SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1

What Does Theory of Moves Enable that Classical Game Theory Could Not? A Study onMethodological Tools of Theory of Moves

Hareketler Teorisi Klasik Oyun Teorisinin Sağlayamadığı Neyi Sağlıyor? Hareketler Teorisinin Metodolojik Araçları Üzerine Bir Çalışma

Özgür AKTAŞ
Pages
241–247
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In the study, although it is claimed that TOM made remarkable contribution to GT, the methodological constraints of TOM are pointed out.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Game Theory (GT) and game-theoretic models have been used for many years to examine particularly international politics and strategic interactions between rational actors, in general, the dynamics of the social world.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this regard, Theory of Moves (TOM) was developed by Stephen Brams in order to analyze and explain strategic interaction more realistically.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In the study, although it is claimed that TOM made remarkable contribution to GT, the methodological constraints of TOM are pointed out.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Game Theory (GT) and game-theoretic models have been used for many years to examine particularly international politics and strategic interactions between rational actors, in general, the dynamics of the social world. Different models and approaches have been developed to enhance the explanatory capacities of GT. In this regard, Theory of Moves (TOM) was developed by Stephen Brams in order to analyze and explain strategic interaction more realistically. The purpose of this article is to examine the main assumptions, rules and concepts of TOM with the structure and drawbacks of Classical GT to evaluate methodological tools of TOM. The purpose of this article is to examine two game-theoretic models, Classical GT and TOM, and to scrutinize what sorts of methodological utilities could be achieved by them. Thus it is aimed to illustrate methodological constraints and drawbacks of Classical GT and how the rules and features of TOM intend to overcome these issues. In the study, although it is claimed that TOM made remarkable contribution to GT, the methodological constraints of TOM are pointed out.

Özet

Oyun Teorisi ve oyun teorisi modelleri uzun yıllardır bilhassa uluslararası siyaseti ve rasyonelaktörlerin stratejik etkileşimlerini irdelemek, genel olarak sosyal dünyanın dinamiklerini incelemekiçin kullanılmaktadır. Oyun Teorisi’nin açıklayıcı kapasitesini geliştirmek için çeşitli modeller veyaklaşımlar geliştirilmektedir. Bu bağlamda Hareketler Teorisi stratejik etkileşimleri daha gerçekçibir şekilde inceleyip açıklayabilmek için Stephen Brams tarafından geliştirilmiştir. Bu makaleninamacı, Hareketler Teorisi’nin temel varsayımları, kuralları ve kavramlarını, Klasik Oyun Teorisi’ninyapısı ve kısıtlarıyla bir arada inceleyerek Hareketler Teorisi’nin sağladığı metodolojik araçlarıdeğerlendirmektir. Hareketler Teorisinin Oyun Teorisi’ne yaptığı dikkate değer katkılar olduğusavunulurken, Hareketler Teorisi’nin kendi metodolojik kısıtlarına da dikkat çekilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKTAŞ, Ö. (2022). What Does Theory of Moves Enable that Classical Game Theory Could Not? A Study onMethodological Tools of Theory of Moves. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1, 241–247. https://ajindex.com/articles/439687

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Baldwin, David Allen. (1993). Neorealism and neoliberalism: the contemporary debate. Columbia University Press.
  2. Brams, Steven J. (2000). "Game theory: Pitfalls and opportunities in applying it to international relations." International Studies Perspectives 1(3), 221-232.
  3. Brams, Steven J. (2001). "Response to Randall Stone: Heresy or Scientific Progress?." Journal of Conflict Resolution 45(2), 245-254.
  4. Brams, Steven J. (1994). Theory of Moves. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Brams, Steven, and Jeffrey M. Togman. (1996). "The dynamics of the Northern Ireland conflict." Oxford International Review 7(2), 251-565.
  6. Brams, Steven J., and Marek P. Hessel. (1984). "Threat power in sequential games." International Studies Quarterly 28(1), 23-44.
  7. Brams, Steven J., and Walter Mattli. (1993). "Theory of moves: overview and examples." Conflict Management and Peace Science 12(2), 1-39.
  8. Carmichael, Fiona. (2005). A guide to game theory. Pearson Education. Ericson, Richard E., and Lester A. Zeager. (2006). Ultimate Outcomes in Refugee Crises: Evaluating Willson’s Revised Theory of Moves. Working Paper No. ecu0615. Department of Economics, East Carolina University. Kandel, Abraham, and Yan-Qing Zhang. (1998). "Fuzzy moves." Fuzzy Sets and Systems 99(2), 159-177.
  9. Keohane, Robert O. (1988). "International institutions: Two approaches." International studies quarterly 32(8), 379-396.
  10. Kiryluk-Dryjska, Ewa. (2016). "Negotiation analysis using the theory of moves—Theoretical background and a case study." Journal of Policy Modeling 38(1), 44-53.
  11. McCarty, Nolan, and Adam Meirowitz. (2007). Political game theory: an introduction. Cambridge University Press.
  12. Mor, Ben D. "Crisis initiation and misperception. (1995)." Journal of Theoretical Politics 7(3), 351-367.
  13. Myerson, Roger B. (2013). Game Theory Analysis of Conflict. Cumberland: Harvard University Press.
  14. Ordeshook, Peter C. (1986). Game theory and political theory: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
  15. Poundstone, William. (1993). Prisoner's Dilemma/John Von Neumann, game theory and the puzzle of the bomb. Anchor. Sandler, Todd. (2003). "Terrorism & game theory." Simulation & Gaming 34(3), 319-337.
  16. Schelling, T. C. (1966).
  17. Arms and influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  18. Sexton, Thomas R., and Dennis R. Young. (1985). "Game tree analysis of international crises." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 4(3), 354-369.
  19. Simon, Marc V. (1995). "When sanctions can work: Economic sanctions and the theory of mov