I have reached similar conclusions but going through a very different path. And I think that computability theory can be of help for the particular issue you are dealing with in this article.
I vaguely remember you making an opposite point about martial arts, maybe eight years ago. I hope you forgive me if I am mis-remembering. Do you hold pluralist beliefs about martial arts? Or is Brazilian Ju Jujitsu the One True Theory? Would you say that you are "pluralist for now," but agree that one day we might solve chess?
"Nor am I saying 'there is only one style of martial art/philosophy that gets it right.' This is certainly not true. You can learn a lot from different styles and different philosophies. I have a black belt in Kenpo Karate and a 2nd degree black belt in Hakkoryu Jujitsu. Both styles have discovered truths that I haven’t yet found in BJJ."
I've said the Gracie's discovered some truth in their techniques, grounded in body mechanics. The rear-naked choke, for example, will be part of the Final Theory of Grappling, so long as human bodies remain the same.
BJJ blew most of the other competing theories out of the water and successfully refuted a bunch of inferior, isolated disciplines. That doesn't mean they created a final theory; it's been iterated on for the last century, and some of the Gracie's have been slow to adapt.
The chess analogy would be: I think 1. e4 is objectively an excellent opening for White. You cannot be a skillful chess player without having a competent response to it as black.
Excellent. And then again, If I - ranked 1700 - play the Reti against, say Magnus, I'd get destroyed. But if played it against a 1300 player, Id likely prevail. So even within the weak and strong forms, there are sub forms that leave the pluralism question unresolved? Maybe!
Great point. The poisoned pawn variation of the Sicilian: one of the sharpest lines in chess. Good or bad? Well, it depends on your skill level, the skill level of your opponent, and it's probably not a linear relationship.
Lower-rated players can memorize variations and beat players above their skill level. But they'll still lose to GMs with it. That said, GMs can use it too with great success!
I have reached similar conclusions but going through a very different path. And I think that computability theory can be of help for the particular issue you are dealing with in this article.
https://spearoflugh.substack.com/p/a-personal-journey
I vaguely remember you making an opposite point about martial arts, maybe eight years ago. I hope you forgive me if I am mis-remembering. Do you hold pluralist beliefs about martial arts? Or is Brazilian Ju Jujitsu the One True Theory? Would you say that you are "pluralist for now," but agree that one day we might solve chess?
I've never said BJJ was the One True Theory. You are referring to this article, in which I say the opposite: https://steve-patterson.com/how-brazilian-jujitsu-explains-the-popularity-of-bad-ideas/
"Nor am I saying 'there is only one style of martial art/philosophy that gets it right.' This is certainly not true. You can learn a lot from different styles and different philosophies. I have a black belt in Kenpo Karate and a 2nd degree black belt in Hakkoryu Jujitsu. Both styles have discovered truths that I haven’t yet found in BJJ."
I've said the Gracie's discovered some truth in their techniques, grounded in body mechanics. The rear-naked choke, for example, will be part of the Final Theory of Grappling, so long as human bodies remain the same.
BJJ blew most of the other competing theories out of the water and successfully refuted a bunch of inferior, isolated disciplines. That doesn't mean they created a final theory; it's been iterated on for the last century, and some of the Gracie's have been slow to adapt.
The chess analogy would be: I think 1. e4 is objectively an excellent opening for White. You cannot be a skillful chess player without having a competent response to it as black.
Ah yes. Thank you!
Excellent. And then again, If I - ranked 1700 - play the Reti against, say Magnus, I'd get destroyed. But if played it against a 1300 player, Id likely prevail. So even within the weak and strong forms, there are sub forms that leave the pluralism question unresolved? Maybe!
Great point. The poisoned pawn variation of the Sicilian: one of the sharpest lines in chess. Good or bad? Well, it depends on your skill level, the skill level of your opponent, and it's probably not a linear relationship.
Lower-rated players can memorize variations and beat players above their skill level. But they'll still lose to GMs with it. That said, GMs can use it too with great success!
Agreed :)