You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

gwern comments on Digging the Bull's Horn - Less Wrong Discussion

-7 Post author: gworley 12 November 2012 04:03PM

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

Comments (18)

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

Comment author: gwern 12 November 2012 08:16:58PM 0 points [-]

I suppose there could be spikes like that - if one knows n-1 rules of chess, it's not fun at all, while at n rules one can actually start playing. But I don't know of any games where this spike would come after, say, months or years of practice.

Comment author: fezziwig 12 November 2012 08:44:14PM 2 points [-]

Any game where increased playskill changes the shape of the tactical space, I'd think. For example, Street Fighter 2. Yeah, the arcade game.

It's easier to show than tell, but basically there's a strategy, made up of grabs and weak attacks, that's easy to execute but hard-ish to defend against. Two players who are skilled enough to use that strategy but not skilled enough to defeat it will find the game degenerate and boring, but once they're skilled enough to get past that gate they'll find a space of viable tactics that's a lot broader and more engaging.

Comment author: DaFranker 12 November 2012 08:59:04PM 1 point [-]

Yes, this is a very good example. The street fighter games change completely in landscape once you get past several key difficulty walls, each of which can require months of training or more for people not already adept at the genre.

Thanks for the good example.

Comment author: DaFranker 12 November 2012 09:01:22PM *  0 points [-]

fezziwig gives a pretty good example; the Street Fighter series in general can be considered to have an uncommonly high number of instances like this.

However, with that said, I agree with your earlier statement that the question is whether there really are any fields of knowledge that behave like this (and would be useful to us), or if it's dependent upon key patterns of game logic and none of those patterns are present in nature, or some other explanation that makes these cases too limited in scope to be worth exploring the way I thought the OP was suggesting.