Pirate game

For other uses, see Pirate (disambiguation) § Games.

The pirate game is a simple mathematical game. It is a multi-player version of the ultimatum game.

The game

There are 5 rational pirates, A, B, C, D and E. They find 100 gold coins. They must decide how to distribute them.

The pirates have a strict order of seniority: A is superior to B, who is superior to C, who is superior to D, who is superior to E.

The pirate world's rules of distribution are thus: that the most senior pirate should propose a distribution of coins. The pirates, including the proposer, then vote on whether to accept this distribution. In case of a tie vote, the proposer has the casting vote. If the distribution is accepted, the coins are disbursed and the game ends. If not, the proposer is thrown overboard from the pirate ship and dies, and the next most senior pirate makes a new proposal to begin the system again.^[1]

Pirates base their decisions on three factors. First of all, each pirate wants to survive. Second, given survival, each pirate wants to maximize the number of gold coins each receives. Third, each pirate would prefer to throw another overboard, if all other results would otherwise be equal.^[2] The pirates do not trust each other, and will neither make nor honor any promises between pirates apart from a proposed distribution plan that gives a whole number of gold coins to each pirate.

The result

It might be expected intuitively that Pirate A will have to allocate little if any to A for fear of being voted off so that there are fewer pirates to share between. However, this is quite far from the theoretical result.

This is apparent if we work backwards: if all except D and E have been thrown overboard, D proposes 100 for D and 0 for E. D has the casting vote, and so this is the allocation.

If there are three left (C, D and E) C knows that D will offer E 0 in the next round; therefore, C has to offer E 1 coin in this round to win E's vote, and get C's allocation through. Therefore, when only three are left the allocation is C:99, D:0, E:1.

If B, C, D and E remain, B considers being thrown overboard when deciding. To avoid being thrown overboard, B can simply offer 1 to D. Because B has the casting vote, the support only by D is sufficient. Thus B proposes B:99, C:0, D:1, E:0. One might consider proposing B:99, C:0, D:0, E:1, as E knows it won't be possible to get more coins, if any, if E throws B overboard. But, as each pirate is eager to throw each other overboard, E would prefer to kill B, to get the same amount of gold from C.

Assuming A knows all these things, A can count on C and E's support for the following allocation, which is the final solution:

A: 98 coins
B: 0 coins
C: 1 coin
D: 0 coins
E: 1 coin^[2]

Also, A:98, B:0, C:0, D:1, E:1 or other variants are not good enough, as D would rather throw A overboard to get the same amount of gold from B.

Extension

The solution follows the same general pattern for other numbers of pirates and/or coins, however the game changes in character when it is extended beyond there being twice as many pirates as there are coins. Ian Stewart wrote about Steve Omohundro's extension to an arbitrary number of pirates in the May 1999 edition of Scientific American and described the rather intricate pattern that emerges in the solution.^[2]

Supposing there are just 100 gold pieces, then:

Pirate #201 as captain can stay alive only by offering all the gold one each to the lowest odd-numbered pirates, keeping none.
Pirate #202 as captain can stay alive only by taking no gold and offering one gold each to 100 pirates who would not receive a gold coin from #201. Therefore, there are 101 possible recipients of these one gold coin bribes being the 100 even-numbered pirates up to 200 and number #201.
Pirate #203 as captain will not have enough gold available to bribe a majority, and so will die.
Pirate #204 as captain has #203's vote secured without bribes: #203 will only survive if #204 also survives. So #204 can remain safe by reaching 102 votes by bribing 100 pirates with one gold coin each. This seems most likely to work by bribing odd-numbered pirates optionally including #202, who will get nothing from #202. However, it may also be possible to bribe others instead as they only have a 100/101 chance of being offered a gold coin by pirate #202.
With 205 pirates, all pirates bar #205 prefer to kill #205 unless given gold, so #205 is doomed as captain.
Similarly with 206 or 207 pirates, only votes of #205 to #206/7 are secured without gold which is insufficient votes, so #206 and #207 are also doomed.
For 208 pirates, the votes of self-preservation from #205, #206, and #207 without any gold are enough to allow #208 to reach 104 votes and survive.

In general, if G is the number of gold pieces and N (> 2G) is the number of pirates, then

All pirates whose number is less than or equal to 2G + M will survive, where M is the highest power of 2 that does not exceed N – 2G.
Any pirates whose number exceeds 2G + M will die.
Any pirate whose number is greater than 2G + M/2 will receive no gold.
There is no unique solution as to who gets one gold coin and who does not if the number of pirates is 2G+2 or greater. A simple solution dishes out one gold to the odd or even pirates up to 2G depending whether M is an even or odd power of 2.

Another way to see this is to realize that every M^th pirate will have the vote of all the pirates from M/2 to M out of self preservation since their survival is secured only with the survival of the Mth pirate. Because the highest ranking pirate can break the tie, the captain only needs the votes of half of the pirates over 2G, which only happens each time (2G + a Power of 2) is reached.

Notes

↑ Bruce Talbot Coram (1998). Robert E. Goodin, ed. The Theory of Institutional Design (Paperback ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 99–100. ISBN 978-0-521-63643-8.
1 2 3 Stewart, Ian (May 1999), "A Puzzle for Pirates" (PDF), Scientific American, pp. 98–99

References

Robert E. Goodin, ed. (1998). "Chapter 3: Second best theories". The Theory of Institutional Design. Cambridge University Press. pp. 90–102. ISBN 978-0-521-63643-8.

Topics in game theory

Definitions	Normal-form game Extensive-form game Escalation of commitment Graphical game Cooperative game Succinct game Information set Hierarchy of beliefs Preference

Equilibrium concepts	Nash equilibrium Subgame perfection Mertens-stable equilibrium Bayesian-Nash Perfect Bayesian Trembling hand Proper equilibrium Epsilon-equilibrium Correlated equilibrium Sequential equilibrium Quasi-perfect equilibrium Evolutionarily stable strategy Risk dominance Core Shapley value Pareto efficiency Quantal response equilibrium Self-confirming equilibrium Strong Nash equilibrium Markov perfect equilibrium

Strategies	Dominant strategies Pure strategy Mixed strategy Tit for tat Grim trigger Collusion Backward induction Forward induction Markov strategy

Classes of games	Symmetric game Perfect information Simultaneous game Sequential game Repeated game Signaling game Cheap talk Zero-sum game Mechanism design Bargaining problem Stochastic game n-player game Large Poisson game Nontransitive game Global games Strictly determined game

Games	Prisoner's dilemma Traveler's dilemma Coordination game Chicken Centipede game Volunteer's dilemma Dollar auction Battle of the sexes Stag hunt Matching pennies Ultimatum game Rock-paper-scissors Pirate game Dictator game Public goods game Blotto games War of attrition El Farol Bar problem Fair division Fair cake-cutting Cournot game Deadlock Diner's dilemma Guess 2/3 of the average Kuhn poker Nash bargaining game Screening game Prisoners and hats puzzle Trust game Princess and monster game Monty Hall problem Rendezvous problem

Theorems	Minimax theorem Nash's theorem Purification theorem Folk theorem Revelation principle Arrow's impossibility theorem

Key figures	Albert W. Tucker Amos Tversky Ariel Rubinstein Daniel Kahneman David K. Levine David M. Kreps Donald B. Gillies Drew Fudenberg Eric Maskin Harold W. Kuhn Herbert Simon Hervé Moulin Jean Tirole Jean-François Mertens John Harsanyi John Maynard Smith John Nash John von Neumann Kenneth Arrow Kenneth Binmore Leonid Hurwicz Lloyd Shapley Melvin Dresher Merrill M. Flood Oskar Morgenstern Paul Milgrom Peyton Young Reinhard Selten Robert Aumann Robert B. Wilson Roger Myerson Samuel Bowles Thomas Schelling William Vickrey

See also	All-pay auction Alpha–beta pruning Bertrand paradox Bounded rationality Combinatorial game theory Confrontation analysis Coopetition List of game theorists List of games in game theory No-win situation Topological game Tragedy of the commons Tyranny of small decisions

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Friday, April 22, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.