Game theory modeling for the Cold War on both sides of the Iron Curtain. (October 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hagemann, Harald; Kufenko, Vadim; Raskov, Danila
• Other Names: Kirtchik Olessia guest-editor.; Boldyrev Ivan guest-editor.
• Is Part Of: History of the human sciences. Volume 29:Number 4/5(2016)
• Page Start: 99
• Page End: 124
• Publication Date: 2016-10
• Subjects: arms race -- Cold War -- history of game theory -- international relations -- Soviet game theory; Social sciences -- History -- Periodicals; 300.9
• DOI: 10.1177/0952695116666012
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0952-6951

Abstract

The bi-polar confrontation between the Soviet Union and the USA involved many leading game theorists from both sides of the Iron Curtain: Oskar Morgenstern, John von Neumann, Michael Intriligator, John Nash, Thomas Schelling and Steven Brams from the United States and Nikolay Vorob'ev, Leon A. Petrosyan, Elena B. Yanovskaya and Olga N. Bondareva from the Soviet Union. The formalization of game theory (GT) took place prior to the Cold War but the geopolitical confrontation hastened and shaped its evolution. In our article we outline four similarities and differences between Western GT and Soviet GT: 1) the Iron Curtain resulted in a lagged evolution of GT in the Soviet Union; 2) Soviet GT focused more on operations research and issues of centralized planning; 3) the contemporary Western view on Soviet GT was biased and Soviet contributions, including works on dynamic stability, non-emptiness of the core and many refinements, suggest that Soviet GT was able to catch up to the Western level relatively fast; 4) international conferences, including Vilnius, 1971, fostered interaction between Soviet game theorists and their Western colleagues. In general, we consider the Cold War to be a positive environment for GT in the West and in the Soviet Union.