Some political movements which are assessed effective within a political party environment, are provoking dangerous games at a strategic level. This last repercussion, even if it is estimated, it is rarely properly assessed and the consequences are often devastating.
A government that plays in a real world, is in a difficult position with an opposition playing in a virtual world. For this reason, it sometimes tries to mix the virtual with the real, in order to place in a distressful position an opposition that has a fair run. However, it also commits the mistake of playing with ease and not thoroughly studying the consequences which seem off target at first, and mainly out of context and beyond the horizon of the actual game.
A real situation of this type of conflict occurs, when the object remains political without a strategic purpose. The consequence of this option is obvious.
Even the best move at a political level is not necessarily good at a strategic one. In fact, its possible for the opposite to occur. So that we can comprehent it properly, it is enough to observe the strategic sacrifices which remain incomprehensible on a tactical level and have no dicreased practical consequences at the strategic level.
A somewhat more complex case , but equally dangerous in terms of game theory, is for someone to bet on the achievement of a balance by Nash, without a winning strategy, assuming that the opponent is not going to react, as if it were a zero-sum game.
This type of an approach is possible, when we immerse a virtual parenthesis in to a real section. That gives a procedure of the following type: stating the cost, the enemy remains stunned, and waisting his time, could be overthrown.
It is a method that has been often used for blitz in chess , because the limited space on α chronic level does not allow players to have a strategic depth.
The mistake which should not be made by anyone, is to use this practice when the duration is important. Indeed, in this new context, if anyone should take such an initiative, results in offering the opponent the opportunity to use time with awareness. In other words, the time acts positively for the opponent. The only way to escape from this, is to have an unworthy opponent, otherwise this initiative is doomed in advance.
It corresponds, in short, to an inadequately prepared attack , which, despite its positive by nature impressions , is unable to compete in a real counterattack that requires time to be organized. And this type of action is reduced, to one just making a bet on the mediocrity of his opponent, something which is not recommended in game theory.