RolfAndreassen comments on Rationality Quotes December 2012 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Thomas 03 December 2012 02:33AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (226)

Comments (226)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: DaFranker 03 December 2012 05:51:24PM *  4 points [-]

Although I would infer him to have already been aware of certain exceptions, e.g.:

If you and your opponent both know eachother to be skilled and masters of the way, then attempting the same tactic a third time becomes a different tactic; you are making an attack which your opponent would never expect you to try again.

It's a common failure mode of intermediate-level students of a competitive discipline to fall prey to the simplest tactics used by the weakest beginners, simply because they expect their opponent not to use said weak and simple tactics. For example, experienced chess players losing repeatedly to a complete beginner because they're used to playing against stronger and stronger opponents as they were gaining their experience. I've seen it happen often, and it's happened to me too.

ETA: I acknowledge that the example above isn't quite what is seen out there. What I had in mind was a one-off thing - of intermediate players, a "significant amount" (not the majority, but I'd guess "enough so that most experienced players have seen it happen more than once") go through a point at least once where they repeatedly lose against a player much less experienced than them, because of the reasons above. This second point is also debatable, but I think it's worth splitting and distinguishing between the two.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 03 December 2012 11:00:45PM 1 point [-]

In context, this particular quote seems to be talking more about large-scale battles than individual duels. So, if you've already launched your cavalry at the enemy twice, and they were driven off in disarray each time, then another try is probably not going to work even if your enemy doesn't expect it.

Comment author: Decius 04 December 2012 09:15:27PM 1 point [-]

I didn't see any discussion of strategy or leadership in the Book of the Five Rings.

I have, however, seen many cases in competitive gaming where correctly judging what my opponent was expecting me to do allowed me to counter them more effectively. There are a large number of meta-levels there, and operating two levels above your opponent is typically as bad as operating one level below them.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 04 December 2012 10:14:10PM 2 points [-]

The principles of strategy are written down here in terms of single combat, but you must think broadly so that you attain an understanding for ten-thousand-a-side battles.

It appears to me that Musashi intends his principles to be applicable to either duel or battle. There are several illustrations that imply that he is not just talking about duels:

First, in large-scale strategy, when the enemy first discharges bows and guns and then attacks, it is difficult for us to attack if we are busy loading powder into our guns or notching our arrows. The spirit is to attack quickly while the enemy is still shooting with bows or guns. The spirit is to win by "treading down" as we receive the enemy's attack.

In large-scale strategy, when you cannot see the enemy's position, indicate that you are about to attack strongly, to discover his resources.

In large-scale strategy you can frighten the enemy not by what you present to their eyes, but by shouting, making a small force seem large, or by threatening them from the flank without warning.

In large-scale strategy, it is beneficial to strike at the corners of the enemy's force, If the corners are overthrown, the spirit of the whole body will be overthrown.

I suspect that 'flanks' might be a more idiomatic translation of that last. But at any rate it is clear that Musashi does not limit his advice to individual combat.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit