4 ms·

This reads like an exercise in deliberately misunderstanding the word adversary.

XorNot 1y ago
I'm not sure I really see that problem with it? It's a correct observation that people tend to discount what actual, intelligent opposition will do. The number of people who declare they can totally trust what an adversary says because they agree with it is astounding, as though a committed opponent wouldn't do anything if it gained advantage including feinting in a way which seems unadvantegeous to gain long term advantage.
- maxbond 1y ago
  There is however the flip side, where people distrust something because they believe an adversary said it. Sort of like how link spammers switched from SEO to "negative SEO" where, after Google started identifying and penalizing SEO networks, spammers started extorting people with the threat of linking to their site (thus penalizing them in search results). Blind trust and blind distrust are equally exploitable. In the end, the only winning move is not to play. If you believe an adversary said something (or "a liar" if you prefer), you ignore it entirely. You make your mind up about what you believe based on evidence, and you decide if you agree with someone based on how well their statement comports with the evidence. Naturally people will try to fabricate evidence, and even good faith evidence may be unreliable, so you'll have to do your best to access it's veracity. But what the adversary believes or appears to believe is largely immaterial.
habitue 1y ago
Maybe chess was wrong, it's adversarial. But there's definitely a qualitative leap between "adversary withing defined rules in a particular context" and "anything is on the table, they could kill you etc." kind of adversary
- mgaunard 1y ago
  Any kind of competition is adversary; it's just that in most competitions, you'd be disadvantaged if it came to light that you didn't follow good sportmanship.
  - Smaug123 1y ago
    I disagree! I claim that most people follow rules out of a general sense of fair play rather than because they will be punished for not doing so. Certainly this is true of me, and I don't believe society would look the way it does if the cynical view were nearly universally correct. Cheaters in games like Magic are very rare; if most people tried to cheat whenever they thought they could get away with it, we'd be forced to set up competitions with more stringent verifiable rules like (off the top of my head) "all cards must be drawn and given to you from your deck by the opponent". We haven't done that, so I infer that most people don't try to cheat. (In your favour, I do concede that everyone writes down their individual understanding of the history of a given chess game; but there are weak instrumental reasons for that even if people aren't cheating, because it is possible to upset a board by accident.)
    - mgaunard 1y ago
      How do you know they didn't cheat if they got away with it? There's also the aspect of how hard people are actually competing. For a casual game like MtG, people are mostly there for the fun of it, not to win the competition. For a deal worth millions of dollars, people are more likely to lie and cheat.
dang 1y ago
Ok, but please don't post putdowns to Hacker News. If you know more than others, that's great, but in that case please share some of what you know, so the rest of us can learn.

I'm not sure I really see that problem with it? It's a correct observation that people tend to discount what actual, intelligent opposition will do. The number of people who declare they can totally trust what an adversary says because they agree with it is astounding, as though a committed opponent wouldn't do anything if it gained advantage including feinting in a way which seems unadvantegeous to gain long term advantage.

maxbond 1y ago
There is however the flip side, where people distrust something because they believe an adversary said it. Sort of like how link spammers switched from SEO to "negative SEO" where, after Google started identifying and penalizing SEO networks, spammers started extorting people with the threat of linking to their site (thus penalizing them in search results). Blind trust and blind distrust are equally exploitable. In the end, the only winning move is not to play. If you believe an adversary said something (or "a liar" if you prefer), you ignore it entirely. You make your mind up about what you believe based on evidence, and you decide if you agree with someone based on how well their statement comports with the evidence. Naturally people will try to fabricate evidence, and even good faith evidence may be unreliable, so you'll have to do your best to access it's veracity. But what the adversary believes or appears to believe is largely immaterial.

habitue 1y ago

Maybe chess was wrong, it's adversarial. But there's definitely a qualitative leap between "adversary withing defined rules in a particular context" and "anything is on the table, they could kill you etc." kind of adversary

mgaunard 1y ago
Any kind of competition is adversary; it's just that in most competitions, you'd be disadvantaged if it came to light that you didn't follow good sportmanship.
- Smaug123 1y ago
  I disagree! I claim that most people follow rules out of a general sense of fair play rather than because they will be punished for not doing so. Certainly this is true of me, and I don't believe society would look the way it does if the cynical view were nearly universally correct. Cheaters in games like Magic are very rare; if most people tried to cheat whenever they thought they could get away with it, we'd be forced to set up competitions with more stringent verifiable rules like (off the top of my head) "all cards must be drawn and given to you from your deck by the opponent". We haven't done that, so I infer that most people don't try to cheat. (In your favour, I do concede that everyone writes down their individual understanding of the history of a given chess game; but there are weak instrumental reasons for that even if people aren't cheating, because it is possible to upset a board by accident.)
  - mgaunard 1y ago
    How do you know they didn't cheat if they got away with it? There's also the aspect of how hard people are actually competing. For a casual game like MtG, people are mostly there for the fun of it, not to win the competition. For a deal worth millions of dollars, people are more likely to lie and cheat.

dang 1y ago

Ok, but please don't post putdowns to Hacker News. If you know more than others, that's great, but in that case please share some of what you know, so the rest of us can learn.