Salemicus comments on Rationality Quotes Thread March 2015 - Less Wrong

8 Post author: Vaniver 02 March 2015 11:38PM

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

Comments (233)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Salemicus 02 March 2015 02:24:14PM *  18 points [-]

The mistakes are there, waiting to be made.

Savielly Tartakower, on the starting position in chess. Source.

Comment author: slicko 13 March 2015 06:58:42PM 1 point [-]

Luckily you only have to make fewer mistakes than your opponent to win.

Comment author: [deleted] 19 March 2015 08:38:04AM 3 points [-]

Describing good play as "making few mistakes" seems like the wrong terminology to me. A mistake is not a thing, in and of itself, it's just the entire space of possible games outside the very narrow subset that lead to victory. If you give me a list of 100 chess mistakes, you've actually told me a lot less about the game than if you've given me a list of 50 good strategies -- identifying a point in the larger space of losing strategies encodes far less information than picking one in the smaller space of winning.

And the real reason I'm nitpicking here is because my advisor has always proceeded mostly by pointing out mistakes, but rarely by identifying helpful, effective strategies, and so I feel like I've failed to learn much from him for very solid information-theoretic reasons.

Comment author: dxu 20 March 2015 01:33:58AM *  4 points [-]

it's just the entire space of possible games outside the very narrow subset that lead to victory.

Actually, most chess players define a mistake as a move that falls outside the subset of moves that either maintains equality OR leads to victory. This classification significantly reduces the size of mistake-space in chess.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 March 2015 11:05:26AM 0 points [-]

True, but it still leaves mistake-space the much larger space.

Comment author: gjm 25 March 2015 02:23:09AM 2 points [-]

my advisor [...]

Have you discussed this with him? Perhaps he hasn't noticed this and would be delighted to talk strategies. Perhaps he has a reason (good or bad) for doing as he does. (E.g., he may think that you'll learn more effectively by finding effective strategies for yourself, and that pointing them out explicitly will stunt your development in the longer run.) Perhaps his understanding of effective strategies is all implicit and he can't communicate it to you explicitly.

Comment author: [deleted] 30 March 2015 08:38:57PM *  1 point [-]

I've tried talking to him about it: he really does seem to possess only implicit understanding of what works and what doesn't. Well, that, and it just doesn't seem to occur to him, even upon my repeated requests, to lay out guidelines ahead of time.

Comment author: PlacidPlatypus 24 March 2015 07:52:12PM 1 point [-]

A mistake is not a thing, in and of itself, it's just the entire space of possible games outside the very narrow subset that lead to victory.

Minor nitpick, surely you mean possible moves, rather than possible games? The set of games that lead to defeat is necessarily symmetrical with the set that lead to victory, aside from the differences between black and white.

Comment author: slicko 20 March 2015 03:22:13AM 1 point [-]

My first downvote, yay! Didn't feel that bad :)

Anyway, my comment was merely an attempt to allay the philosophical worries expressed in the parent quote and so I used the same terms; it wasn't meant as pedagogy.

Comment author: 27chaos 17 March 2015 05:58:15PM 0 points [-]

I don't play chess, or know how to play at all well, nor am I interested in learning. But are there any books by or about chess masters that I might find interesting, for teaching good habits of thought? Or even just a list of famous chess quotations?

Comment author: macrojams 19 March 2015 04:27:49AM 2 points [-]

"Willy Hendriks, Move First, Think Later: Sense and Nonsense in Improving Your Chess. To me, more interesting as behavioral economics and as epistemology than as a chess book. The author claims that most chess advice is bad, and that we figure out positional strategies only by trying concrete moves, not by applying general principles. You do need chess knowledge to profit from the book, but if you can manage it, it is one of the best books on how to think that I know. - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/what-ive-been-reading-24.html#sthash.PdwwzDJR.dpuf"

- Tyler Cowen
Comment author: IlyaShpitser 17 March 2015 10:02:03PM *  1 point [-]

Chess fundamentals by Capablanca. Still the best book on learning positional chess, and in general "good taste" in position evaluation. There is a certain clarity of thought in this book. I am not sure how useful it is or whether it can "rub off."

Available for free.


I think there are some vaguely autobiographical things by Botvinnik on preparing for matches, but it's more about discipline than thought habits.

Comment author: kamerlingh 20 March 2015 09:10:12PM 0 points [-]

The Art of Learning: A Journey in the Pursuit of Excellence by Josh Waitzkin is the memoir of a chess child prodigy who later became a Tai Chi Chuan world champion. It's organized around his advice on developing the good habits of thought that he discovered when he was training for chess. But they are applicable to many domains: he makes the argument that the habits that made him excel at chess were also what made him a world-class competitor in Tai Chi Chuan.

Comment author: Romashka 17 March 2015 09:22:14PM 0 points [-]

There is something in Nate Silver's The signal and the noise.