This doesn't mesh with why lots of people play things. It's play. It might just be a nice way to pass the time. I would rather play basketball against someone my level than Steph Curry playing all out. I'm not playing to win or even to get better (getting better is fun, but isn't the point). I just want to have fun.
For many kinds of play, if you have to train for it, you may as well play something else.
That was fun! I learned and improved but also every point I won was a victory. Had I played against a professional I'd probably never have won a point, never have got better, and quickly got disheartened. There is just a limit past which the skill gap stops things being fun imo
After a while I managed to return the ball back and forth a couple of times, maybe they were going easy on me tho :)
I think there are times for both kind of play. It's annoying when people only play one kind of way. It's like beating you is all that matters to them.
> It's like beating you is all that matters to them
It does, which is weird considering this is not actually real life or real money; it's (can be anyway) a nice boardgame on a rainy sunday.
* Common house rules prolong the game. Don't use house rules.
* People forget the rule that when someone lands on an unowned property and doesn't buy it, the bank auctions it off.
A game of monopoly should take about an hour. It's almost always those exact house rules that people create that make the game drag.
Monopoly is a bad game though. Play Acquire instead.
If training isn't fun, then don't train up. Instead, learn to be satisfied with losing.
Which is fine: I'm satisfied when I play a decent game (but lose) against stronger players. I probably was going to lose anyway.
Being satisfied with your skill level, and learning to enjoy a game without necessarily improving at it, is important. For most of us, playing games is just a hobby. Our professions... the skill we ACTUALLY practice to get good at throughout our lives... takes priority over our hobbies.
Part of what makes a hobby a hobby... is the decision to remain weaker than professionals at that skill. I'll never become as good of a Harmonica Player as Magic Dick (who played "Wammer Jammer": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0q2Vy3fx2I). But that's fine, because Magic Dick is a professional Harmonica Player.
But when your level of skill gap with another player is too large, such that you won't learn anything by playing them and the entire match will be under their control 100% of the time, then there really isn't any point in playing them, and you'd be far better off—both for your enjoyment, and for your growth—to play against a weaker player.
It might be fun to have a sprinting match against your local state champion. It might even be fun to have a sprinting match against Usain Bolt. But there's no point to having a hypothetical sprinting match against The Flash. You wouldn't even leave the starting line before he crosses the finish line. There's no gradation of success available to you. You're simply crushed.
Likewise, there's no point, if you're a five-year-old, to trying to (seriously) arm-wrestle an adult. Your undeveloped strength will be overwhelmed without accomplishing the slightest movement of the opponent's arm, right at the beginning of the match, every time. You won't even get to practice the skill or build the muscles involved in arm-wrestling.
Unless you're playing in an exceptionally small or dying gaming community, most video games and online board games have good matchmaking services, which provides a quick-and-easy matchup to people of similar skill levels as you.
A lot of the discussions in this thread are about Overwatch (one of the most popular video games right now), or Chess (one of the most popular board games). You should have no issues finding opponents close to your skill in either of these games.
If there's an ELO matchmaking system in place, then the whole discussion—"How to play with people who are better than you"—is moot. So, for the purposes of discussion here, you should probably assume that there isn't such a system in place for the game in question. (The people who are bringing up examples from games with ELO presumably haven't read the article.)
The only reasons I do it - to have fun and relax - is already there, it doesn't get better the better I get since there is not top level cap. One example - I do climbing, in & out. If I climb 4c (french grade, which is very beginner level), say after some accident or other longer time off, its the same type of challenge as climbing routes at 5c/6a level after some training period. It really doesn't change anything for me, the challenge, fear of fall/death, pushing through it and sense of accomplishment is the same.
Maybe not the best mental wiring to achieve most in life in measurable aspects like career or net worth, but sure as hell I can be happy with little. It is great. I wish more people were like this.
In my sport, I train and enjoy competing as hard as I can.
I find the highs I enjoy from winning over a player who is a similar or higher skill level than me outweighs the disappointment of losing to someone I shouldn't. And it seems the better I get, the less often I seem to lose to people that I shouldn't. I enjoy seeing that progress and enjoy competing against better players.
I've lost close matches and still enjoyed every second too.
If I was playing against Steph Curry, I would try to come up with achievable goals, such as trying to defend well enough to force him to take a jumpshot instead of a layup, trying to make one of my own shots, trying to get him to fall for a pump-fake, trying to get a steal, trying not to fall over, etc.
Winning may not be, but there's always an achievable goal you can strive for.
So no podcasts/radio-or-tv shows then?
I can have a fun conversation with my two year old, but it's going to be pretty limited in depth.
I'm speculating here, but I think people who don't enjoy it on some level usually don't make it to that highest level in sport. Every top-level sportsman I can think of looks like they enjoy it.