Gaming for self-improvement
Patrick Carroll
games. Some are mainly into competition, others into socializing, and some just
like the joy of immersing themselves imaginatively in a game's rich theme.
But there's one thing I've always sought to do which may be unusual (it may
even be naive or crazy): I'm interested in playing games for the sake of
self-improvement. Is it possible to do that, or do you think it's just
self-deception?
Let me clarify what I mean exactly.
Some might say that besides being fun, games are stress relievers--they're
frivolous, but that's good because we need an "escape valve" like that once in
a while for mental health. That may be so, but this is *not* what I'm talking
about.
Others might say that games are great vehicles for social interaction; and thus
game playing can improve one's social skills and bring all the benefits of
interpersonal relations. Again, this is probably so, but it's *not* what I
mean.
What I do mean is this: If one takes up a game like chess or go, and devotes
himself to it--practicing regularly, reading about it, contemplating on
strategy & tactics, and taking game-related proverbs to heart--is it likely
that he will become a better person in some way? Happier? More successful?
More self-aware?
I'm inclined to believe that playing a game like chess or go requires one to
become ever more disciplined, thorough, attentive, insightful, careful,
focused. . . . The list of adjectives could go on. So it stands to reason that
anyone who takes up such a game with a degree of seriousness will naturally
develop certain strengths.
Furthermore, I believe games like chess and go contain principles of survival
and success which, once grasped, could be applied indirectly to most any area
of life.
Two things could cause the effort to backfire, however: (1) if one takes up
chess but only plays games vs a computer set on the Easy level, the player is
not likely to make much progress or gain much in the way of self-improvement;
(2) if one takes up a game and spends too much time at it--thus neglecting the
rest of his life to some extent--any self-improvement he gains will be wasted,
since he's not applying it where he should.
But if one seriously applies himself to the game, while spending only a
moderate, healthy amount of time practicing it, would self-improvement be a
likely result? I.e., Would this gamer develop skills and personal qualities
that would improve his chances of survival & success in life?
A while back, someone asked a similar question in one of the chess newsgroups.
The response there was mostly positive; but one fellow had an interesting
viewpoint. He said that gaming for self-improvement might work for children
and teens, but not for adults. An adult, he said, will have already gathered
all the strengths and survival skills he's ever going to have--and no amount of
gaming will bring him up to another level.
What do you think?
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Ali Ferhat Tamur
I've studied chess seriously when I was a child and teenager. I've played
in lots of tournaments, with some success. I even entered my country's
national youth team a couple of times. My Elo is 2200 which means I'm
a very good player from the viewpoint of average players and a weakling
from the viewpoint of grandmasters.
I also learned go two years ago. Read a few books, played a few hundred
of games. I'm about 6 kyu which is probably above average but nothing
extraordinary.
I also play board games as my time permits. Don't know if I'm good or not.
I think I'm a more unhappy person than average (whatever that might be)
Noone in his right mind can say I'm successful in life (whatever success
might be) If I gained something by taking games more seriously than average,
I don't know what it is. I'm sure I'm not disciplined, thorough, attentive,
insightful, careful, focused .. (the list of adjectives may go on)
Also, I don't think I gave too much time to games that I neglected my life.
(Well, in fact I don't know what one is supposed to do if one doesn't want
to neglect his life or vice versa) Loving to play games is enough
motivation to play them for me.
I don't buy the argument that games will improve you in ways that chatting,
traveling, reading, watching t.v., making pictures, writing poetry,
worshiping, camping or watching the sky will not provide. There are
trillions of ways in life which are no better or worse than each other,
and most of us will find better ways to spend our lives given a second
chance in our deathbed.
Now, I'd better save the rest of my depressive speech to my psychologist :-)
Ali Ferhat Tamur
Patrick Carroll (p55ca...@aol.compliant) wrote:
: Though everyone plays games for fun, we each look for different things in
Fleur Designs
<p55ca...@aol.compliant> wrote:
> gaming for self-improvement might work for children and teens, but not
> for adults. An adult, he said, will have already gathered all the
> strengths and survival skills he's ever going to have--and no amount of
> gaming will bring him up to another level.
honing current skills, as well as for enjoyment. In addition all adults
have a responsibility for future generations and I would presume (and
hope!) that these adults are also playing games with children and
encouraging development of all those desirable skills.
--
Fleur Designs - Manchester UK http://www.cartmell.demon.co.uk
~ designer craft products ~ information products ~ information services ~
~ see our unique designer board games at:
Altrincham Marketplace every Tuesday & Saturday ~
- - - and in Acorn User magazine - November 2000
kaspian
much to do with that, however.
--
Ball ist rund.
Spiel dauert 90 Minuten.
So viel, so mehr klar.
Alles ander ist Theorie.
-- Tom Tykwer, LOLA RENNT
Thorbjörn Engdahl
you play games with the ambitions you describe, I really do think you will
have the positive effects you are describing. On the other hand, if you play
games "just for fun" or because you like to win, you will probably not learn
and improve as much. At least not in the way you described.
As for the adults learning... All learn. If you stop learning, the human
mind and body gradually decay. Sure, as a child your mind is developing much
faster, and you learn and improve at much higher rate than an adult. But
grown-ups also need mental exercise, both to stay in shape and to improve.
My argument could be taken as an argument that adults can at best keep the
status quo. This is not what I meant. I believe that a great majority of all
humans get better at what they practice, whether it be golf, chess, sewing
or social skills. Someone devoted and open minded practicing
self-improvement will most likely improve him/herself.
Thank you for a good post. Makes me want to play some games to be a better
man!
Kindly,
/Thor
Thorbjörn Engdahl
th...@fy.chalmers.se
"Patrick Carroll" <p55ca...@aol.compliant> wrote in message
news:20001210013041...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
...
> But there's one thing I've always sought to do which may be unusual (it
may
> even be naive or crazy): I'm interested in playing games for the sake of
> self-improvement. Is it possible to do that, or do you think it's just
> self-deception?
...
> A while back, someone asked a similar question in one of the chess
newsgroups.
> The response there was mostly positive; but one fellow had an interesting
> viewpoint. He said that gaming for self-improvement might work for
children
> and teens, but not for adults. An adult, he said, will have already
gathered
> all the strengths and survival skills he's ever going to have--and no
amount of
> gaming will bring him up to another level.
...
Joel Yoder
one a better person?
It's just seemed to me lately that, as much as I love reading and thinking
about games, I could be spending my time much more productively. And I'm
not even one of the many people that take the time to write out lengthy,
thoughtful responses to requests for game opinions etc.
(As Johnny Human Torch would say, "flame on!")
--Joel
"Patrick Carroll" <p55ca...@aol.compliant> wrote in message
news:20001210013041...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
Geenius at Wrok
> But there's one thing I've always sought to do which may be unusual (it may
> even be naive or crazy): I'm interested in playing games for the sake of
> self-improvement. Is it possible to do that, or do you think it's just
> self-deception?
Sure. That's why I took up go.
--
"Imagine the folly of allowing people to play elaborate games which do
nothing whatever to increase consumption." -- "Brave New World"
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Live with honor, endure with grace "I notice you have a cloud of doom.
Keith Ammann is gee...@enteract.com I must admit it makes you seem
www.enteract.com/~geenius * Lun Yu 2:24 dangerous and sexy."
Matthew Hubbard
>
> But there's one thing I've always sought to do which may be unusual
> (it may even be naive or crazy): I'm interested in playing games for
> the sake of self-improvement. Is it possible to do that, or do you
> think it's just self-deception?
There have been a couple of studies in the social sciences end of
biology that say brain activity (in their case, puzzles) is a good way
to ward off senility, but the evidence is largely anecdotal. NPR did a
story this week on a researcher who is making the same kind of claims
for the mental health curative properties of bridge.
I would think that bridge is a better builder of better people than
chess or go, simply because you must interact with a person who is on
your side, your partner. While not true in 100% of instances, team
sports tend to make the players more social, while individual sports can
produce individuals focused on "me against the world".
That was worth two cents, anyone got change for a nickel?
MattH
Jim Bolland
bad thing? It's only the _real_ obsessions that interfere with your health and
welfare that are bad. All things in moderation -- moderation being a relative
term! :-)
Jim
Landsrgame
<< That was worth two cents, anyone got change for a nickel? >>
ok. You give me a nickel, and I'll give you three cents. Happy now?
Blame it on the games. :-)
Harvey
Rich Shipley
the only reason I play, but I like to think that it helps me figure out
solutions to problems I face day to day.
I also feel that playing many different games gives a wider variety of
situations to solve. The time required to be an expert at a single game may
produce diminishing returns as far as applying to other aspects of life.
This is all how it seems to work for me, YMMV.
Rich
Errol Elumir
Allo!
> What I do mean is this: If one takes up a game like chess or go, and
> devotes himself to it--practicing regularly, reading about it, contemplating
> on strategy & tactics, and taking game-related proverbs to heart--is it likely
> that he will become a better person in some way? Happier? More
> successful? More self-aware?
Hmmm, dependent on what people consider to be a "better" person.
Although you have given three characteristics for a "better" person, such
criteria may not fit the definition of other's.
Anyways, I'd be inclined to say "no". Mainly because when I see games
being played, it is the character of the person which defines the game,
not the game which defines the person.
Let's take someone that despises losing, enjoys pointing how much
you suck during the game, laughs at your bad luck, and generally is
an arrogant git positive that the outcome of played games solidifies
in his/her mind that s/he is a superior being.
The above attitude can be applied to anything, or any profession, or
any hobby. And yet you probably know many people who have devoted
themselves to "whatever" and still maintain that same attitude.
I've mentioned before, that my game group are great people.
They enjoy playing games, they are good losers, and they are good
winners. I did make the statement before that maybe this was
because of German Games, but was corrected in the fact that it
could have been any game, or any thing, and they would have
maintained this pleasant attitude.
And furthermore, this is my opinion on what a "better" person is.
(I dunno, being disciplined, thorough, attentive, insightful, careful,
whatever does not really suggest a "better" person.).
But for the person below:
> He said that gaming for self-improvement might work for children
> and teens, but not for adults. An adult, he said, will have already gathered
> all the strengths and survival skills he's ever going to have--and no amount
> of gaming will bring him up to another level.
a "better" person may be strengths and skills for surviving in today's world.
If anything, the opponents would cause one to improve, not the game itself.
You can learn a lot of things from your opponents.
tschüs!
Errol
http://www.elumir.com/games
European Board Games & Toronto Gamers
Walt Smith
p55ca...@aol.compliant (Patrick Carroll) wrote:
> one fellow had an interesting viewpoint. He said that gaming for
> self-improvement might work for children and teens, but not for
> adults. An adult, he said, will have already gathered
> all the strengths and survival skills he's ever going to have--and
> no amount of gaming will bring him up to another level.
While I'll take "gaming for self improvement" as an unproven
subject worthy of argument, I'd say that the person with
the above viewpoint probably stopped learning some time ago,
and is thus might not be a good source for opinions on
methods for self-improvement.
Either that, or his definition of "adult" is very different
from my own. I'm a much different person at age 34 than I was
at 21 (or 19, or 18, or 16, or whatever age qualifies as "adult").
Walt Smith
--
Firelock on DALNet
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Patrick Carroll
about something like Sherlock Holmes's violin.
I've never read any Sherlock Holmes. But I've heard that when he's facing a
difficult conundrum, he'll sometimes pick up a violin and just play for a
while. When he's finished, the elusive answer will often pop into his head.
Evidently, Holmes normally operates in a very logical, rational, methodical
state of mind--and sometimes his thoughts bunch up into a logjam. To break the
logjam, he turns to something quite different--something aesthetic & emotional
rather than logical.
Well, I'm just about the opposite of Sherlock Holmes. My normal state of mind
is "aesthetic & emotional," and I resort to logic & method only when forced to.
Consequently, I get confused pretty often, and my confusion leads to anxiety.
If I find myself with half a dozen things to do, my first reaction is to freak
out a bit; I have no idea how I'll manage. Only after worrying about it for a
while do I finally remember to prioritize and take one step at a time (and even
then, I usually don't manage to do them in a logical order).
So, maybe for me, a game of chess would serve the same function as Sherlock's
violin. It would require me to pay attention; to take in the whole situation,
then focus on key points; to make a plan, mentally test it, then implement it,
while monitoring changes that might require flexibility. And so forth.
I know from experience that focusing on purely logical things can be refreshing
for me. I ended up with a degree in English; but along the way I had to take a
course in Logic--and I loved it, even though it was so different from my usual
classes. Years earlier, I had been a History major; but I ended up dropping
out and taking up a course in electron microscopy--which provided some
much-needed focus in my life (no pun intended). Recently I spent a year
studying computer programming; and it was also a wonderful change of pace and
provided a lot of clarity that facilitated my moving forward in other areas of
my life.
Even though I don't have much use for symbolic logic in my day-to-day life, and
never do anything with electron microscopy or computer programming, I still
feel they were important phases of my life.
So, rather than spend time & money on college courses in fields I don't expect
to apply myself in, maybe taking up chess would be a positive step.
The downside is that I just don't have the right temperament for chess (but
maybe that's all the more reason to take it up). Not only do I blunder; but I
make the same mistake repeatedly, game after game. Nor do I take it
gracefully. I rant and rave. "It's not fair!" If it's a computer game, I
take the move back. But if I have to take more than a couple moves back, I
kick myself for being so stupid. Chess is a demanding, unforgiving game--but
I'm even more unforgiving of my own mistakes.
Usually my patience runs out after a few weeks of devotion to chess. I give up
in frustration and turn to some other kind of game: either one with a chance
element (e.g., backgammon, cribbage, or dominoes), or one with a lot of "theme"
(e.g., a wargame or computer game). Anything to hide my mistakes (and my
sour-grapes attitude) and give me the false impression that I'm accomplishing
something of value.
Yet, I can't shake the feeling that I'd do well to learn to just sit calmly
through whole chess games--maybe a game a week or so. If I could develop the
habits, skills, and mindset needed to hold my own in chess at the intermediate
level, I suspect that would help transform my life for the better (provided I'm
intent on that outcome).
Anyhow, that's pretty much what I had in mind when I started this thread: Can
game playing be a useful self-improvement tool for certain types of people?
Obviously chess isn't going to be very helpful to someone who's already very
logical and reasonably disciplined (maybe he should take up the violin
instead). But for people like me, maybe it would be helpful.
And maybe other kinds of games would be helpful to other types of people.
Someone with a weak imagination might do well to get into theme-heavy games
(wargames, RPGs, etc.). Someone with weak social skills might benefit from
interactive multiplayer games.
Any further thoughts on this?
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Mark Johnson
and innovation (or at least quickly understanding someone else's
innovation!). My natural preference for gaming is to play lots of new
games all the time, and I like to think that there's some self-
improvement in having to learn rules & strategies all the time, while
other players are doing the same, staying mentally limber.
But you're right--there may be as much self-deception going on as
improvement. :-)
-MJ
--
"German" game mailing list http://www.egroups.com/group/spielfrieks
David desJardins
> What I do mean is this: If one takes up a game like chess or go, and
> devotes himself to it--practicing regularly, reading about it,
> contemplating on strategy & tactics, and taking game-related proverbs
> to heart--is it likely that he will become a better person in some
> way? Happier? More successful? More self-aware?
If you enjoy playing games, and you play games, you will then be
happier. This is the definition of "enjoy".
David desJardins
Michael Monical
Patrick Carroll wrote:
>
> But there's one thing I've always sought to do which may be unusual (it may
> even be naive or crazy): I'm interested in playing games for the sake of
> self-improvement. Is it possible to do that, or do you think it's just
> self-deception?
>
I would say that it is possible depending on how you define self improvement and what games you are willing to play. I
assume you are limiting yourself to only sedentary games and not anything athletic. Certainly most people find a self
improvement component to athletic games.
However, if one defines self improvement as skill building, there are LOTS of games that can build skills. For example,
I know from personal experience that playing wargames helped me in my military service. This was especially true in
military schooling where already knowing much of the subject matter gave me alot of free time. Was that self
improvement? It was in my book.
I am sure there are many skills that can be improved with gaming if that is your definition of self improvement. I know
much more about ancient history because I enjoy playing Civ and HOTW. I would guess that almost any historian could
benefit from many aspects of gaming. That does not mean it is the best bang for the buck. Hard core study and
application is probably much more worthwhile. However it certainly beats watching baseball, unless your self
improvement goal is to become a sports trivia buff.
If you have a specific self improvement goal, I believe there is a good chance that you could find a game to improve
yourself. You want to be a better speller? play scrabble. You want to understand basic economics? play stocks and
bonds. You want to loose weight? play something so addictive that you forget about stuffing your face or play something
that you do physical exercise between turns (don't laugh, when I was about 14-15 my brother and I played Afrika Korps,
Guadalcanal, 1914 ect during the summer evenings and we did exercises during each other's turn. I went from about 8 to
almost 20 pullup during that summer).
So my question is, is there a skill that cannot be improved (in some fashion) by the deliberate selection of the
appropriate game?
Mike
Patrick Carroll
>chance that you could find a game to improve
>yourself.
That seems to be the consensus that's forming here. Just playing games might
or might not lead to self-improvement. But taking up a game with a specific
intent may result in self-improvement.
What I had in mind, specifically, was taking up chess in an effort to develop
habits (or skills) such as sizing up a situation, making a plan, zeroing in on
key points, prioritizing--in short, being logical, clear-headed, organized, and
purposeful.
As I pointed out in another post yesterday, I spend a fair amount of time
walking around confused. Faced with half a dozen things to do, I'm instantly
paralyzed by indecision; I have no idea what to do first or how I'll ever get
all the things done. My usual coping strategy has been to oversimplify--to put
on blinders and just focus on what's immediately in front of me (whether or not
it's what I *should* be focusing on).
I find that when I get involved in anything that's mainly logical or
mathematical, I tend to relax and see things more clearly. So, working
patiently at a game like chess might be a good corrective for me (if it doesn't
drive me crazy first).
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Chris M. Dickson
Carroll <p55ca...@aol.compliant> writes
>What I had in mind, specifically, was taking up chess in an effort to develop
>habits (or skills) such as sizing up a situation, making a plan, zeroing in on
>key points, prioritizing--in short, being logical, clear-headed, organized, and
>purposeful.
Face-to-face Diplomacy will give you all that and more: the ability and
requirement to see positions from different points of view, the ability
and requirement to work out what people want and how to get it through
negotiation, all sorts of benefits in terms of working out how to get
what you want. I suspect that postal or e-mail Dip will work as well,
but the extended deadlines won't force the quick reaction on you
demanded by deadlines with strict time limits. There is more discussion
in rec.games.diplomacy, as ever.
Incidentally, I've played the game a couple of times and can't stand it.
:-) I like and admire the people who play it, though; it would certainly
be my pick as a good way to exercise some social skill muscles that
other games cannot touch.
Best wishes,
Chris
--
Chris M. Dickson, Middlesbrough, Great Britain; ch...@dickson.demon.co.uk
Sport Editor, Flagship PBM mag: http://www.antsnest.demon.co.uk/flagship/
Labyrinth Games: puzzle and game consultancy http://www.qwertyuiop.co.uk/
MSO Worldwide -*- Bringing Brains Together -*- http://www.msoworld.com/
Patrick Carroll
Probably so. I find it interesting, though, that you mention the one other
game besides chess that has sparked a decidedly negative reaction in me. The
experience of being backstabbed in the 2 or 3 Dip games I played still elicits
a shudder when it comes to mind; it's perhaps the most unpleasant thing I've
encountered in all my years of gaming. A close second is the guilty feeling of
stabbing someone else.
But as I've been saying in this thread, maybe this negative reaction is an
indication that the game *would* be a good "corrective" for me. If I could
play chess until I'm able to play contentedly and successfully at an
intermediate level, that would be a big step forward. Likewise, if I could
play Dip with enough detachment to just enjoy the game and play well, that
might also be a psychological breakthrough.
I wonder about this every time I opt for a more pleasant game instead. When I
lose myself in all the detail of a theme-heavy game, or rely mainly on hope in
a dicey game, I wonder if I'm missing an important point, or hiding from a
lesson I need to learn.
True, games are supposed to be fun. And sometimes one just needs a brief
"escape." But if someone plays games very often, and sticks to the kind of
game that doesn't require much of him, I suspect that's unhealthy.
Conversely, if one purposely takes up a game that does require something of
him--especially if it's something he has a problem dealing with--that could
lead to self-improvement (if it doesn't drive him crazy first--or just drive
him away, as it often has in my case).
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Russ Williams
to older people suffering from senile dementia, with research being done by
Dr. Kaneko Mitsuo indicating that it helps the patients.
There is an interesting book called Go: An Asian Paradigm for Business by
Miura Yasuyuki which discusses various benefits of playing go and makes some
interesting points about how in chess (more popular than go in the West),
the object is to destroy your opponent's king: destroy your competition. In
go you co-exist with your opponent and simply try to control a greater
amount of territory: strive for greater market share.
I feel I've learned a lot of useful principles playing go which I've
successfully applied to "real life". Generally (like many useful principles
in life) these are not things I didn't already know. Rather, playing a game
in which application of them is essential makes me more conscious of them
and builds the habit of using them instead of just being aware of them and
nodding "yes, I should do that". E.g. look for the biggest move, don't get
caught up in the local situation and ignore the big picture, be willing to
give things up, etc.
Games like go also give the more obvious benefits of practice in careful
analysis (reading out tactical situations like life & death situations and
the endgame), intuition & pattern recognition (the opening and midgame,
where completely reading out the situation is impossible for both humans and
computers), and the general good happy results from doing something you
enjoy.
Since go has a very nice way of handicapping games between players of
unequal skill (and there is a very large range of skill values, more than
most games) so that each player has a roughly equal chance of winning a
given game, go also encourages people not to be destructively competitive
and obsessed with winning -- you know in advance you're going to win roughly
half your games, no matter how much you improve! Of course you can also
play without handicap stones, e.g. in Open tournaments; but generally the go
culture is such that players usually want the game to be interesting for
both sides rather than just having the stronger player be likely to win.
I've learned some formal mathematics I probably wouldn't have otherwise due
to go, since Berlekamp and others have been applying combinatorial game
theory to go.
Go is the oldest boardgame so there's a rich culture and history that goes
with it; many players enjoy learning about that, which is another benefit.
Many of these benefits exist with other games as well. I feel I've gotten
the most self-improvement from playing go, but certainly other games have
benefited me too.
Patrick Carroll
>the most self-improvement from playing go, but certainly other games have
>benefited me too.
>
>russ
Thanks for a terrific post, Russ!
I also enjoyed an article in the Go Player's Handbook, which described "the
three games"--implying that there are essentially just three kinds of games:
those of territorial acquisition (like go), those of destroying an enemy "army"
(like chess), and race games (like backgammon). Each seems to reflect
something about the culture the game "grew up" in: the West for chess, the Far
East for go, and the Middle East (probably stretching over to India and
including the likes of pachisi) for backgammon.
I've managed to learn go (an accomplishment in itself, since it takes a number
of practice games to even catch on), and I've enjoyed it quite a bit--and
learned from it. One of the first lessons I learned was "don't bite off more
than you can chew" (or stake out more territory than you can actually defend).
Later, however, I decided the game of go was more than I could chew. I also
found the need to count points a little irritating. So I find I have a certain
preference for the likes of chess and backgammon--where there are no points to
count, but victory depends only on achieving a desired position on the board
(or *off* the board, in the case of backgammon).
Also, I play a lot of solo games just for practice. Computers facilitate that,
and nothing has yet come close to the computers & software currently available
for chess.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Mark Johnson
When I'm making a "normal" drive late at night, say sometime around
midnight, I'm often tired and have to concentrate very hard on my
driving while I'm anxious to get home. But on a similar late drive home
from game night (30 minutes on the freeway for me), I'm as alert as can
be. Always am. It must be that the night of interacting with both games
and the gamers just exercises the mind.
-MJ
David J Bush
>or might not lead to self-improvement. But taking up a game with a specific
>intent may result in self-improvement.
>
>What I had in mind, specifically, was taking up chess in an effort to develop
>habits (or skills) such as sizing up a situation, making a plan, zeroing in on
>key points, prioritizing--in short, being logical, clear-headed, organized, and
>purposeful.
Chess can certainly help, not least because it's easy to find an
opponent. BUT I would just like to point out that there are a
truckload of cool abstract games out there, which exercise very
different aspects of logical thinking from chess. You might find,
after some experimentation, that you have a greater affinity for
some specific game, one which you might have a talent for, and
would enjoy more than chess for this reason. And this feedback
cycle might result in a greater improvement for your head.
You don't have to torture yourself to get more disciplined!
Here's a URL for Twixt:
http://www.msoworld.com/mindzine/news/proprietary/twixt/twixt1.html
Thanks for your time!
David Bush
Russ Williams
"Patrick Carroll" <p55ca...@aol.compliant> wrote in message
> > I feel I've gotten
> >the most self-improvement from playing go, but certainly other games have
> >benefited me too.
> >
> >russ
>
> Thanks for a terrific post, Russ!
Well, the initial question was interesting... :)
> I also enjoyed an article in the Go Player's Handbook, which described
"the
> three games"--implying that there are essentially just three kinds of
games:
> those of territorial acquisition (like go), those of destroying an enemy
"army"
> (like chess), and race games (like backgammon). Each seems to reflect
> something about the culture the game "grew up" in: the West for chess,
the Far
> East for go, and the Middle East (probably stretching over to India and
> including the likes of pachisi) for backgammon.
And then there are games like RoboRally and Car Wars, combining racing and
destruction. Designed by teams comprised of US and Indian game designers.
:)
> I've managed to learn go (an accomplishment in itself, since it takes a
number
> of practice games to even catch on), and I've enjoyed it quite a bit--and
> learned from it. One of the first lessons I learned was "don't bite off
more
> than you can chew" (or stake out more territory than you can actually
defend).
> Later, however, I decided the game of go was more than I could chew. I
also
> found the need to count points a little irritating.
Go certainly gives lots of different parts of your brain a workout. That's
one of thing things that makes it so cool for me and a lot of go players.
BTW you can actually get by pretty far without doing terribly accurate
counting. Rough estimation skills aren't hard to develop. One handy trick
I was taught early on was to count pairs of points (it's almost twice as
fast to count adjacent pairs of territory I've surrounded instead of
individual points, and then dead stones on the board count as a pair (1 for
the territory and 1 for the prisoner).
Depending on where you live there may be a go club that's quite welcoming to
new/weaker players.
>So I find I have a certain
> preference for the likes of chess and backgammon--where there are no
points to
> count, but victory depends only on achieving a desired position on the
board
> (or *off* the board, in the case of backgammon).
I've tried chess off & on over the years. I really WANTED to like it, since
it's also got a long history and culture, plus it's more popular here (so
there are more opponents, clubs, books, etc.). But it never really grabbed
me. It made me feel like I must not have the temperament for games of pure
strategy (no chance or hidden information). Then I was introduced to go...
:)
> Also, I play a lot of solo games just for practice. Computers facilitate
that,
> and nothing has yet come close to the computers & software currently
available
> for chess.
Yes, go is a much harder game to master, for humans and for computers. The
best go programs are roughly my level (and I'm not particularly good, just
6K AGA), but the best chess programs rival the best human players. But if
you're in your early go career, there are good go programs that will
certainly give you a challenge and probably kick your ass. :) (And again,
the nice thing about go is the handicap stones system -- so if you're weaker
than a program you can take handicap stones against it to make it a fair
game, rather than making the program play stupider than it's capable of.)
Patrick Carroll
>after some experimentation, that you have a greater affinity for
>some specific game, one which you might have a talent for, and
>would enjoy more than chess for this reason. And this feedback
>cycle might result in a greater improvement for your head.
>You don't have to torture yourself to get more disciplined!
Good point. I've played Twixt, btw (don't know what ever happened to the copy
I once owned).
This leads into a quandary that often confronts me: work vs play.
Really, all I ever wanted to do was be a boy and play; but life demanded that I
grow up and work. So I did. But one thing that helps me get through the
workday (or any particular chore) is knowing that when it's over, I'll have
*some* time to play--maybe to play a favorite game.
But as soon as I sit down to a game, I want to win. To win, I have to play
well--which is the same as saying I have to *work* at the game!
Sometimes that aggravates me so much that I turn to a very easy or dicey game
(or just go watch TV or something--anything mindless and frivolous--i.e., pure
play). But that soon gets boring. It's a nice respite, but it never brings
any real satisfaction.
What does bring satisfaction? Often (much as I hate to admit it), it's a job
well done. Or a game well played.
So, what kind of game should I be looking for? One that brings satisfaction,
even if it requires that I work to earn it. Not just the satisfaction of
winning either--because there's always a certain superficial kind of
satisfaction in winning any game. "My game" should be one that I can derive
satisfaction from *working* at.
A simple test is: Can I lose, look back, and honestly and enthusiastically
say, "That was a great game! I love that game."
It's rare for me to be able to do that. If I win, I'm happy; but if I lose, I
get downhearted and reproach myself mercilessly. Especially if (as is often
the case in chess and always the case in checkers and usually the case in go) I
blundered the game away--again.
When it comes to dicey games or heavily themed games, I can lose and still look
back favorably on the game. But that's just because the surprises or the
imaginative immersion made it fun. It's not *satisfaction*; it's just
enjoyment.
When it comes to social games, I can lose and still look back favorably on the
game session. Good group of people, fun conversation, and so forth. But
that's not satisfaction either; it's just camaraderie.
Satisfaction comes in a strategy game, when I've made a plan, set things in
motion, adjusted to difficulties, recovered from setbacks, and played the very
best game I could. When I've done all that, the fact that I won or lost
doesn't weigh so heavily; the satisfaction is still there.
But, as David says above, there are many games around that afford opportunities
to find that kind of satisfaction.
I've been drawn to chess all my life just because it's classy and aesthetically
pleasing--more so than any other game I can think of. I had a fling with go,
which is also a superb game; but I found I didn't like the size or length of
the game (and wouldn't settle for playing on a smaller board) and didn't like
counting points.
As for Twixt--well, it's just not quite as classy or aesthetically pleasing.
Another advantage of chess is that excellent software abounds. I play a lot of
solo games for practice (since practice is what I'm after anyway); and it's
nice to have the choice of handheld games, sensory chess boards, tutorial sets,
and so forth.
There's also the abundance of chess literature. I've enjoyed chess and bridge
much more than most other abstract strategy games, just because I was able to
read primers that got me into the game instead of leaving me to "sink or swim."
I've *never* gotten the hang of checkers or five-in-a-row games; and I think
it's mainly because I never found a decent strategy guide to walk me through
what I ought to be doing. I just barely managed to learn go, thanks to a book
on it.
The only downside of chess is, as I said before, that it frustrates me to
tears. I can set the computer player on Novice level and win handily most
every time; but there's no real satisfaction in that. Yet the moment I raise
it to Intermediate level, I'm beating my head against a brick wall.
Games like backgammon, cribbage, and dominoes are much easier for me to handle.
They give me plenty to think about, yet don't *demand* that I wrack my brain
every game. These three games have a very pleasant, balanced feel to them;
they suit me nicely. However, they're very dicey games; and as such, they
sometimes give me the *unearned* satisfaction of winning. Because of that, I
suspect they encourage lazy habits. (Also, I don't care much for games that
require a lot of counting or probability calculation.)
--P. C.,
Minnesota