Game Theory: When They Don’t Have to Move

Cross-posted locally. I wanted to do something different.

I’ve been on a chess kick lately. You can play on Facebook, which offers it through Chess.com, and one version is Blitz Chess — a maximum of 10 minutes per player. It’s a bit addictive, if your ego can take the possibility that you’re losing to an eight-year-old from Croatia.

So of course I bring it back to politics.

One thing that becomes evident quickly is that one goal is to make your opponent play defensively. If you’re attacking and they’re defending, you have the upper hand.

The best players, though — the best players willing to play me, that is — can capitalize on that. You think you’re playing your game, but they’re playing theirs, in a more subtle way.

“I’ve got an offer for you. You move again, and then we’ll move twice in a row.”

“That’s not the rule!”

“Oh … rules. Let the market decide. We’re the market.”

(White pieces confer.)

“I don’t like it. They’re up to something.”

“Agreed. The rules are the rules.”

“I think we should take this opportunity. Two moves in a row!”

“But they get two moves in a row too.”

“What’s the worst that could happen?”

“Um … we lose? But there’s always another day.”

“Alright, let’s try.”

“Your move.”

“Ha! See? That pawn is ours in a second!”

“Check.”

Grumpy silence.

“Can we have two moves in a row?”

“You can have three — ”

“Great!”

“If we can have three after that.”

“Hmmm. We need to think about this.”

“Take your time. We’re in no rush.”

“What’s the worst that could happen?”