edanm comments on Rationality Quotes January 2014

Comment author: Alejandro1 04 January 2014 10:30:07PM 10 points [-]

An example in chess could be the enforcement of the touch-move rule in a "friendly" game not played under tournament conditions. Personally, I would tend to see someone who insisted on applying this rule in a friendly game when the opponent makes a mistaken touch as a bit of a jerk who cares too much about winning. I am sure this varies across different people and different chess circles though.

Comment author: brazil84 05 January 2014 05:18:57PM 3 points [-]

I agree. As usual, the key question is what are you trying to accomplish. To win? To socialize? To have an interesting game? If you are playing a friendly game, and an interesting position develops, and then your opponent makes a huge and immediately obvious blunder, there's something to be said for letting him retract his move. There's something unaesthetic about an interesting game -- hard fought and well played on both sides -- which is won because of a stupid move.

I suppose Sirlin's response would be to suggest you have a clear idea in your head at the beginning of what you are trying to accomplish; and to try to avoid from changing that objective after the fact in order to save face.

One could observe that in most competitions, there are a lot of objectives besides just winning the competition. For example a runner up on America's Top Model who nevertheless lands a modeling contract due to her exposure on the show.

Comment author: ChristianKl 05 January 2014 08:23:03PM 0 points [-]

I suppose Sirlin's response would be to suggest you have a clear idea in your head at the beginning of what you are trying to accomplish; and to try to avoid from changing that objective after the fact in order to save face.

No Sirlin, is very much advocating that games should be about winning. It's one of his key ideas on the philosophy of game design.

Comment author: brazil84 comment score below threshold [+] (10 children)

Comment author: roystgnr 07 January 2014 03:01:30AM 3 points [-]

His games might bring more joy at family events. I like games which are designed to be fun when everyone is trying to win, not just when the winners are also having to subtlely contort their decisions to avoid ruining anyone's fun. I'm not familiar with Sirlin's games, but I do recall reading a similar point in reviews of the "German-style" games which have revitalized board gaming: since these games' mechanics try to make them enjoyable to lose, not just to win, it's easier for people to both try to have fun with other players and try to win without one goal compromising the other.

Comment author: lmm 07 January 2014 10:56:32PM 2 points [-]

Ironically enough Sirlin's games are virtually impossible to play to win (or to lose). He's a big believer in having all your options being of equal value, so the "game" is in figuring out what your opponent will do and playing the appropriate counter to that. But the result is that playing randomly is just as good as playing strategically.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 09 January 2014 03:07:37PM 1 point [-]

No. There are good and bad players at, say, Kongai. Whether I would win or lose depended very strongly on how focused I was and how well my team was organized.

It's the difference between Rock-Paper-Scissors as usually played and RPS if you get 4 points for winning with scissors, 2 for winning with rock, and 1 for winning with paper.

Those are totally different games.

Comment author: Lumifer 08 January 2014 01:30:06AM 1 point [-]

But the result is that playing randomly is just as good as playing strategically.

Doesn't that make the game uninteresting?

Comment author: lmm 10 January 2014 12:42:03PM 1 point [-]

Does to me. But I was never a fan of the two-player fighting games that Sirlin seems to hold in such high regard; I can imagine that people who like those (and there are many such people) might like Sirlin's games.

Comment author: brazil84 07 January 2014 03:58:44AM 1 point [-]

His games might bring more joy at family events. I like games which are designed to be fun when everyone is trying to win, not just when the winners are also having to subtlely contort their decisions to avoid ruining anyone's fun. I'm not familiar with Sirlin's games, but I do recall reading a similar point in reviews of the "German-style" games which have revitalized board gaming: since these games' mechanics try to make them enjoyable to lose, not just to win, it's easier for people to both try to have fun with other players and try to win without one goal compromising the other.

Could you describe such a game to me? I'm intrigued.

Comment author: Prismattic 07 January 2014 09:04:09AM * 6 points [-]

Grossly overgeneralizing here, the difference between a "German-style game" or "Eurogame" and what is affectionately known as "Ameritrash" among boardgame enthusiasts (though there are games in both categories designed in both the US and Europe) is that Eurogames tend to be games involving strategic optimization to earn points, whereas Ameritrash tends to emphasis direct conflict between players. Though it's more of a spectrum than a dichotomy.

The big three light (as in easy-to-learn) Eurogames that really went mainstream are Settlers of Catan, Carcassonne, and Ticket to Ride. Of those three, only SoC really offers the possibility to be a dick to another player, and even there not to the degree you would see in direct-conflict games.

Note, among other things, that it is rare to have a runaway leader in these games, and in the cases of Carcassone and TTR, it's almost impossible to tell for sure who is winning until the game is over. That tends to keep everyone engaged and enjoying themselves.

If you want examples of heavier, pure Eurogames, take a look at something like Puerto Rico, Argricola, or Power Grid.

Watch Settters of Catan being played

Watch Carcassonne being played

Watch Ticket to Ride being played

Comment author: lmm 07 January 2014 10:55:02PM 1 point [-]

Pfft. The only interesting way to play Ticket to Ride is to strategically block the other players' routes.

Comment author: Prismattic 08 January 2014 03:18:56AM 0 points [-]

Some TTR maps are more cutthroat, but the basic TTR and TTR: Europe are sufficiently forgiving in terms of alternate routes that you can't really say someone is being a dick by cutting you off. Whereas, say, "trade X for Y, followed by play Monopoly X" in SoC is genuinely obnoxious though perfectly legal.

Comment author: brazil84 07 January 2014 11:06:10AM 0 points [-]

I am reminded of the game "Yahtzee" which has no direct conflict between players; you just try to maximize your score and whoever scores highest wins. I agree that a game like this has less potential for cutthroat play than other games.

But still, one can imagine Sirlin playing Yahtzee with a child at a family event and the child (who is way behind in points) makes a poor decision about which dice to re-roll. Would Sirlin let the child take back his choice?

Comment author: gothgirl420666 08 January 2014 07:55:01AM 0 points [-]

What is the point of this rule? I never understood it.

Comment author: Emile 21 January 2014 12:46:42PM 4 points [-]

I think it's to avoid a situation where a player does a move, sees how his opponent reacts, realizes his mistake and retracts his move - leading to argument, or players having to control their reactions until they're really really sure their opponent finished his move, etc. Chess is supposed to be about strategy, not about bickering about whether a move was really confirmed and trying to guess which move is good by watching your opponent's face.

Also, it's to force new players to think quietly, which is good for them anyway in the long run.

Comment author: Alejandro1 08 January 2014 02:30:22PM 0 points [-]

I don't know about its history, but I imagine that the point is to discourage grabbing a piece and hovering it over where you are thinking of moving it to visualize better the new situation that would arise. Doing this seems to violate the spirit of the game if you think an important part of it is to be able to look ahead and calculate in your mind's eye. Plus it could be annoying/distracting for the opponent.

Comment author: gothgirl420666 08 January 2014 07:00:40PM 1 point [-]

That makes sense. Even so, it seems a little excessive.

Comment author: 4hodmt 05 January 2014 12:39:37AM 5 points [-]

Playing mirror Go is often considered dishonorable. In practice it's not a major problem because it's a suboptimal strategy.

Comment author: ChristianKl 05 January 2014 02:53:14PM 1 point [-]

In general plays where you know thaty they that only work when the opponent makes a mistake are considered dishonorable in go.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 11 January 2014 10:13:55PM * 3 points [-]

This guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Lasker) was a chess generalist (able to play most position types comfortably), and chess world champion for 27 years. He succeeded by playing moves his opponents found most uncomfortable (murky tactics vs positional players, 'boring positional plays' vs flashy tactical players).

There is some disagreement today on whether Lasker was really about psychology or merely ahead of his time. My opinion is he did use psychology, but he also had very good positional sense which most of his contemporaries did not share (lots of Lasker's supposedly dubious plays are established modern lines). So he did play in questionable ways but not as questionable as might have seemed back in the day.

My favorite players are Capablanca, and Karpov (I don't like Lasker's style much, but the dude was amazing. His style most resembles machine play out of all players I know).

edanm comments on Rationality Quotes January 2014 - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (186)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (186)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login