108:-1 types. Based on experimental data, most of the players only use one model to predict the behavior of all the other players. Although the hierarchy of types could be indefinite, the benefits of higher levels would decrease substantially while incurring a much greater cost. Because of the limit of players' expectation level and players' priors, it is possible to reach an equilibrium in games without communication.
65:". There is nothing that makes Grand Central Terminal a location with a higher payoff because people could just as easily meet at another public location, such as a bar or a library, but its tradition as a meeting place raises its salience and therefore makes it a natural "focal point". Later, Schelling's informal experiments have been replicated under controlled conditions with monetary incentives by Judith Mehta.
227:
235:
to go straight, swerve to the left or swerve to the right. Both players want to avoid crashing, but neither knows what the other will do. In this case, the decision to swerve right can serve as a focal point which leads to the winning right-right outcome. It seems a natural focal point in places using
234:
Focal points can also have real-life applications. For example, imagine two bicycles headed towards each other and in danger of crashing. Avoiding collision becomes a coordination game where each player's winning choice depends on the other player's choice. Each player, in this case, has the choice
330:
Adding repetition to the game introduces a focal point at the Nash equilibrium solution of 0. This was shown by
Camerer as, “ the game is played multiple times with the same group, the average moves close to 0.” Introducing the iterative aspect to the game forces all players onto higher levels of
47:
often concert their intentions or expectations with others if each knows that the other is trying to do the same" in a cooperative situation (p. 57), so their action would converge on a focal point which has some kind of prominence compared with the environment. However, the conspicuousness of the
218:. The red square is the "right" square to select only if a player can be sure that the other player has selected it, but by hypothesis neither can. However, it is the most salient and notable square, so—lacking any other one—most people will choose it, and this will in fact (often) work.
262:
game shows the level-n theory in practice. In this game, players are tasked with guessing an integer from 0 to 100 inclusive which they believe is closest to 2/3 of the average of all players’ guesses. A Nash equilibrium can be found by thinking through each level:
138:
Bacharach argued that people could find a focal point because they act as members of a team instead of individuals in a cooperative game. With the identity changed, the player follows the prescription of an imaginary group leader to maximize the group interest.
191:
56:
The existence of the focal point is first demonstrated by
Schelling with a series of questions. Here is one example: to determine the time and place to meet a stranger in New York City, but without being able to communicate in person beforehand. In this
116:
The cognitive hierarchy (CH) theory is a derivation of level-n theory. A level-n player from the CH model would assume that their strategy is the most sophisticated and that the levels 0, 1, 2, ..., n-1 on which their opponents play follow a normalized
162:
Split money game: Two players share $ 100. They first write down their individual claims on a sheet of paper. If their claims add to $ 100 or less, both of them will get exactly what they claimed, but if the sum is higher than $ 100 they get
125:
game. A player would be able to determine the value which they should play based on the assumed distribution of lower-level players described by the
Poisson distribution. Another example of a game involving CH theory is the
103:
A level-0 player will choose actions regardless of the actions of other players. A level-1 player believes that all other players are level-0 types. A level-n player estimates that all other players are level-0, 1, 2, ...,
181:
These games suggest that focal points have some saliency. These characteristics make them preferable choices to people. Furthermore, people would assume each other has also noticed the saliency and make the same decision.
202:
one, they will each receive a prize. Three of the squares are blue and one is red. Assuming they each know nothing about the other player, but that they each do want to win the prize, then they will, reasonably,
250:, which involves two cars racing toward each other on a collision course and in which the driver who first decides to swerve is seen as a coward, while no driver swerving results in a fatal collision for both.
61:, any place and time in the city could be an equilibrium solution. Schelling asked a group of students this question, and found the most common answer was "noon at (the information booth at)
322:
92:
Stahl and Wilson argue that a focal point is formed because players would try to predict how other players act. They model the level of "rational expectation" players by their ability to
84:
Although the concept of a focal point has been widely accepted in game theory, it is still unclear how a focal point forms. The researchers have proposed theories from two aspects.
198:
In a simple example, two people unable to communicate with each other are each shown a panel of four squares and asked to select one; if and only if they both select the
610:
159:
Letter order game: Give an order to letters A, B, and C. If the three players give the same order, they win an award, otherwise they get nothing.
679:
432:
402:
1578:
451:
Mehta, Judith; Starmer, Chris; Sugden, Robert (1994). "The Nature of
Salience: An Experimental Investigation of Pure Coordination Games".
1395:
930:
728:
1214:
1033:
835:
345:
1304:
327:
As N grows, 2/3 of the average will trend towards zero. At this point, the only Nash equilibrium is for all players to guess 0
845:
1174:
1355:
773:
748:
636:
156:
Head-tail game: Name "heads" or "tails". If the two players name the same, they win an award, otherwise, they get nothing.
121:. This model works well in multi-player games where the players need to estimate a number in a given range, such as the
1705:
1131:
885:
875:
810:
236:
174:
For the three players, A, B, and C, in letter order game. 9 out of 12 A, 10 out of 12 B, and 14 out of 16 C wrote "ABC".
925:
905:
1390:
279:
1639:
1360:
1018:
860:
855:
1675:
1598:
1334:
890:
815:
672:
1690:
1423:
1309:
1106:
900:
718:
259:
177:
For the players to claim part of the $ 100. 36 out of 40 chose $ 50. 2 of the remainder chose $ 49 and $ 49.99.
127:
122:
1493:
611:"Focal Points (or Schelling Points): How We Naturally Organize in Games of Coordination – Mind Your Decisions"
575:
Bacharach, Michael (1 June 1999). "Interactive team reasoning: A contribution to the theory of co-operation".
1695:
1294:
1264:
920:
708:
1629:
276:
Level N: Assuming all other players reason similarly, 2/3 of the maximum average will never be higher than
1720:
1700:
1680:
1299:
1204:
1063:
1013:
1008:
940:
910:
830:
758:
534:
62:
738:
365:
31:) is a solution that people tend to choose by default in the absence of communication in order to avoid
1179:
1164:
1741:
1513:
1498:
1385:
1380:
1284:
1269:
1234:
1199:
798:
743:
665:
360:
118:
214:
square; they could win by both choosing any square and in this sense, all squares are technically a
1670:
1289:
1239:
1076:
1003:
983:
840:
723:
1649:
1508:
1339:
1319:
1169:
1048:
953:
880:
825:
468:
370:
171:
For the two players, A and B, in head-tail game. 16 out of 22 A and 15 out of 22 B chose "heads".
640:
152:
Here is a subset of the questions raised by
Schelling to prove the existence of a focal point.
1634:
1603:
1558:
1453:
1324:
1279:
1254:
1184:
1058:
988:
978:
870:
820:
768:
592:
557:
510:
460:
428:
398:
355:
350:
58:
32:
48:
focal point depends on time, place and people themselves. It may not be a definite solution.
1715:
1710:
1644:
1608:
1588:
1548:
1518:
1473:
1428:
1413:
1370:
1224:
865:
802:
788:
753:
584:
549:
502:
215:
36:
1613:
1573:
1528:
1443:
1438:
1159:
1111:
998:
763:
733:
703:
247:
1478:
1553:
1543:
1533:
1468:
1458:
1448:
1433:
1229:
1209:
1194:
1189:
1149:
1116:
1101:
1096:
1086:
895:
1735:
1593:
1583:
1538:
1523:
1503:
1329:
1274:
1249:
1121:
1091:
1081:
1068:
973:
915:
850:
783:
1568:
1563:
1418:
993:
190:
76:, in order to ensure coordination, and why changing said norms can be difficult.
1685:
1488:
1483:
1463:
1259:
1244:
1053:
1023:
958:
948:
778:
713:
689:
340:
73:
69:
20:
487:
273:
Level 2: The average can be in , which is 2/3 of the maximum average of level 1
270:
Level 1: The average can be in , which is 2/3 of the maximum average of level 0
1314:
968:
646:
373:, the mathematical problem of maximising the probability of two people meeting
596:
561:
553:
514:
464:
1219:
1139:
963:
226:
588:
506:
1654:
1154:
657:
1375:
1365:
1043:
488:"On Players′ Models of Other Players: Theory and Experimental Evidence"
472:
652:
533:
Camerer, Colin F.; Ho, Teck-Hua; Chong, Juin-Kuan (1 August 2004).
331:
thinking which allows them all to play guesses trending towards 0.
1144:
225:
189:
528:
526:
524:
661:
643:, games of respectively avoiding and seeking out focal points
68:
The existence of focal points can help explain the use of
96:
form priors (models) about the behavior of other players;
393:
Pastin, Ivan; Pastine, Tuvana; Humberstone, Tom (2017).
427:(First ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
35:. The concept was introduced by the American economist
293:
282:
647:
TED community experiment on focal / Schelling points
1663:
1622:
1404:
1348:
1130:
1032:
939:
797:
696:
418:
416:
414:
397:. United Kingdom: Icon Books Inc. pp. 54–61.
316:
486:Stahl, Dale O.; Wilson, Paul W. (1 July 1995).
317:{\displaystyle 100\cdot ({\tfrac {2}{3}})^{N}}
673:
99:choose the best responses given these priors.
8:
167:The results of the informal experiments are
680:
666:
658:
446:
444:
308:
292:
281:
382:
535:"A Cognitive Hierarchy Model of Games"
43:(1960). Schelling states that "eople
7:
388:
386:
651:Schelling Points for Alien Contact
210:The red square is not in a sense a
729:First-player and second-player win
542:The Quarterly Journal of Economics
14:
836:Coalition-proof Nash equilibrium
346:Coordination failure (economics)
267:Level 0: The average can be in
254:“Guess 2/3 of the average” game
846:Evolutionarily stable strategy
305:
289:
112:The cognitive hierarchy theory
1:
774:Simultaneous action selection
423:Schelling, Thomas C. (1960).
1706:List of games in game theory
886:Quantal response equilibrium
876:Perfect Bayesian equilibrium
811:Bayes correlated equilibrium
653:https://youtu.be/3lwlNWMl86M
453:The American Economic Review
395:Game Theory: A Graphic Guide
1175:Optional prisoner's dilemma
906:Self-confirming equilibrium
495:Games and Economic Behavior
1758:
1640:Principal variation search
1356:Aumann's agreement theorem
1019:Strategy-stealing argument
931:Trembling hand equilibrium
861:Markov perfect equilibrium
856:Mertens-stable equilibrium
1676:Combinatorial game theory
1335:Princess and monster game
891:Quasi-perfect equilibrium
816:Bayesian Nash equilibrium
194:Coordination game example
147:
1691:Evolutionary game theory
1424:Antoine Augustin Cournot
1310:Guess 2/3 of the average
1107:Strictly determined game
901:Satisfaction equilibrium
719:Escalation of commitment
554:10.1162/0033553041502225
425:The strategy of conflict
260:Guess 2/3 of the average
246:is also apparent in the
128:Keynesian beauty contest
123:Guess 2/3 of the average
72:, including traditional
41:The Strategy of Conflict
1696:Glossary of game theory
1295:Stackelberg competition
921:Strong Nash equilibrium
641:Common Entries Contests
207:choose the red square.
1721:Tragedy of the commons
1701:List of game theorists
1681:Confrontation analysis
1391:Sprague–Grundy theorem
911:Sequential equilibrium
831:Correlated equilibrium
589:10.1006/reec.1999.0188
507:10.1006/game.1995.1031
318:
244:anti-coordination game
231:
230:Collision game example
195:
63:Grand Central Terminal
16:Concept in game theory
1494:Jean-François Mertens
637:Rare Entries Contests
615:mindyourdecisions.com
577:Research in Economics
366:Equilibrium selection
319:
229:
193:
148:Schelling's questions
1623:Search optimizations
1499:Jennifer Tour Chayes
1386:Revelation principle
1381:Purification theorem
1320:Nash bargaining game
1285:Bertrand competition
1270:El Farol Bar problem
1235:Electronic mail game
1200:Lewis signaling game
744:Hierarchy of beliefs
361:Surprisingly popular
280:
186:In coordination game
119:Poisson distribution
33:coordination failure
1671:Bounded rationality
1290:Cournot competition
1240:Rock paper scissors
1215:Battle of the sexes
1205:Volunteer's dilemma
1077:Perfect information
1004:Dominant strategies
841:Epsilon-equilibrium
724:Extensive-form game
1650:Paranoid algorithm
1630:Alpha–beta pruning
1509:John Maynard Smith
1340:Rendezvous problem
1180:Traveler's dilemma
1170:Gift-exchange game
1165:Prisoner's dilemma
1082:Large Poisson game
1049:Bargaining problem
954:Backward induction
926:Subgame perfection
881:Proper equilibrium
371:Rendezvous problem
314:
302:
237:right-hand traffic
232:
196:
134:The team reasoning
88:The level-n theory
1729:
1728:
1635:Aspiration window
1604:Suzanne Scotchmer
1559:Oskar Morgenstern
1454:Donald B. Gillies
1396:Zermelo's theorem
1325:Induction puzzles
1280:Fair cake-cutting
1255:Public goods game
1185:Coordination game
1059:Intransitive game
989:Forward induction
871:Pareto efficiency
851:Gibbs equilibrium
821:Berge equilibrium
769:Simultaneous game
639:(an example) and
434:978-0-674-84031-7
404:978-1-78578-082-0
356:Simultaneous game
351:Coordination game
301:
59:coordination game
1749:
1716:Topological game
1711:No-win situation
1609:Thomas Schelling
1589:Robert B. Wilson
1549:Merrill M. Flood
1519:John von Neumann
1429:Ariel Rubinstein
1414:Albert W. Tucker
1265:War of attrition
1225:Matching pennies
866:Nash equilibrium
789:Mechanism design
754:Normal-form game
709:Cooperative game
682:
675:
668:
659:
625:
624:
622:
621:
607:
601:
600:
572:
566:
565:
539:
530:
519:
518:
492:
483:
477:
476:
448:
439:
438:
420:
409:
408:
390:
323:
321:
320:
315:
313:
312:
303:
294:
216:Nash equilibrium
37:Thomas Schelling
1757:
1756:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1725:
1659:
1645:max^n algorithm
1618:
1614:William Vickrey
1574:Reinhard Selten
1529:Kenneth Binmore
1444:David K. Levine
1439:Daniel Kahneman
1406:
1400:
1376:Negamax theorem
1366:Minimax theorem
1344:
1305:Diner's dilemma
1160:All-pay auction
1126:
1112:Stochastic game
1064:Mean-field game
1035:
1028:
999:Markov strategy
935:
801:
793:
764:Sequential game
749:Information set
734:Game complexity
704:Congestion game
692:
686:
633:
628:
619:
617:
609:
608:
604:
574:
573:
569:
537:
532:
531:
522:
490:
485:
484:
480:
450:
449:
442:
435:
422:
421:
412:
405:
392:
391:
384:
380:
337:
304:
278:
277:
256:
248:game of chicken
224:
188:
150:
145:
136:
114:
90:
82:
54:
29:Schelling point
17:
12:
11:
5:
1755:
1753:
1745:
1744:
1734:
1733:
1727:
1726:
1724:
1723:
1718:
1713:
1708:
1703:
1698:
1693:
1688:
1683:
1678:
1673:
1667:
1665:
1661:
1660:
1658:
1657:
1652:
1647:
1642:
1637:
1632:
1626:
1624:
1620:
1619:
1617:
1616:
1611:
1606:
1601:
1596:
1591:
1586:
1581:
1579:Robert Axelrod
1576:
1571:
1566:
1561:
1556:
1554:Olga Bondareva
1551:
1546:
1544:Melvin Dresher
1541:
1536:
1534:Leonid Hurwicz
1531:
1526:
1521:
1516:
1511:
1506:
1501:
1496:
1491:
1486:
1481:
1476:
1471:
1469:Harold W. Kuhn
1466:
1461:
1459:Drew Fudenberg
1456:
1451:
1449:David M. Kreps
1446:
1441:
1436:
1434:Claude Shannon
1431:
1426:
1421:
1416:
1410:
1408:
1402:
1401:
1399:
1398:
1393:
1388:
1383:
1378:
1373:
1371:Nash's theorem
1368:
1363:
1358:
1352:
1350:
1346:
1345:
1343:
1342:
1337:
1332:
1327:
1322:
1317:
1312:
1307:
1302:
1297:
1292:
1287:
1282:
1277:
1272:
1267:
1262:
1257:
1252:
1247:
1242:
1237:
1232:
1230:Ultimatum game
1227:
1222:
1217:
1212:
1210:Dollar auction
1207:
1202:
1197:
1195:Centipede game
1192:
1187:
1182:
1177:
1172:
1167:
1162:
1157:
1152:
1150:Infinite chess
1147:
1142:
1136:
1134:
1128:
1127:
1125:
1124:
1119:
1117:Symmetric game
1114:
1109:
1104:
1102:Signaling game
1099:
1097:Screening game
1094:
1089:
1087:Potential game
1084:
1079:
1074:
1066:
1061:
1056:
1051:
1046:
1040:
1038:
1030:
1029:
1027:
1026:
1021:
1016:
1014:Mixed strategy
1011:
1006:
1001:
996:
991:
986:
981:
976:
971:
966:
961:
956:
951:
945:
943:
937:
936:
934:
933:
928:
923:
918:
913:
908:
903:
898:
896:Risk dominance
893:
888:
883:
878:
873:
868:
863:
858:
853:
848:
843:
838:
833:
828:
823:
818:
813:
807:
805:
795:
794:
792:
791:
786:
781:
776:
771:
766:
761:
756:
751:
746:
741:
739:Graphical game
736:
731:
726:
721:
716:
711:
706:
700:
698:
694:
693:
687:
685:
684:
677:
670:
662:
656:
655:
649:
644:
632:
631:External links
629:
627:
626:
602:
583:(2): 117–147.
567:
548:(3): 861–898.
520:
501:(1): 218–254.
478:
459:(3): 658–673.
440:
433:
410:
403:
381:
379:
376:
375:
374:
368:
363:
358:
353:
348:
343:
336:
333:
325:
324:
311:
307:
300:
297:
291:
288:
285:
274:
271:
268:
255:
252:
223:
222:Collision game
220:
187:
184:
179:
178:
175:
172:
165:
164:
160:
157:
149:
146:
144:
141:
135:
132:
113:
110:
101:
100:
97:
89:
86:
81:
78:
53:
50:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1754:
1743:
1740:
1739:
1737:
1722:
1719:
1717:
1714:
1712:
1709:
1707:
1704:
1702:
1699:
1697:
1694:
1692:
1689:
1687:
1684:
1682:
1679:
1677:
1674:
1672:
1669:
1668:
1666:
1664:Miscellaneous
1662:
1656:
1653:
1651:
1648:
1646:
1643:
1641:
1638:
1636:
1633:
1631:
1628:
1627:
1625:
1621:
1615:
1612:
1610:
1607:
1605:
1602:
1600:
1599:Samuel Bowles
1597:
1595:
1594:Roger Myerson
1592:
1590:
1587:
1585:
1584:Robert Aumann
1582:
1580:
1577:
1575:
1572:
1570:
1567:
1565:
1562:
1560:
1557:
1555:
1552:
1550:
1547:
1545:
1542:
1540:
1539:Lloyd Shapley
1537:
1535:
1532:
1530:
1527:
1525:
1524:Kenneth Arrow
1522:
1520:
1517:
1515:
1512:
1510:
1507:
1505:
1504:John Harsanyi
1502:
1500:
1497:
1495:
1492:
1490:
1487:
1485:
1482:
1480:
1477:
1475:
1474:Herbert Simon
1472:
1470:
1467:
1465:
1462:
1460:
1457:
1455:
1452:
1450:
1447:
1445:
1442:
1440:
1437:
1435:
1432:
1430:
1427:
1425:
1422:
1420:
1417:
1415:
1412:
1411:
1409:
1403:
1397:
1394:
1392:
1389:
1387:
1384:
1382:
1379:
1377:
1374:
1372:
1369:
1367:
1364:
1362:
1359:
1357:
1354:
1353:
1351:
1347:
1341:
1338:
1336:
1333:
1331:
1328:
1326:
1323:
1321:
1318:
1316:
1313:
1311:
1308:
1306:
1303:
1301:
1298:
1296:
1293:
1291:
1288:
1286:
1283:
1281:
1278:
1276:
1275:Fair division
1273:
1271:
1268:
1266:
1263:
1261:
1258:
1256:
1253:
1251:
1250:Dictator game
1248:
1246:
1243:
1241:
1238:
1236:
1233:
1231:
1228:
1226:
1223:
1221:
1218:
1216:
1213:
1211:
1208:
1206:
1203:
1201:
1198:
1196:
1193:
1191:
1188:
1186:
1183:
1181:
1178:
1176:
1173:
1171:
1168:
1166:
1163:
1161:
1158:
1156:
1153:
1151:
1148:
1146:
1143:
1141:
1138:
1137:
1135:
1133:
1129:
1123:
1122:Zero-sum game
1120:
1118:
1115:
1113:
1110:
1108:
1105:
1103:
1100:
1098:
1095:
1093:
1092:Repeated game
1090:
1088:
1085:
1083:
1080:
1078:
1075:
1073:
1071:
1067:
1065:
1062:
1060:
1057:
1055:
1052:
1050:
1047:
1045:
1042:
1041:
1039:
1037:
1031:
1025:
1022:
1020:
1017:
1015:
1012:
1010:
1009:Pure strategy
1007:
1005:
1002:
1000:
997:
995:
992:
990:
987:
985:
982:
980:
977:
975:
974:De-escalation
972:
970:
967:
965:
962:
960:
957:
955:
952:
950:
947:
946:
944:
942:
938:
932:
929:
927:
924:
922:
919:
917:
916:Shapley value
914:
912:
909:
907:
904:
902:
899:
897:
894:
892:
889:
887:
884:
882:
879:
877:
874:
872:
869:
867:
864:
862:
859:
857:
854:
852:
849:
847:
844:
842:
839:
837:
834:
832:
829:
827:
824:
822:
819:
817:
814:
812:
809:
808:
806:
804:
800:
796:
790:
787:
785:
784:Succinct game
782:
780:
777:
775:
772:
770:
767:
765:
762:
760:
757:
755:
752:
750:
747:
745:
742:
740:
737:
735:
732:
730:
727:
725:
722:
720:
717:
715:
712:
710:
707:
705:
702:
701:
699:
695:
691:
683:
678:
676:
671:
669:
664:
663:
660:
654:
650:
648:
645:
642:
638:
635:
634:
630:
616:
612:
606:
603:
598:
594:
590:
586:
582:
578:
571:
568:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
536:
529:
527:
525:
521:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
489:
482:
479:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
447:
445:
441:
436:
430:
426:
419:
417:
415:
411:
406:
400:
396:
389:
387:
383:
377:
372:
369:
367:
364:
362:
359:
357:
354:
352:
349:
347:
344:
342:
339:
338:
334:
332:
328:
309:
298:
295:
286:
283:
275:
272:
269:
266:
265:
264:
261:
253:
251:
249:
245:
242:This idea of
240:
238:
228:
221:
219:
217:
213:
208:
206:
201:
192:
185:
183:
176:
173:
170:
169:
168:
161:
158:
155:
154:
153:
142:
140:
133:
131:
129:
124:
120:
111:
109:
107:
98:
95:
94:
93:
87:
85:
79:
77:
75:
71:
66:
64:
60:
51:
49:
46:
42:
38:
34:
30:
26:
22:
1569:Peyton Young
1564:Paul Milgrom
1479:Hervé Moulin
1419:Amos Tversky
1361:Folk theorem
1072:-player game
1069:
994:Grim trigger
618:. Retrieved
614:
605:
580:
576:
570:
545:
541:
498:
494:
481:
456:
452:
424:
394:
329:
326:
257:
243:
241:
233:
211:
209:
204:
199:
197:
180:
166:
151:
137:
115:
105:
102:
91:
83:
74:gender roles
70:social norms
67:
55:
44:
40:
39:in his book
28:
24:
18:
1742:Game theory
1686:Coopetition
1489:Jean Tirole
1484:John Conway
1464:Eric Maskin
1260:Blotto game
1245:Pirate game
1054:Global game
1024:Tit for tat
959:Bid shading
949:Appeasement
799:Equilibrium
779:Solved game
714:Determinacy
697:Definitions
690:game theory
341:Game theory
25:focal point
21:game theory
1330:Trust game
1315:Kuhn poker
984:Escalation
979:Deterrence
969:Cheap talk
941:Strategies
759:Preference
688:Topics of
620:2017-12-12
378:References
1514:John Nash
1220:Stag hunt
964:Collusion
597:1090-9443
562:0033-5533
515:0899-8256
465:0002-8282
287:⋅
52:Existence
1736:Category
1655:Lazy SMP
1349:Theorems
1300:Deadlock
1155:Checkers
1036:of games
803:concepts
335:See also
163:nothing.
143:Examples
80:Theories
1407:figures
1190:Chicken
1044:Auction
1034:Classes
473:2118074
595:
560:
513:
471:
463:
431:
401:
212:better
1145:Chess
1132:Games
538:(PDF)
491:(PDF)
469:JSTOR
826:Core
593:ISSN
558:ISSN
511:ISSN
461:ISSN
429:ISBN
399:ISBN
258:The
205:both
200:same
27:(or
23:, a
1405:Key
585:doi
550:doi
546:119
503:doi
284:100
45:can
19:In
1738::
1140:Go
613:.
591:.
581:53
579:.
556:.
544:.
540:.
523:^
509:.
499:10
497:.
493:.
467:.
457:84
455:.
443:^
413:^
385:^
239:.
130:.
1070:n
681:e
674:t
667:v
623:.
599:.
587::
564:.
552::
517:.
505::
475:.
437:.
407:.
310:N
306:)
299:3
296:2
290:(
106:n
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
