IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fth/caldav/347.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Logic Of Rational Play In Games Of Perfect Information

Author

Listed:
  • BONANNO, G.

Abstract

For the past 20 years or so the literature on noncooperative games has been centered on the search for an equilibrium concept that expresses the notion of rational behavior in interactive situations. A basic tenet in this literature is that if a “rational solution†exists, it must be a Nash equilibrium. The consensus view, however, is that not all Nash equilibria can be accepted as rational solutions. Consider, for example, the game of Figure 1.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Bonanno, G., 1989. "The Logic Of Rational Play In Games Of Perfect Information," Papers 347, California Davis - Institute of Governmental Affairs.
    • Handle: RePEc:fth:caldav:347
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Antonio Quesada, 2002. "Belief system foundations of backward induction," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 393-403, December.
    2. Giacomo Bonanno, 2012. "Epistemic foundations of game theory," Working Papers 70, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    3. Giacomo Bonanno, 2008. "Non-cooperative game theory," Working Papers 86, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    4. Dekel, Eddie & Fudenberg, Drew, 1990. "Rational behavior with payoff uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 243-267, December.
    5. Giacomo Bonanno, 2008. "Non-cooperative game theory," Working Papers 159, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    6. Yun Wang, 2015. "Belief and Higher-Order Belief in the Centipede Games: Theory and Experiment," Working Papers 2015-03-24, Wang Yanan Institute for Studies in Economics (WISE), Xiamen University.
    7. Ken Binmore, "undated". "Rationality and Backward Induction," ELSE working papers 047, ESRC Centre on Economics Learning and Social Evolution.
    8. Ami Hauptman & Moshe Sipper, 2007. "Emergence Of Complex Strategies In The Evolution Of Chess Endgame Players," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 10(supp0), pages 35-59.
    9. Marek Mikolaj Kaminski, 2019. "Generalized Backward Induction: Justification for a Folk Algorithm," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-25, August.
    10. Graciela Kuechle, 2009. "What Happened To The Three‐Legged Centipede Game?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 562-585, July.
    11. Koboldt, Christian, 1995. "Rational Samaritans, Strategic Moves, and Rule-Governed Behavior: Some Remarks on James Buchanan's "Samaritan's Dilemma"," CSLE Discussion Paper Series 95-02, Saarland University, CSLE - Center for the Study of Law and Economics.
    12. Yun Wang, 2023. "Belief and higher‐order belief in the centipede games: An experimental investigation," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 27-73, February.
    13. Rampal, Jeevant, 2022. "Limited Foresight Equilibrium," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 166-188.
    14. Aumann, Robert J., 1995. "Backward induction and common knowledge of rationality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 6-19.
    15. Xiao Luo & Ben Wang, 2022. "An epistemic characterization of MACA," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 73(4), pages 995-1024, June.
    16. Ken Binmore, "undated". "Backward Induction and Common Knowledge," ELSE working papers 008, ESRC Centre on Economics Learning and Social Evolution.
    17. Skyrms, Brian & Bell, Gary D. & Woodruff, Peter, 1999. "Theories of counter-factual and subjunctive conditionals in contexts of strategic interaction," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 275-291, September.
    18. Thorsten Clausing, 2003. "Doxastic Conditions for Backward Induction," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 315-336, June.
    19. Battigalli, Pierpaolo, 1997. "On Rationalizability in Extensive Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 40-61, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fth:caldav:347. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.