> including my dad who was much better than me at chess.
My experience as well unfortunately. No matter how many books on chess I read, no matter how many games I played against Battle Chess to try to get better, he always won.
My experience as well unfortunately. No matter how many books on chess I read, no matter how many games I played against Battle Chess to try to get better, he always won.
And haven’t been back there for years. Reinstate Monica. And shame on the licensing grab.
Sure some advancements suck, but that's not on you. Answering the questions publicly for all to see enables everyone, and it's up to them to use it for better or worse.
Unlike HN and Reddit “discussions” which bring out the snark and ackchually in me far too often, and rarely seem a good way to “discuss” anything, focused questions and answers can potentially add a small value to the world.
But about having nobody to play because you crush everyone - as long as you want to play to enjoy and not just always go full-on try-hard mode - just stop crushing everyone and you'll have people to play with.
Let people win every third game. If you're good enough (at it), they won't notice. They'll have a good time and you will. In Tekken it works to have them win some rounds (extra points if you let them have two out of three), but still win the match, tho maybe only if you're not just 2 ppl playing.
That's a rule established from rat behavior observation study, you can hear about it in every third jbp lecture.
Ever since implementing it, I never end up with nobody to play with. Just curb your wanting to always win and focus on maximizing the amount everyone enjoys playing in the long run.
Even a game where there's always a winner and a loser doesn't have to be a zero sum game.
Sure, I'll go back and tell my 12 year old self to do that.
But, actually, I did do that, to some degree. As I mentioned, I would drop hints and talk about my strategies in games, usually after the game, so he could be more competitive and understand how I was thinking about things. That also has a cost on the fun for both parties, though. Smart people can recognize when you're going easy on them. Nobody normal likes being pandered to.
This is what I do when training jiujitsu with less experienced people.
And, I did that kind of thing sometimes, though I was a kid and still liked to win, I doubt I used any truly suicidal setups.
The rat strat may be worth revisiting but it's not very fun letting people win, and it feels dishonest and disrespectful as well. The closest thing I've found is to play super defensive. If I try to take as few hits as possible and drag out the battle it still serves as practice, and I kinda let them set the pace.
> I told him what I did and he didn't take it well
This was a mistake. Ask yourself why you did it. If you don’t have a good answer, one possibility is that it was your ego. Another is your very strong adherence to a certain code of behavior that others do not relate to.
> we'd both keep striving to improve and competing with each other
I’m not sure competing with someone who is not on your level is a normal approach.
I also doubt your friend sees the situation the same way as you. They are more of a recreational player. It’s a level below where you are, but for some reason you want them to care more.
> I'll lose 90% of the time if I do online matchmaking
And yet playing in person is important to you. It’s fun?
> it's not very fun letting people win, and it feels dishonest and disrespectful as well
At work, you want people on your team to pull their weight even though you could do the job better. How do you keep them from being discouraged? A strategy like this works.