[001]
79.161.28.106
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
In the context of chess:
- playing X because it\'s a good move, is playing the game chess, not playing the metagame
- playing X explicitly because it is an unusual opening you think you are more familiar with than your opponent could be considered metagaming
- playing Y against X because you know good responses to most variations in this line is using a well known strategy (for instance the Sicilian defense), not metagming
- playing Z as a response to X, not particularly because it is a good move, but because you have analysed your opponent\'s habits and found that he tends to get tired and blunder in long games, is considered metagaming
- trading your bishop for a rook because you consider a rook to be a more valuable piece is basic strategy, not metagaming
- sacrificing your queen to force a mate is a tactical combination, not metagaming
- trading queens off the board because it increases the chance of a draw is a strategy known as simplification, not metagaming
- trading queens off, explicitly because you consider yourself a stronger in the endgame than in the midgame, is playing to your own strengths, at best borderline metagaming
- trading queens off, because you know your opponent is desperate for a win and might make dubious moves to avoid a draw would be metagaming
- playing X because it\'s a good move, is playing the game chess, not playing the metagame
- playing X explicitly because it is an unusual opening you think you are more familiar with than your opponent could be considered metagaming
- playing Y against X because you know good responses to most variations in this line is using a well known strategy (for instance the Sicilian defense), not metagming
- playing Z as a response to X, not particularly because it is a good move, but because you have analysed your opponent\'s habits and found that he tends to get tired and blunder in long games, is considered metagaming
- trading your bishop for a rook because you consider a rook to be a more valuable piece is basic strategy, not metagaming
- sacrificing your queen to force a mate is a tactical combination, not metagaming
- trading queens off the board because it increases the chance of a draw is a strategy known as simplification, not metagaming
- trading queens off, explicitly because you consider yourself a stronger in the endgame than in the midgame, is playing to your own strengths, at best borderline metagaming
- trading queens off, because you know your opponent is desperate for a win and might make dubious moves to avoid a draw would be metagaming
to:
In the context of chess:\\\\\\\\
- playing X because it\\\'s a good move, is playing the game chess, not playing the metagame\\\\\\\\
- playing X explicitly because it is an unusual opening you think you are more familiar with than your opponent could be considered metagaming\\\\\\\\
- playing Y against X because you know good responses to most variations in this line is using a well known strategy (for instance the Sicilian defense), not metagaming\\\\\\\\
- playing Z as a response to X, not particularly because it is a good move, but because you have analysed your opponent\\\'s habits and found that he tends to get tired and blunder in long games, is considered metagaming\\\\\\\\
- trading your bishop for a rook because you consider a rook to be a more valuable piece is basic strategy, not metagaming\\\\\\\\
- sacrificing your queen to force a mate is a tactical combination, not metagaming\\\\\\\\
- trading queens off the board because it increases the chance of a draw is a strategy known as simplification, not metagaming\\\\\\\\
- trading queens off, explicitly because you consider yourself a stronger in the endgame than in the midgame, is playing to your own strengths, at best borderline metagaming\\\\\\\\
- trading queens off, because you know your opponent is desperate for a win and might make dubious moves to avoid a draw would be metagaming\\\\\\\\
- playing X because it\\\'s a good move, is playing the game chess, not playing the metagame\\\\\\\\
- playing X explicitly because it is an unusual opening you think you are more familiar with than your opponent could be considered metagaming\\\\\\\\
- playing Y against X because you know good responses to most variations in this line is using a well known strategy (for instance the Sicilian defense), not metagaming\\\\\\\\
- playing Z as a response to X, not particularly because it is a good move, but because you have analysed your opponent\\\'s habits and found that he tends to get tired and blunder in long games, is considered metagaming\\\\\\\\
- trading your bishop for a rook because you consider a rook to be a more valuable piece is basic strategy, not metagaming\\\\\\\\
- sacrificing your queen to force a mate is a tactical combination, not metagaming\\\\\\\\
- trading queens off the board because it increases the chance of a draw is a strategy known as simplification, not metagaming\\\\\\\\
- trading queens off, explicitly because you consider yourself a stronger in the endgame than in the midgame, is playing to your own strengths, at best borderline metagaming\\\\\\\\
- trading queens off, because you know your opponent is desperate for a win and might make dubious moves to avoid a draw would be metagaming\\\\\\\\
Changed line(s) 15 from:
n
A few of the lines on the page I would have preferred to change are:
- Chess has a metagame, evolved over eons of play. One might say that the metagame is the game. --- Knowing lines well are important in chess, but this is to know the game itself, not the metagame.
- Go, having existed for thousands of years with one of the simplest rulesets in the board-game world, is even more purely metagame. --- This doesn\'t even make sense. Emergent complexity has very little to do with metagame.
- Anyone who\'s played Ticket To Ride knows how important the little two-train and three-train routes into Las Vegas can become, and experienced players will often fight over who nabs those routes on turns two and three. --- A particular route being particularly valuable or scarce is not metagame, unless the reasons it was popular were something external to the game itself.
- Chess has a metagame, evolved over eons of play. One might say that the metagame is the game. --- Knowing lines well are important in chess, but this is to know the game itself, not the metagame.
- Go, having existed for thousands of years with one of the simplest rulesets in the board-game world, is even more purely metagame. --- This doesn\'t even make sense. Emergent complexity has very little to do with metagame.
- Anyone who\'s played Ticket To Ride knows how important the little two-train and three-train routes into Las Vegas can become, and experienced players will often fight over who nabs those routes on turns two and three. --- A particular route being particularly valuable or scarce is not metagame, unless the reasons it was popular were something external to the game itself.
to:
A few of the lines on the page I would have preferred to change are:\\\\\\\\
- Chess has a metagame, evolved over eons of play. One might say that the metagame is the game. --- Knowing lines well are important in chess, but this is to know the game itself, not the metagame.\\\\\\\\
- Go, having existed for thousands of years with one of the simplest rulesets in the board-game world, is even more purely metagame. --- This doesn\\\'t even make sense. Emergent complexity has very little to do with metagame.\\\\\\\\
- Anyone who\\\'s played Ticket To Ride knows how important the little two-train and three-train routes into Las Vegas can become, and experienced players will often fight over who nabs those routes on turns two and three. --- A particular route being particularly valuable or scarce is not metagame, unless the reasons it was popular were something external to the game itself.\\\\\\\\
- Chess has a metagame, evolved over eons of play. One might say that the metagame is the game. --- Knowing lines well are important in chess, but this is to know the game itself, not the metagame.\\\\\\\\
- Go, having existed for thousands of years with one of the simplest rulesets in the board-game world, is even more purely metagame. --- This doesn\\\'t even make sense. Emergent complexity has very little to do with metagame.\\\\\\\\
- Anyone who\\\'s played Ticket To Ride knows how important the little two-train and three-train routes into Las Vegas can become, and experienced players will often fight over who nabs those routes on turns two and three. --- A particular route being particularly valuable or scarce is not metagame, unless the reasons it was popular were something external to the game itself.\\\\\\\\
