9 ms·

This went from "understanding the rules" to "know all the rules". Having read the rules, so "knowing the rules", doesn't mean you understand them or that you al

This went from "understanding the rules" to "know all the rules". Having read the rules, so "knowing the rules", doesn't mean you understand them or that you already have the muscle memory required to play. It's also not yet about tactics.

IshKebab 3y ago
I understand rules if I know them. If I don't understand them I don't know them. You're making a weirdly pedantic distinction. For example here's a rule: * The king must always stay between the guards. If a move would end with the king not between the guards it cannot be performed. How can you "know" that rule but not "understand" it?
- eszed 3y ago
  Which of my playing pieces count as "guards"? How far away from the king can the guards be for him to still count as "between"? Do diagonal placements count as "between"? I already don't understand your rule!
- johnchristopher 3y ago
  > I understand rules if I know them. If I don't understand them I don't know them. You're making a weirdly pedantic distinction. Please, here are some materials that explains the differences between knowing and understanding: - https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/30091/on-the-difference-between-knowing-and-understanding https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/30091/on-the-... - https://www.diffzy.com/article/difference-between-knowing-and-understanding-222 https://www.diffzy.com/article/difference-between-knowing-an... - https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-knowledge-and-understanding/ https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-knowledge-a... > You're making a weirdly pedantic distinction. > I feel like that's almost all games? Which ones are you thinking of that can't be understood on the first play? Well, I made that distinction because of the implications of that remark: that rules of a game can be understood by reading them. As you mention in another comment that's not always the case and in my experience that's more often not the case that it is. On a side note, regular players can grok rules faster because mechanics are common to games but it's not how it works for casual players but I can see why it gives the illusion to regular players that rules can be understood just by reading them but they ignore that not only they are reading the rules but they are also seeing the underlying mechanics they are already well aware of. To go further, knowing the rules, understanding how they work and then seeing patterns in a game session and plan accordingly are three separate things. > > * The king must always stay between the guards. If a move would end with the king not between the guards it cannot be performed. > How can you "know" that rule but not "understand" it? I'd have written it like this * The king must always stay between the guards. Moves that end with the king not between the guards can't be performed.* and argue that's two separate rules. Now, I know these rules but I don't understand why they are necessary and I don't understand how they apply to the game.
- johnchristopher 3y ago
  > * The king must always stay between the guards. If a move would end with the king not between the guards it cannot be performed. Also: the first sentence says the king must always stay between the guards but the second sentence implies that it doesn't apply while the king is moving. This is contradictory.

IshKebab 3y ago

I understand rules if I know them. If I don't understand them I don't know them. You're making a weirdly pedantic distinction. For example here's a rule: * The king must always stay between the guards. If a move would end with the king not between the guards it cannot be performed. How can you "know" that rule but not "understand" it?

eszed 3y ago
Which of my playing pieces count as "guards"? How far away from the king can the guards be for him to still count as "between"? Do diagonal placements count as "between"? I already don't understand your rule!
johnchristopher 3y ago
> I understand rules if I know them. If I don't understand them I don't know them. You're making a weirdly pedantic distinction. Please, here are some materials that explains the differences between knowing and understanding: - https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/30091/on-the-difference-between-knowing-and-understanding https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/30091/on-the-... - https://www.diffzy.com/article/difference-between-knowing-and-understanding-222 https://www.diffzy.com/article/difference-between-knowing-an... - https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-knowledge-and-understanding/ https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-knowledge-a... > You're making a weirdly pedantic distinction. > I feel like that's almost all games? Which ones are you thinking of that can't be understood on the first play? Well, I made that distinction because of the implications of that remark: that rules of a game can be understood by reading them. As you mention in another comment that's not always the case and in my experience that's more often not the case that it is. On a side note, regular players can grok rules faster because mechanics are common to games but it's not how it works for casual players but I can see why it gives the illusion to regular players that rules can be understood just by reading them but they ignore that not only they are reading the rules but they are also seeing the underlying mechanics they are already well aware of. To go further, knowing the rules, understanding how they work and then seeing patterns in a game session and plan accordingly are three separate things. > > * The king must always stay between the guards. If a move would end with the king not between the guards it cannot be performed. > How can you "know" that rule but not "understand" it? I'd have written it like this * The king must always stay between the guards. Moves that end with the king not between the guards can't be performed.* and argue that's two separate rules. Now, I know these rules but I don't understand why they are necessary and I don't understand how they apply to the game.
johnchristopher 3y ago
> * The king must always stay between the guards. If a move would end with the king not between the guards it cannot be performed. Also: the first sentence says the king must always stay between the guards but the second sentence implies that it doesn't apply while the king is moving. This is contradictory.