according to Binmore (http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/1/1/review1.html) Axelrod didn't actually run his simulations for long enough - when they're repeated w/ a longer time horizon, tit-for-tat proves not to be the ideal strategy.
Interesting to see the two in combination.
This is great - I can't wait to dig in and think about it in the context of software development.
If that's so, it doesn't mean Axelrod is wrong, but that his results depend on the timescale. Which is one of many parameters...
that's true, but I think (could be wrong) that Axelrod presented his results as "definitive" given that no-one had simulated a comparable timescale before. it was certainly presented as such in the textbook I was reading from.
I think Axelrod actually claimed loudly that tit-for-tat wasn't optimal, and offered a few other strategies that would have done better (including tit-for-two-tats, interestingly enough). He was also pretty careful to add that a lot depends on context and that the aspects that tit-for-tat embodies (being nice, reciprocal/retributive, forgiving, and clear) are what's really important.
Author should fix how 'Daniel Hangeveld' overlaps with the body.