The chapter connects deception in nature with economic opportunism and describes the development of strategies and counter-strategies. It uses coevolution as a way to think about changing competition.
Ask what changes after discovery
A repeated tactic can become recognizable. Opponents may change their response, so evaluating it as if the environment were fixed misses an important question. Keep intent uncertain unless evidence supports it; a predator metaphor alone does not diagnose an individual event.
Worked example
A fictional negotiating tactic works until counterparties recognize it and alter their response. Repeating it more often does not restore the original advantage.
Case connection
A competitive contest illustrates why responses cannot be treated as fixed. Learning changes the opponent you face.
Deep Blue meets Kasparov
Source-grounded facts
IBM’s Deep Blue defeated world chess champion Garry Kasparov in a six-game match.
Context
IBM set out to build a chess computer capable of beating the reigning world champion. The contest gave both sides a clearly defined board, legal moves and tournament time controls.
Outcome
Deep Blue won the match 3.5–2.5. This demonstrated a specific competitive capability under chess rules, rather than proving superiority at every activity requiring judgment.
- In 1996, Deep Blue won the first game, but Kasparov recovered to win the six-game match 4–2.
- The team improved the computer’s evaluation function and endgame databases before the rematch.
- In May 1997, each side won one early game and the next three were drawn. Deep Blue then won the sixth.
Case analysis
Treat a tactic as part of an interaction, not a property owned forever by one participant. Once it is recognised, opponents may alter preparation or responses. List the counter-response that would most reduce its usefulness, then ask whether that adaptation has actually occurred. A convincing story about counter-strategy remains a hypothesis until the response is observed.
Try it
Choose a competitive tactic from a nonfinancial setting. Describe a plausible counter-response and how that would alter its usefulness.