3 ms·
In real life, you've always got to go with your gut. But in chess you have perfect prescience: there is a very limited set of parameters, and things can only oc
by DiscourseFan 2y ago
In real life, you've always got to go with your gut. But in chess you have perfect prescience: there is a very limited set of parameters, and things can only occur within them. Its good training for real life, since you can have both foresight and risk, and for me at least I always have a multitude of different plans about both my near and far future sitting somewhere in the back of my head, switching between and adjusting them depending on the circumstances that arise.
- elevaet 2y agoThere's a good arguement that backgammon and bridge are better training for real life because of the mixture of strategy and randomness.
- ddingus 2y agoI would argue strongly for poker. No limit hold 'em poker is a fantastic game! My experience learning the game, alongside my wife, who we learned later in life is an exemplary player! (The story behind that involves a period of high work travel for me, a Playstation, and Doyls Room online poker and a $2K seed bankroll...) ...my experience is this game will, or can if you allow it, change how you think. Maybe the more accurate thing to say would be the game opens up more kinds of thought.
- khafra 2y agoIf you're interested in games that teach real-world epistemic skills, Jane Street just publicly released Figgie: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PypgeCxFHLzmBENK4/poker-is-a-bad-game-for-teaching-epistemics-figgie-is-a https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PypgeCxFHLzmBENK4/poker-is-a...
- appleiigs 2y agoPoker has strategy, randomness and asymmetric info.