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

How to play with people who are better than you

wellcomecollection.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 190 posts

Re: How to play with people who are better than you

#51

Post by a_imho »

cirlesquarebook wrote: post #6
igor47 wrote: post #2

the author is focused on finite games, which are games that you play to win. but it's interesting to think about applying the same logic to infinite games, where the goal is to keep playing forever. For instance, capitalism is a game that most players assume we'll just keep playing. How do you deal with some players having an advantage? Currently, the advantage only compounds (literally, ie compound interest). What i…

Is capitalism actually assumed to go on forever though? The idea of a post scarcity society isn't new. Hell, Marx's presentation of how communism would arise was largely rooted in the idea that capitalism would increase efficiency to the point that it would no longer make sense to follow its model any longer.

Make sense to who? I don't think the beneficiaries of a particular setup are incentivized to challenge the status quo.

Re: How to play with people who are better than you

#52

Post by cehrlich »

mjfl wrote: post #45
random42 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is playing for enjoyment and recreation. Playing and losing to Steph Curry does not give him that. Playing competitively with his friends does it.

I must be a different neurotype from you people. If I saw someone get upset, lack enjoyment out of playing basketball with, and losing to Steph Curry, I would think that person is a loser. To each their own.

I would love to lose a game of basketball against Steph Curry, would certainly be a fun experience. But it would get old fast as he would certainly crush me every time.

If my goal is to get better at basketball, playing against Steph Curry is not useful. Learning happens most efficiently when the challenge is somewhat above your current skill level, but not enormously so.

If someone just recently started going to the gym, would you put a 300 pound barbell in front of them and tell them to lift that, and assume they're a loser if they don't get any enjoyment from failing to lift it?

Re: How to play with people who are better than you

#53

Post by circlefavshape »

mjfl wrote: post #31
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to get better, train up. This doesn't mesh with why lots of people play things. It's play. It might just be a nice way to pass the time. I would rather play basketball against someone my level than Steph Curry playing all out. I'm not playing to win or even to get better (getting better is fun, but isn't the point). I just want to have fun. For many kinds of play, if you have to train for it, you may as…

If you're just playing to pass the time, why does it matter if you lose to Steph Curry or not?

It doesn't matter if you lose - what matters is that you feel like you have some involvement in the game. Good games are like conversations - you can enjoy a conversation with someone who's way more knowledgeable/smarter than you, but not one where you don't get a word in at all

Re: How to play with people who are better than you

#54

Post by azangru »

circlefavshape wrote: post #53
mjfl wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're just playing to pass the time, why does it matter if you lose to Steph Curry or not?

It doesn't matter if you lose - what matters is that you feel like you have some involvement in the game. Good games are like conversations - you can enjoy a conversation with someone who's way more knowledgeable/smarter than you, but not one where you don't get a word in at all

> but not one where you don't get a word in at all

So no podcasts/radio-or-tv shows then?

Re: How to play with people who are better than you

#55

Post by mantap »

danielbarla wrote: post #34
ycombinete wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, which game of skill is also important. As I commented below, more modular games like squash, where you can get a point here and there, can be played like this. A 600 ELO point difference in chess basically means you will never win, and it becomes futile, and crushing.

It's only futile if your main / only goal is to win. I tend to view playing much stronger opponents as an opportunity to learn (especially if they are taking the time to explain things). In that sense, it's a massive "win". Alternatively, you can always redefine a "win", e.g. as getting a draw out of a 400 ELO higher opponent. It's realistic and shows that you are progressing in a positive direction.

If your intention is to improve you are probably better off spectating than playing. Playing against stronger players of any game is an interesting experience but observing stronger players is more educational since you can do so from an emotionally detached position and you don't have to dedicate the majority of your concentration to playing your side of the game.

Re: How to play with people who are better than you

#56

Post by saiya-jin »

earenndil wrote: post #17
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to get better, train up. This doesn't mesh with why lots of people play things. It's play. It might just be a nice way to pass the time. I would rather play basketball against someone my level than Steph Curry playing all out. I'm not playing to win or even to get better (getting better is fun, but isn't the point). I just want to have fun. For many kinds of play, if you have to train for it, you may as…

At least for me, part of the motivation with playing things is the idea that it is practice, and discipline, and improvement. Part of it is escapism, to be sure, but not all of it.

This is where each of us is unique mix - I couldn't care about improvement in things I do for fun. If it comes naturally, great, if it doesn't, same great. I know many people who aren't like that, especially competitive ones (which I consider a rather big disadvantage in life if one of your goals is to be a happy content person).

The only reasons I do it - to have fun and relax - is already there, it doesn't get better the better I get since there is not top level cap. One example - I do climbing, in & out. If I climb 4c (french grade, which is very beginner level), say after some accident or other longer time off, its the same type of challenge as climbing routes at 5c/6a level after some training period. It really doesn't change anything for me, the challenge, fear of fall/death, pushing through it and sense of accomplishment is the same.

Maybe not the best mental wiring to achieve most in life in measurable aspects like career or net worth, but sure as hell I can be happy with little. It is great. I wish more people were like this.

Re: How to play with people who are better than you

#57

Post by narag »

onion2k wrote: post #23
narag wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I learned chess playing always against a friend that won every single time. I didn't give up. I joined a club and improved. After some months I played again with my friend and I won. That was the last game he played against me. Moral? Not sure. I like to win sometimes, but I don't mind losing most times if that teachs me something. Playing against someone much better than you sharpens your perception, reactions, ever…

By the sound of it your intent was to win eventually. You could imagine winning, and with some effort you did win. I think that's subtly different to playing against people who you will never beat regardless of how much effort you put in. dragontamer's example of Magnus Carlsen is a good one - he was in the top 1000 players in the world when he was 12, and become World Champion at 22. He's intuitively good at chess.…

By the sound of it your intent was to win eventually.

Eventually we all die. It's fun to play anyway.

In a less philosophical mood: standing against an overwhelming force can be exhilarating. I've felt something like that windsurfing in strong wind conditions.

Down to the specific question, losing always against someone you can't defeat is very good training for winning over others.

Re: How to play with people who are better than you

#58

Post by CogDisco »

narag wrote: post #21
ycombinete wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I started playing squash, my only opponent was an ex-league player. The two of us kept a mental log of my highest score against him, which steadily increased as I got better, and he showed me where I was going wrong. Over the next year I didn’t beat him once, but occasionally would best my previous high score, which was always exhilarating, until about a year an a half later were we’re on equal footing, and I co…

A 600 ELO point difference in chess basically means you will never win, and it becomes futile, and crushing. But after losing a dozen times with that guy, you play against someone else and it's you that crush your opponent, so not so futile.

Assuming you can learn anything from the experience. What you might learn is weird idiosyncrasies and futile tactics playing from desperation. You might learn to not lose so quickly, but that's not the same as winning.

Re: How to play with people who are better than you

#59

Post by danielbarla »

mantap wrote: post #55
danielbarla wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only futile if your main / only goal is to win. I tend to view playing much stronger opponents as an opportunity to learn (especially if they are taking the time to explain things). In that sense, it's a massive "win". Alternatively, you can always redefine a "win", e.g. as getting a draw out of a 400 ELO higher opponent. It's realistic and shows that you are progressing in a positive direction.

If your intention is to improve you are probably better off spectating than playing. Playing against stronger players of any game is an interesting experience but observing stronger players is more educational since you can do so from an emotionally detached position and you don't have to dedicate the majority of your concentration to playing your side of the game.

Very good points. Personally, I've noticed that I learn best when I use some combination, however.

I'd rationalise it as creating richer neural connections for the topic you're trying to learn. It seems to embed the knowledge out of your "cache" into some deeper level, without which I tend to run out of ability to keep all these things in my head. In terms of practicing whatever you're learning, it's hard to say whether you should play against weaker, equal, or superior opponents; each have various arguments that can be made against them. I'd probably avoid weaker ones, in order to minimise false positive feedback.

Re: How to play with people who are better than you

#60

Post by tapland »

mjfl wrote: post #36
tapland wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there is no excitement or any possibility of winning motivating you to even pretent do put effort in

Doesn't seem like you are playing to pass the time, in that case. Seems like you are playing to win. The difference is in the former case the play is the reward in itself and in the latter case you need to feel victory over someone. Seems crypto-competitive and kind of weird for that reason.

I think you are reading things into 'play' that aren't there. What you seem to suggest is that naming anything 'play' makes it impossible for you to not get enjoyment out of it, since there are no conditions for you to consider it play?
Post reply on HN