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

Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

longform.asmartbear.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 228 posts

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#181

Post by spennant »

sitkack wrote: post #125
SenHeng wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good example would be Elizabeth Swaney[0] who somehow found her way into the 2018 Winter Olympics simply by showing up at qualifying. In order to qualify for the Olympics, athletes needed to place in the top 30 at either a FIS Freestyle Ski World Cup event or FIS Freestyle World Ski Championships, and score a minimum of 50.00 FIS points.[9] Swaney achieved this by attending competitions with fewer than thirty parti…

This has been my analysis of high level competition as a whole. It isn't about who is the best, as in peak performance. It is about consistently making the least amount of mistakes. You can break records, or you can out de-mistake the competition.

In other words... being Iceman is better than being Maverick.

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#182

Post by tech_ken »

Dove wrote: post #162
eggbrain wrote: post #159

I struggle with how I'm supposed to grok this advice, as it feels like a tautology. E.g. with his chess example, I can't see how blundering isn't just a result of a lack of the things he mentions -- practicing technique, drilling puzzles, etc. How can we as amateurs know _not_ to make blunders without knowing _why_ it was a blunder, which usually involves being properly skilled to identify the blunder ahead of time i…

Some of the best advice I've ever heard comes from the following observation: Blundering is often a result of trying to overplay a small advantage. If you are playing thoughtfully, with an eye on the whole game, you are smart enough not to blunder. It's when you get excited about pursuing an opportunity that you overlook mistakes. Play your advantages and play them hard. But don't lose sight of the big picture. Or al…

> Play your advantages and play them hard. But don't lose sight of the big picture.

Almost nothing is more dangerous to my winning chances than exiting the opening with a small material or positional advantage. Opponent is now incentivized to attack ferociously, and I'm left struggling to figure out the safest way to convert without playing too passively but also not over-pushing.

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#183

Post by javier123454321 »

Omroth wrote: post #105

"Not strategy, not memorizing opening lines, not practicing your end-game technique, not studying the Great Games of History, not drilling with puzzles to get better at tactics," "In my games, the player who committed more blunders lost 86% of the time." Goodness I wonder what methods one could use to reduce their blunder rate.

I think the point is to, instead of being on the lookout for the winning strategy, put more of your limited attention on preventing basic mistakes. It's about shifting focus, presumably, there's a baseline of competence in the endeavor at hand.

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#184

Post by tech_ken »

Omroth wrote: post #105

"Not strategy, not memorizing opening lines, not practicing your end-game technique, not studying the Great Games of History, not drilling with puzzles to get better at tactics," "In my games, the player who committed more blunders lost 86% of the time." Goodness I wonder what methods one could use to reduce their blunder rate.

These things all help, but ultimately reduction of blunders is the result of consciously checking whether you're blundering something, not being a genius calculator. Most blunders in chess (outside of the higher-levels) aren't the result of failing to see some 5-move tactical sequence, they're just hanging a rook because you were hyper-focused on your own initiative. Controlling your blunder rate is IMO a game of attending to your own mental state: ensuring that you're giving proper consideration to your opponents threats, being realistic about your advantages, and preventing your imagination from running away on you. Obviously study and puzzles can help you do these things more effectively (for example making you more likely to pick up material when your opponent blunders), but they are a necessity not a sufficiency. At the end of the day 'not blundering' is about staying humble, playing slowly, and not freaking out; everything else is points on the margin.

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#186

Post by Retric »

anamexis wrote: post #174
Retric wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re rated 800 online and making 1-2 blunders per game playing blitz, that seems low and it still adds up to 2-4 in a given game. If you mean longer time controls then that’s definitely helping, but most games are 5 minutes or less simply because players are going to be able to fit far more such games per day. Similarly the average rating is quite low simply because everyone starts terrible and most people quit…

I'm talking about daily/correspondence games.

Ok, 1-2 blunders are more believable in that context, and uhh ouch. Anyway, it’s still an extreme edge case which says nothing about most games.

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#187

Post by dgunay »

sotix wrote: post #121
bjackman wrote: post #29

I think this is very true, I've found the same thing in e.g: - Simracing: getting faster doesn't make you win races. Getting more consistent does. - Squash: getting stronger and faster doesn't make you win games, getting less exhausted does, because you make less mistakes. These are surely not true when you're at a high level, but for most people it's the right focus. The corresponding insight for building software i…

> Simracing: getting faster doesn't make you win races. Getting more consistent does. I think this is absolutely true at the lower levels, but once you hit a baseline of consistency, the faster drivers do win races by simply being faster. It can be maddening them trying to recreate their line but still being an entire second per lap slower. But when racing closer to the beginner level, simply being able to complete e…

A similar dynamic bears out in a lot of games. For example, in most RTS games, you win at lower levels by simply out-macroing your opponent. Only when you are on equal footing later do tactics and strategy become important, despite those ostensibly being the core focus of the genre.

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#188

Post by blastro »

bjackman wrote: post #29

I think this is very true, I've found the same thing in e.g: - Simracing: getting faster doesn't make you win races. Getting more consistent does. - Squash: getting stronger and faster doesn't make you win games, getting less exhausted does, because you make less mistakes. These are surely not true when you're at a high level, but for most people it's the right focus. The corresponding insight for building software i…

In golf, reducing bogies helps more than increasing birdies, so same idea there

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#189

Post by mostly_harmless »

bluedino wrote: post #175

People always tell me they wish they were good at cooking. The biggest thing is don't mess up. Don't burn anything, don't undercook it, don't overseason, don't underseason. Even if it's just "okay", if you can avoid ruining food, consistently, people will start to refer to you as a 'good cook'. Or in another way, just don't be a bad cook and you'll be a good one.

I feel this way for photography, about filtering. If you take 1000 photos, only show people your 20-50 best. Now you are a good photographer.

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#190

Post by anamexis »

Retric wrote: post #186
anamexis wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking about daily/correspondence games.

Ok, 1-2 blunders are more believable in that context, and uhh ouch. Anyway, it’s still an extreme edge case which says nothing about most games.

My point was that it's not an extreme edge case, it's quite common, even at the 700-1000 chess.com ELO level.
Post reply on HN