Question

How do partial and total conflict affect playing strategies? Why might it be important to understand the influences of total and partial conflict on playing strategies?

Answer 1

Partial conflict game: As opposed to a total conflict game where if a player wins x his opponent loses x, in a partial conflict game the players are not strictly opposed, so it is possible for both players to win or lose some value. In a partial sum game the sum of the values for the two players do not sum to zero.

Total conflict:each player attempts to maximize his payoffs and necessarily minimizes the other player in the process. But in a partial conflict game, a player may have any of the following four objectives taken from Giordano et al

1. Maximize his payoffs. Each player chooses a strategy in an attempt to maximize his payoff. While he reasons what the other player’s response will be he does not have the objective of insuring the other player gets a “fair” outcome. Instead, he “selfishly” maximizes his payoff.

2. Find a stable outcome. Quite often players have an interest in finding a stable outcome. A Nash equilibrium outcome is an outcome from which neither player can unilaterally improve, and therefore represents a stable situation. For example, we may be interested in determining whether two species in a habitat will find equilibrium and coexist, or will one species dominate and drive the other to extinction? [Giordano, 6] The Nash equilibrium is named in honor of John Nash [7] who proved that every two person game has at least one equilibrium in either pure strategies or mixed strategies.

3. Minimize the opposing player. Suppose we have two corporations whose marketing of products interact with each other, but not in total conflict. Each may begin with the objective of maximizing his payoffs. But, if dissatisfied with the outcome, one, or both corporations, may turn hostile and choose the objective of minimizing the other player. That is, a player may forego their long-term goal of maximizing their own profits and choose the short term goal of minimizing the opposing player’s profits. For example, consider a large, successful corporation attempting to bankrupt a “start-up venture” in order to drive him out of business, or perhaps motivate him to agree to an arbitrated “fair” solution.

4. Find a “mutually fair” outcome, perhaps with the aid of an arbiter. Both players may be dissatisfied with the current situation. Perhaps, both have a poor outcome as a result of minimizing each other. Or perhaps one has executed a “threat’ as we study below, causing both players to suffer [Giordano, 6]. In such cases the players may agree to abide by the decision of an arbiter who must then determine a “fair” solution and does according to Nash.