Although game theory has been outstandingly successful at developing a deeper understanding of how rational players make decisions under interdependent circumstances, several criticisms have been made of some of its assumptions. Some are fatuous; others are challenging. Among the former, is the criticism that players who act irrationally gain the upper hand in some games and that, therefore, the rational basis for game theory is undermined. This only needs to be stated for its absurdity to become apparent. It is the perception that players are unpredictable and irrational that gives them the edge in some games, not irrationality itself. In fact, they are being eminently rational in deliberately giving that impression, while attempting to win the game by the same conscious or subconscious manoeuvre.

Of the serious challenges to game theory mounted over the last few years, the three issues of rationality, indeterminacy and inconsistency are the most interesting. Being unresolved, it is fitting that the book finishes with them and if the reader is enticed to greater study as a result, their inclusion will have been profitable.

Rationality

Game theory is based on a presumption of rationality, which at first sight appears to be optimistic. At the very least, there is need for more experimental evidence to support the contention that individuals select critical strategies and make complex decisions under uncertainty, on the basis of rationality.