  We introduce and study an evolutionary complementarity game where in each
round a player of population 1 is paired with a member of population 2. The
game is symmetric, and each player tries to obtain an advantageous deal, but
when one of them pushes too hard, no deal at all can be concluded, and they
both loose. The game has many equilibria, and which of them is reached depends
on the history of the interactions as the players evolve according to a fitness
function that measures their gains across the interactions. We can then break
the symmetry by assigning different strategy spaces to the populations, varying
in particular with respect to the information available to the agents. The
agents can, for example, adapt to the behavior of their opponents met in
previous rounds, or they can try to copy the strategies of their successful
friends. It turns out that, in general, the more restricted strategy spaces,
that is, those that utilize less information, are more advantageous for a
population as a whole as their adoption drives the equilibrium in a direction
advantageous to that population. One reason is that a simpler strategy can be
learned faster in an evolutionary setting, another is that it is good for a
population to have some individuals that are unfit in the sense that they make
offers that are individually unsuccessful, but have a systematic effect on the
strategies of their opponents. All these effects are demonstrated through
systematic simulations.
