| Bot Cooperates | Bot Defects | |
|---|---|---|
| You Cooperate | 3, 3 | 0, 5 |
| You Defect | 5, 0 | 1, 1 |
Format: Your score, Bot's score. The bot plays tit-for-tat (copies your last move).
The prisoner's dilemma is the most famous example in game theory. Two suspects are arrested and interrogated separately. Each can either cooperate with the other (stay silent) or defect (betray). If both cooperate, they get a moderate reward. If both defect, they both suffer. But if one defects while the other cooperates, the defector gets the highest reward and the cooperator gets nothing.
The dilemma: defecting is the dominant strategy — it's always better for you regardless of what the other player does. But when both players follow this logic, they end up worse off (1, 1) than if both had cooperated (3, 3). This tension between individual rationality and collective welfare is why the prisoner's dilemma matters in economics, politics, and evolutionary biology.
In the iterated version (like this 10-round game), cooperation can emerge. The bot here plays tit-for-tat: it cooperates on the first round, then copies whatever you did last. This simple strategy — cooperate until betrayed, then retaliate — is famously one of the most effective in repeated prisoner's dilemma tournaments.
In Tactiko, every move is a simultaneous decision — pass or shoot? Press forward or hold position? Both players commit at the same time, just like in the prisoner's dilemma. The same game theory principles apply: anticipate your opponent's choice, consider the payoffs, and accept that sometimes the best strategy involves unpredictability.
Unlike the prisoner's dilemma, Tactiko is a zero-sum game — one team's goal is the other's failure. But the core insight is the same: your best move depends on what your opponent does, and they are thinking the exact same thing about you.