= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JulianMorrison comments on How David Beats Goliath - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (25)
Reminds me of the Playing to Win essay linked here a few weeks ago.
That doesn't make sense, though. If playing "cheap" in this way benefits David against Goliath, then evolution would favor a whole lot of Davids playing "cheap".
Not sure what you mean by "cheap".
"Cheap" is a term used in the Playing to Win essays. It generally refers to a tactic that is uninteresting or repetitive but successful.
The example used in the essays is repeating the same move over and over in Street Fighter.
(Edit) The example from Eurisko is that making ships that sink themselves is "cheap" because ships in a real war wouldn't do that. It is a valid strategy according to the rules of the game but invalid according to extraneous rules that have no bearing on the game.