Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To get good, go after the metagame

commoncog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–307 of 307 posts

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#301

Post by jackbravo »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #159
Proziam wrote: post #3

Getting good in almost all games is based on understanding and mastering the fundamentals to the extent that you can make consistently correct (or at least a high degree of 'correctness') decisions based on them. This is true for all esports titles, and probably all games in general. Mastering the fundamentals will make you 'good' to a level that very few people ever reach. It's not until you reach a level where ever…

I disagree slightly. The metagame is relevant whenever you're facing opponents of similar skill. If you're way better than your opponent, you can use highly sub-optimal, non-meta strategies and win through sheer experience and skill. For instance, I could kill 50% of Starcraft opponents lower than me by building only one unit and even announcing which unit I'll mass up. However, if you're making a similar number of e…

All this talk about the meta game on war games makes me remember the Ender's Game book, which was heavily based on how Ender was able to adapt quicker than his opponents to new rules and war scenarios.

I kind of remember reading that the book was even recommended in the military.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#302

Post by banannaise »

empath75 wrote: post #231
_pastel wrote: post #174

Playing a game immediately after learning the rules is my favorite challenge - especially when the other players are all new too. At this stage, tactics are mostly about keeping all the rules in your head and thinking hard before each move. But strategy is really interesting. Everyone is guessing blindly, and you can often win by guessing slightly less blindly. I have two meta-strategies: (1) Game phases While learni…

Interestingly I played splendor for the first time against some experienced players a couple of weeks ago, and after they explained the rules and how the best strategy is to slowly build up resources, I googled ‘how do you win at splendor’ and everyone said to try and grab the most expensive cards first. So I did that, then they said it was beginners luck after I won. Then I won two more times, and they said ‘wow you…

In my experience, this is a misfeature of closed board gaming groups. They come up with a local metagame, and nobody new comes in to disrupt it. New players are low-skill, so they learn the local strategy and stop there.

You can become a tremendously consistent winner at all sorts of board games simply by knowing that most local metagames are exploitable, and constantly looking for the exploit. Are players burning their resources too fast, or holding them for too long? Are they undervaluing a resource in one phase and overvaluing it in another? Are they failing to recognize potential resource engines, or building engines to obtain things that can be obtained faster without one? Are they not recognizing or exploiting resource scarcity? Are they failing to recognize situations where they can apply pressure or force actions by threatening to end the game?

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#303

Post by Shorel »

lastres0rt wrote: post #282
jpxw wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is definitely true of chess.

My first (and only!) game of GO was ruined by my deep understanding of Chess. I applied chess-logic (focusing on gradients of control) and demolished my opponent, who refused to believe it was only my first game, and refused to play again.

Great, want to play again?

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#305

Post by gacklesmom »

jerf wrote: post #270
ggambetta wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mastering the fundamentals will make you 'good' to a level that very few people ever reach. Can you clarify this? Is this because most people don't care about mastering the fundamentals in the first place? I can't tell whether I'm missing something and the idea is more complex, or that's what you're saying.

Recent HN post on the topic: https://danluu.com/p95-skill/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22265197 A direct experience report on the same topic from a particular game.

Literally painful to read. Both in content and formatting. I have no idea how someone can type that much about a kids' game.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#306

Post by jeremysalwen »

gowld wrote: post #213
jeremysalwen wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried to find the original comment on HN, it was very informative, but some chess master (grandmaster?) commented on here that until you are highly rated (say 2200), the only thing you should focus on to improve at chess is to improve your ability to notice tactics in games. He went into more detail but I can't find the post :(

Not quite. First you need to eliminate your own hung piece blunders and look for opponents'. But that gets you to 1000-1500 then you need to notice tactics. There is overlap, in that the simplest single-move tactics (forks and skewers) are almost the same as catching immediately hung pieces.

I would argue that hung pieces are just single ply tactics. Also significantly you must notice your opponents tactics as well as you own.
Post reply on HN