (they may or may not lose, but they cannot both gain) if they are deprived of some of their strategies. In variable-sum games, however, players may gain if some of their strategies are no longer available. This might not seem possible at first. One would think that if a player benefited from not using certain strategies, the player would simply avoid those strategies and choose more advantageous ones, but this is not always the case. For example, in a region with high unemployment a worker may be willing to accept a lower salary to obtain or keep a job, but if a minimum wage<\/a> law makes that option illegal, the worker may be \u201cforced\u201d to accept a higher salary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The effect of communication is particularly revealing of the difference between constant-sum and variable-sum games. In constant-sum games it never helps a player to give an adversary information, and it never hurts a player to learn an opponent\u2019s optimal strategy (pure or mixed) in advance. However, these properties do not necessarily hold in variable-sum games. Indeed, a player may want an opponent to be well-informed. In a labour-management dispute, for example, if theADVERTISEMENT<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n labour union<\/a> is prepared to strike, it behooves<\/a> the union to inform management and thereby possibly achieve its goal without a strike. In this example, management is not harmed by the advance information (it, too, benefits by avoiding a costly strike). In other variable-sum games, knowing an opponent\u2019s strategy can sometimes be disadvantageous. For example, a blackmailer can only benefit if he first informs his victim that he will harm him\u2014generally by disclosing some sensitive and secret details of the victim\u2019s life\u2014if his terms are not met. For such a threat to be credible, the victim must fear the disclosure and believe that the blackmailer is capable of executing the threat. (The credibility of threats is a question that game theory studies.) Although a blackmailer may be able to harm a victim without any communication taking place, a blackmailer cannot extort a victim unless he first adequately informs the victim of his intent and its consequences. Thus, the victim\u2019s knowledge of the blackmailer\u2019s strategy, including his ability and will to carry out the threat, works to the blackmailer\u2019s advantage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n Communication is pointless in constant-sum games because there is no possibility of mutual gain from cooperating. In variable-sum games, on the other hand, the ability to communicate, the degree of communication, and even the order in which players communicate can have a profound influence on the outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the variable-sum game shown in Table 3, each matrix<\/a> entry consists of two numbers. (Because the combined wealth of the players is not constant, it is impossible to deduce one player\u2019s payoff<\/a> from the payoff of the other; consequently, both players\u2019 payoffs must be given.) The first number in each entry is the payoff to the row player (player A<\/em>), and the second number is the payoff to the column player (player B<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this example it will be to player A<\/em>\u2019s advantage if the game is cooperative<\/a> and to player B<\/em>\u2019s advantage if the game is noncooperative. Without communication, assume each player applies the \u201csure-thing\u201d principle: it maximizes its minimum payoff by determining the minimum it will receive whatever its opponent does. Thereby, A<\/em> determines that it will do best to choose strategy I no matter what B<\/em> does: if B<\/em> chooses i, A<\/em> will get 3 regardless of what A<\/em> does; if B<\/em> chooses ii, A<\/em> will get 4 rather than 3. B<\/em> similarly determines that it will do best to choose i no matter what A<\/em> does. Selecting these two strategies, A<\/em> will get 3 and B<\/em> will get 4 at (3, 4).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a cooperative game, however, A<\/em> can threaten to play II unless B<\/em> agrees to play ii. If B<\/em> agrees, its payoff will be reduced to 3 while A<\/em>\u2019s payoff will rise to 4 at (4, 3); if B<\/em> does not agree and A<\/em> carries out its threat, A<\/em> will neither gain nor lose at (3, 2) compared to (3, 4), but B<\/em> will get a payoff of only 2. Clearly, A<\/em> will be unaffected if B<\/em> does not agree and thus has a credible threat; B<\/em> will be affected and obviously will do better at (4, 3) than at (3, 2) and should comply with the threat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n Sometimes both players can gain from the ability to communicate. Two pilots trying to avoid a midair collision clearly will benefit if they can communicate, and the degree of communication allowed between them may even determine whether or not they will crash. Generally, the more two players\u2019 interests coincide, the more important and advantageous communication becomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The solution to a cooperative game in which players have a common goal involves coordinating the players\u2019 decisions effectively. This is relatively straightforward, as is finding the solution to constant-sum games with a saddlepoint. For games in which the players have both common and conflicting interests\u2014in other words, in most variable-sum games, whether cooperative or noncooperative\u2014what constitutes a solution is much harder to define and make persuasive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although solutions to variable-sum games have been defined in a number of different ways, they sometimes seem inequitable or are not enforceable. One well-known cooperative solution to two-person variable-sum games was proposed by the American mathematician John F. Nash<\/a>, who received the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1994 for this and related work he did in game theory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Given a game with a set of possible outcomes and associated utilities for each player, Nash showed that there is a unique outcome that satisfies four conditions: (1) The outcome is independent of the choice of a utility function (that is, if a player prefers x<\/em> to y<\/em>, the solution will not change if one function assigns x<\/em> a utility of 10 and y<\/em> a utility of 1 or a second function assigns the values of 20 and 2). (2) Both players cannot do better simultaneously (a condition known as Pareto-optimality). (3) The outcome is independent of irrelevant alternatives<\/a> (in other words, if unattractive options are added to or dropped from the list of alternatives, the solution will not change). (4) The outcome is symmetrical (that is, if the players reverse their roles, the solution will remain the same, except that the payoffs will be reversed).<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n In some cases the Nash solution seems inequitable because it is based on a balance of threats\u2014the possibility that no agreement will be reached, so that both players will suffer losses\u2014rather than a \u201cfair\u201d outcome. When, for example, a rich person and a poor person are to receive $10,000 provided they can agree on how to divide the money (if they fail to agree, they receive nothing), most people assume that the fair solution would be for each person to get half, or even that the poor person should get more than half. According to the Nash solution, however, there is a utility for each player associated with all possible outcomes. Moreover, the specific choice of utility functions should not affect the solution (condition 1) as long as they reflect each person\u2019s preferences. In this example, assume that the rich person\u2019s utility is equal to one-half the money received and that the poor person\u2019s utility is equal to the money received. These different functions reflect the fact that additional income is more precious<\/a> to the poor person. Under the Nash solution, the threat of reaching no agreement induces the poor person to accept one-third of the $10,000, giving the rich person two-thirds. In general, the Nash solution finds an outcome such that each player gains the same amount of utility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To illustrate the kinds of difficulties that arise in two-person noncooperative variable-sum games, consider the celebrated prisoner\u2019s dilemma (PD), originally formulated by the American mathematician Albert W. Tucker. Two prisoners, A<\/em> and B<\/em>, suspected of committing a robbery together, are isolated and urged to confess. Each is concerned only with getting the shortest possible prison sentence for himself; each must decide whether to confess without knowing his partner\u2019s decision. Both prisoners, however, know the consequences of their decisions: (1) if both confess, both go to jail for five years; (2) if neither confesses, both go to jail for one year (for carrying concealed weapons); and (3) if one confesses while the other does not, the confessor goes free (for turning state\u2019s evidence) and the silent one goes to jail for 20 years. The normal form of this game is shown in Table 4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Superficially, the analysis of PD is very simple. Although A<\/em> cannot be sure what B<\/em> will do, he knows that he does best to confess when B<\/em> confesses (he gets five years rather than 20) and also when B<\/em> remains silent (he serves no time rather than a year); analogously, Classification Of Games<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
One-Person Games<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Two-Person Constant-Sum Games<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
Games of perfect information<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Games of imperfect information<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Table](\"https:\/\/cdn.britannica.com\/s:500x350\/52\/91952-050-75CE8B0A\/table-payoff-matrix-concept-entry-saddlepoint-participant.jpg\")
<\/a>Mixed strategies and the minimax theorem<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Table](\"https:\/\/cdn.britannica.com\/s:500x350\/53\/91953-050-002861CC\/saddlepoint-payoff-matrix-strategy-participants-rewards-instance.jpg\")
<\/a>Utility theory<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Two-Person Variable-Sum Games<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
Cooperative versus noncooperative games<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Table](\"https:\/\/cdn.britannica.com\/s:500x350\/54\/91954-050-1C935170\/payoff-games-players-actions-one-player-payoffs.jpg\")
<\/a>The Nash solution<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The prisoner\u2019s dilemma<\/a><\/h1>\n\n\n\n
![\"prisoner's](\"https:\/\/cdn.britannica.com\/s:800x450,c:crop\/43\/186443-138-A4E61711\/overview-prisoners-dilemma.jpg\")
<\/a>![\"Table](\"https:\/\/cdn.britannica.com\/s:500x350\/55\/91955-050-F444D10D\/dilemma-prisoners-participants-game-theory-communication-strategy.jpg\")
<\/a>