7 ms·
This idea of playing less than "perfect", so as to steer your opponent into plays that give you greater advantage than is available in the perfect mirror-match,
by joe-collins 4y ago
This idea of playing less than "perfect", so as to steer your opponent into plays that give you greater advantage than is available in the perfect mirror-match, is a well-worn familiar concept to game designers, and yes, poker players. If that's something new that bothers chess aficionados, I don't feel like it reflects particularly well on that game's culture.
https://gamedesignadvance.com/?p=2346 https://gamedesignadvance.com/?p=2346
https://www.sirlin.net/articles/solvability https://www.sirlin.net/articles/solvability
- davisoneee 4y agoI think it's perfectly fine for different games to have different cultures...for people of game A to want more calculation, and game B more towards psychology. Suggesting it doesn't reflect well on chess' culture suggests that wanting psychology is _more_ right. It's not. It's just _different_. Now whether chess really IS more about calculation these days is a difficult question to answer. It might just be that it values a different kind of calculation or skill than the past. Given the deep preparation necessary for someone to be a chess professional, I'm biased towards (micro-edit: believing that...) more calculation _is_ necessary for high level performance, and psychology is more gimmicky. The difference is that poker isn't a game of complete information, chess is. This means that, technically, there is a _right_ answer in chess. With the ambiguity of poker, and other games, that leaves room for psychology to be more natural.