1. https://www.amazon.com/Winning-Losers-Game-6th-Strategies/dp...
And sure enough, when my obsession quickly waned, and without having played much chess at all, I found myself consistently winning from novices who had a lot more experience than I did. In hindsight, I suspect what happened is that they played a better game but were more likely to make catastrophic mistakes.
Of course, I suspect any player with any training probably applies these basic rules already, and would easily defeat me.
1) Initially develop your pieces in the center rather than threaten or capture the opponent's pieces (this avoids most traps where opponents pull you out of position).
2) Castle by move 8-10
3) Don't leave your king where it can be checked
4) Don't hang pieces
Executing these, however, is the problem. Number 4, in particular, is just something that requires a lot of practice. Most games below 2000 rating seem to be lost because somebody hangs a piece.
all it seems to be saying is that to become better, make fewer mistakes, with an implied exhortion to practice. is there more to it than that?
I suspect most people/organizations operating at the highest level understand or have internalized this, but many in the other category have not, to their demise. I've certainly seen organizations get themselves in trouble by trying to execute on something trickier than they were ready for. And others fail at something through an accumulation of clearly (at least, in retrospect) avoidable mistakes.
The corollary being that you are very likely to be in the latter category, like it or not, and it's best to realize it.
I haven't read the book though so could easily be misinterpreting.
still, that's just a matter of definition and perspective. even at a pro level, if you don't win, you made at least one mistake relative to your opponent. so to win, make fewer mistakes, right?
i don't play video games anymore (and never played more than recreationally), but i've played pro-am basketball, and from my observation, being a pro doesn't mean you don't make mistakes. it usually means that, besides having highly honed skills, you have more tricks in the bag to recover from your mistakes (and conversely, to induce mistakes in opponents).
so the contention is that everyone can benefit from a strategy of reducing mistakes (aka active practice), pro or not, and the prior anecdote isn't really super-useful.
--devli's advocate
I don't think that is correct according the to thesis (and again, haven't read it so may be misrepresenting).
They are saying that at that (pro) level, not making mistakes is not enough, you have to make things happen too. Obviously making too many mistakes will cost you, but they are suggesting that playing "perfectly safe" can still easily lead to a loss. I don't think anyone was suggesting that pros don't make mistakes (hell, there are entire stats dedicated to this), but rather than merely focusing on minimizing them will not win you a championship.
The idea is that conversely at lower levels of performance, this isn't the case, and it really is mostly about lowering mistake rates. More tellingly, it suggests that the opportunity cost of focusing on anything else is likely too high.
To tie it back to the actual post, this suggests if you are spending a bunch of time and effort "metagaming" but you haven't already mastered the game, you are probably going to have poorer returns than just getting better at the game. This at least sounds plausible to me.
As an action plan, I would write that: Engage in the activity and dive deeply into all of the mistakes you make and develop the skill or tactic to avoid that mistake in the future. At the point where you don't make mistakes any more, then you start look at the meta and responding to what your opponent is setting up to do, rather than what they are doing right now.
but i'd still contend you never get to a point where you don't make mistakes and then turn to the meta-game. folks tend to start thinking about, and honing, the meta-game at different levels of experience.
They will "fall on their own swords".
For most games with a net, focus on keeping the ball in play. For team sports, play defense and just keep it simple.
Basically, "never interrupt your adversary while they are making a mistake".
Teams lose games all the time while holding the other team to a very low score, but almost no one ever loses if they put up 50 points.
But then again, I played offense...
In fighting games, this observation leads to the following advice for someone playing against an opponent with weaker fundamentals: "play it safe until you give them enough rope to hang themselves."
Instead of going in as aggressively as normally would be required against a skilled opponent, just sit there and defend, and give your opponent free reign to try to crack your defense. The more they try, the more chances they give themselves to slip up and make a big mistake, which you then take full advantage of.
If their execution is worse than your defense, this is seen as a less risky strategy than going in on the offensive and hoping you don't make a mistake yourself.
Also applies to chess in the same way. Weaker opponents tend to accidentally "hang" their pieces a lot (i.e. move their pieces directly under attack of your pieces) just by poor observation, so it can be a good strategy to just stall, keep to your side of the board, and wait until your opponent slips up and makes a crucial mistake. Once they've made enough mistakes and you have enough of a material advantage, moving in for the win becomes completely trivial.
For me, in most multiplayer games (Overwatch and such), I became far better (and more useful to the team) when I focused more on staying alive ("not making mistakes") rather than trying to execute fancy plays.
The game of Go makes this abundantly clear. You can actually damage your own skills by playing too many inexperienced or weaker opponents. But playing someone just a bit stronger than you can improve you both.
I don't know if this works the same in e-sports, but it is striking in Go, or to a lesser extent, Chess.
Most people who play casually have some romantic ideas about poker from spy movies, where it's about bluffing. Bluffing only works if people actually believe you have good cards, people won't believe you have good cards if you play with mediocre or bad cards every hand.
I am by no means good enough to beat a person who is good at the game that could profile my playing style, do the mental math faster than me and who can tell the difference between whether or not I have analysis paralysis or bluffing.