5 ms·

A common idea in Go is that a stronger player will play a "teaching game" with a weaker one. The game is sufficiently abstract and complex that the weaker playe

by tel 10y ago

A common idea in Go is that a stronger player will play a "teaching game" with a weaker one. The game is sufficiently abstract and complex that the weaker player may not even notice the actions of the stronger player who endeavors to play poorly so that they are only slightly better than their opponent and have the opportunity to share new ideas and tricks at a level appropriate to their student. Obviously, these have to be done intentionally. A weaker player who nearly wins only to discover their opponent was "teaching" is probably a bit offended: their accomplishment stolen from beneath them. What aids all of this is that Go has a handicapping system that can be very well tuned so that for people who would score within 40-60 points of one another you can probably tune the game down to even odds.

lazyant 10y ago
> The game is sufficiently () complex that the weaker player may not even notice the actions of the stronger player I recommend to people learning to look at the activities of someone "good" at the field but not a star for this reason, I don't know if it applies to all fields but for ex I got the same feeling learning chess by following GM's games (I was lost) and a book like "Master vs Amateur" opened my eyes to typical errors made by intermediate players that won't show up in chess books (another example is "The Amateur Mind"). I tell soccer players than besides enjoying watching the games of the big teams and star players to watch "journeymen" games from a 2nd division to learn the basics. Also the reason why we frequently learn more from a student mate explaining something that from a veteran teacher or professor, who forgot the struggles of the beginners.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  Which is why Napoleon favored generals who had the reputation of being consistently "lucky" - i.e., those whose excellence wasn't easily understood.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    Could you maybe clarify the connection? Is the idea that "lucky" generals were actually experts beyond the comprehension of their peers?
    - Nomentatus 10y ago
      Napoleon didn't clarify, I don't believe. The quote was "I would rather have a general who was lucky than one who was good." Certainly, "Beyond possible comprehension by others" isn't what I mean or a likely interpretation. "Succeeded for reasons beneath others notice" would be more the idea. As an example, Grant's tendency to thoroughly disambiguate his orders and always put them in writing (after a Shiloh order debacle) helped his luck a great deal. But it isn't something others would necessarily notice or be in a position to notice. Sheridan had some astonishing luck, but it was possible because he insisted his subordinates (each taking separate routes) be highly disciplined and courageous and get to each point exactly on time, no matter what. (Later, one of those subordinates, Custer, would be cut down because his peers didn't fulfill their orders and arrive on time to join him in battle despite all - and because he did push on as he'd been taught. Coordination only works if everybody's doing it.)

by tel 10y ago

lazyant 10y ago

> The game is sufficiently () complex that the weaker player may not even notice the actions of the stronger player I recommend to people learning to look at the activities of someone "good" at the field but not a star for this reason, I don't know if it applies to all fields but for ex I got the same feeling learning chess by following GM's games (I was lost) and a book like "Master vs Amateur" opened my eyes to typical errors made by intermediate players that won't show up in chess books (another example is "The Amateur Mind"). I tell soccer players than besides enjoying watching the games of the big teams and star players to watch "journeymen" games from a 2nd division to learn the basics. Also the reason why we frequently learn more from a student mate explaining something that from a veteran teacher or professor, who forgot the struggles of the beginners.

Nomentatus 10y ago
Which is why Napoleon favored generals who had the reputation of being consistently "lucky" - i.e., those whose excellence wasn't easily understood.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  Could you maybe clarify the connection? Is the idea that "lucky" generals were actually experts beyond the comprehension of their peers?
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    Napoleon didn't clarify, I don't believe. The quote was "I would rather have a general who was lucky than one who was good." Certainly, "Beyond possible comprehension by others" isn't what I mean or a likely interpretation. "Succeeded for reasons beneath others notice" would be more the idea. As an example, Grant's tendency to thoroughly disambiguate his orders and always put them in writing (after a Shiloh order debacle) helped his luck a great deal. But it isn't something others would necessarily notice or be in a position to notice. Sheridan had some astonishing luck, but it was possible because he insisted his subordinates (each taking separate routes) be highly disciplined and courageous and get to each point exactly on time, no matter what. (Later, one of those subordinates, Custer, would be cut down because his peers didn't fulfill their orders and arrive on time to join him in battle despite all - and because he did push on as he'd been taught. Coordination only works if everybody's doing it.)