3 ms·

> My inability to defeat the greatest players of a subject does NOT make the game less appealing Yes, it does. To them. Anyone who is driven to get better at

> My inability to defeat the greatest players of a subject does NOT make the game less appealing Yes, it does. To them. Anyone who is driven to get better at a game will be bored with playing with or against clearly worse players very quickly.

dspillett 7y ago
If they are to snooty to play with those with less experience/skill to help them learn the game, and to help the joy of their game spread, then that is their problem. Let them stew in the boredom of only ever playing against the few they consider worthy while the rest of us have a good time!
- monsieurbanana 7y ago
  Has this whole thread forgotten about the concept of moderation? Most people don't like to play only against much weaker players, nor only against much stronger players.
sabas123 7y ago
Not necessarily, Day[9] (one of the best US starcraft 1 players) had a great podcast where he explained why playing against worse players can still be massively helpful. http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/intrigue/Day90006PlayAgainstWorsePlay.mp3 http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/intrigue/Day90006PlayAgainst...
V-2 7y ago
It depends on the game. Eg. I'm fairly advanced in Brazilian jiu-jitsu (~10 years of practice, brown belt). The typical approach that I also follow is that when I want to practice some technique I'm not well familiar with, I try it on white belts first, iron the obvious wrinkles out, and then I keep on going up the skill ladder until I'm able to execute it on my equals. As I practice it against stronger and stronger opponents, I'm correcting increasingly subtle errors (that they're capable of using against me, while I could get away with them against weaker sparing partners). It would be more difficult to try new stuff against someone of equal skill straight away, it makes much more sense to work your way up gradually. It's obviously a physical, but still highly technical sport - and I imagine the same may hold true for many competitive activities.
- rhlsthrm 7y ago
  I feel like BJJ is pretty unique in this regard. It's the only activity I've come across where it's still fun to go 100% against a complete newbie.
  - V-2 7y ago
    Maybe. Another interesting paradox about it, as one of my former instructors once pointed out, that it's actually harder to submit a white belt than to submit a blue belt :) The former one may be more clueless, but offers 100% ferocious defence without attempting any reasonable attacks of his (or her) own. You can sort of see how progressing to the next step - from white to blue - is an inevitable setback of sorts. Funnily enough, this phenomenon vaguely makes me think of the "trough of disillusionment / slope of enlightenment" syndrome (the hype cycle)
    - Bartweiss 7y ago
      As I remember, someone who put together a study of highly mismatched chess games reached a similar conclusion. Strong chess players often play longer games and lose more material when their opponent is thoroughly unskilled players than when they're merely somewhat weaker. It's possible to beat weaker players more efficiently, but it requires consciously "playing down" to set simple traps and grab materiel quickly. Otherwise, a clueless opponent will disrupt "sophisticated" plays by accepting losing trades and ignoring threats. It lowers their chances of actually winning compared to a better player, but pushes the game towards a drawn out chase. And yes, I think there's certainly some truth to the hype cycle comparison. They both remind me of the "four stages of competence", where people in the middle two stages of "conscious" execution can be slower and more uncertain than either trained or untrained instinct.

dspillett 7y ago

If they are to snooty to play with those with less experience/skill to help them learn the game, and to help the joy of their game spread, then that is their problem. Let them stew in the boredom of only ever playing against the few they consider worthy while the rest of us have a good time!

monsieurbanana 7y ago
Has this whole thread forgotten about the concept of moderation? Most people don't like to play only against much weaker players, nor only against much stronger players.

sabas123 7y ago

Not necessarily, Day[9] (one of the best US starcraft 1 players) had a great podcast where he explained why playing against worse players can still be massively helpful. http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/intrigue/Day90006PlayAgainstWorsePlay.mp3 http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/intrigue/Day90006PlayAgainst...

V-2 7y ago

It depends on the game. Eg. I'm fairly advanced in Brazilian jiu-jitsu (~10 years of practice, brown belt). The typical approach that I also follow is that when I want to practice some technique I'm not well familiar with, I try it on white belts first, iron the obvious wrinkles out, and then I keep on going up the skill ladder until I'm able to execute it on my equals. As I practice it against stronger and stronger opponents, I'm correcting increasingly subtle errors (that they're capable of using against me, while I could get away with them against weaker sparing partners). It would be more difficult to try new stuff against someone of equal skill straight away, it makes much more sense to work your way up gradually. It's obviously a physical, but still highly technical sport - and I imagine the same may hold true for many competitive activities.

rhlsthrm 7y ago
I feel like BJJ is pretty unique in this regard. It's the only activity I've come across where it's still fun to go 100% against a complete newbie.
- V-2 7y ago
  Maybe. Another interesting paradox about it, as one of my former instructors once pointed out, that it's actually harder to submit a white belt than to submit a blue belt :) The former one may be more clueless, but offers 100% ferocious defence without attempting any reasonable attacks of his (or her) own. You can sort of see how progressing to the next step - from white to blue - is an inevitable setback of sorts. Funnily enough, this phenomenon vaguely makes me think of the "trough of disillusionment / slope of enlightenment" syndrome (the hype cycle)
  - Bartweiss 7y ago
    As I remember, someone who put together a study of highly mismatched chess games reached a similar conclusion. Strong chess players often play longer games and lose more material when their opponent is thoroughly unskilled players than when they're merely somewhat weaker. It's possible to beat weaker players more efficiently, but it requires consciously "playing down" to set simple traps and grab materiel quickly. Otherwise, a clueless opponent will disrupt "sophisticated" plays by accepting losing trades and ignoring threats. It lowers their chances of actually winning compared to a better player, but pushes the game towards a drawn out chase. And yes, I think there's certainly some truth to the hype cycle comparison. They both remind me of the "four stages of competence", where people in the middle two stages of "conscious" execution can be slower and more uncertain than either trained or untrained instinct.