i can't help you there. but if you were applying for oxford however, it would be a different story

I'm not asking for help :) I just thought game theory in relation to diplomacy was quite interesting.

you should do an exposition on the differences in rules/sociology between real diplomacy and online diplomacy and how it affects the theory of the game

are you applying for phd?

No, freshman.

Don't most CS programs have an entire class devoted to Game Theory? I know the one at University of Maryland does.

I don't know about comp sci, but I was a pure math major, and game theory was highly recommended (though not required) for us.

I'm going for Economics, it is quite popular.

Game Theory that is.. can pretty much use it to explain externalities/market failure/competition/protectionism

If you've never read any of the articles about Calhamer's development of dip, go straight to the source and his 1974 overview of history. (http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/calhamer/invention.htm was working ... pull it out of google's cache and you're fine). You'll see he clearly describes what is in effect applying game theory to hearts play in the first few paragraphs. Likely he was introduced to it as a 'new field' of math during his debate club years.

Econ major here too. Game Theory is fun. I'm not a big fan of the idea of market failures, I'm of a Friedman/Locke/Schumpeter mindset.

I'm only a layman when it comes to game theory, I understand the prisoner's dilemma and that's about as far as I go, but I would have thought that it would be very difficult to separate the negotiation skills from game theory.

In most games it's just down to where you place pieces etc, is it still useful when you apply it to a game that needs negotiations etc?

I'm not well versed in game theory either, but I think that it definitely still holds when you apply it to a game that needs negotiations.

In Diplomacy, I especially start wishing I knew game theory, when it comes to those tactical gambles, in which you have several choices, but your opponent has an equal chance of countering any one of those choices, which one do you pick?

1. You capture a SC, this is your best case scenario, but if you go for it, and your opponent thinks you'll go for the best case, they'll counter this move. So perhaps it is in your best interest to go with the second best move?
2. You move your units into a very nice position to set yourself for the following year. This is a decent choice, and a good one if you think your opponent thinks you'll take the first choice, but what if they use your same logic, and decide that you'll take the second choice, because it seems safer, well then shouldn't you take the first?

These sorts of dilemmas are haunting...

Game theory with negotiation: Consider the situation France at Spain and Italy at Piedmont before second turn.

If they clash, France gets a build. If Italy doesn`t move knowing that France will try to clash, France loses a build. If France doesn`t move and Italy does, France loses a home SC.

It is possible that Italy might assume that France is trying to clash and not move and the other way around. Negotiations could influence that greatly (though hard to predict).. for example letting him know that you will clash and thus making sure he won`t move.. or so on (but again hard to predict whether he will know that you are doing this and move in)

We get a brief overview of game theory in biology as well, just prisoner's and wolf's dilemma and that. But yeah, it is pretty interesting.