[kyshoc]

While I appreciate the “middle” metaphor, I think it’s unwise to generalize business (and real life situations, more broadly) as a chess game — life doesn’t often come with symmetric information and zero-sum stakes. Annie Duke says it better than I can, in her book[0]:

> “Chess is not a game [in a game theory sense]. Chess is a well-defined form of computation. You may not be able to work out the answers, but in theory there must be a solution, a right procedure in any position […] If you lose at a game of chess, it must be because there were better moves that you didn’t make or didn’t see.”

> “The decisions we make in our lives—in business, saving and spending, health and lifestyle choices, raising our children, and relationships—easily fit von Neumann’s definition of ‘real games.’ They involve uncertainty, risk, and occasional deception […] Trouble follows when we treat life decisions as if they were chess decisions.”

[0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35957157

[dharmaturtle]

As with any metaphor, one can take it too far.

I agree with you that life doesn't come with symmetric information, but to argue that "Chess is a well-defined form of computation" is a bit much. Go/Weiqi is also a computation problem given this argument. What precludes asymmetric info games like poker from being "computation" problems, if one takes a wide enough view (to include the unknowns as the modeled state)? Quantum computing inherently probabilistic.

Your second argument is about zero sum stakes, and I think this criticism applies to virtually all "toy" games we play.

> They involve uncertainty, risk, and occasional deception

As do decisions in chess, because the players aren't perfect computers.

[csa]

> Go/Weiqi is also a computation problem given this argument.

I agree with the assessment that it is a computation problem.

As a go player for 25 years, I never thought that I would see a computer consistently beat a strong amateur in my lifetime (with many decades still theoretically left to live). Not only did I see it much sooner than I expected, but AI beats the best pros at an almost 100% win rate.

Within the Go community, there is consternation that a computer can make some moves that humans probably shouldn’t make due to the ability of the computer to follow up properly where humans cannot (yet).

This may change over time, but right now the computation part of the go world is much closer to expressing perfect play in a complete information game than humans are.

> What precludes asymmetric info games like poker from being "computation" problems, if one takes a wide enough view (to include the unknowns as the modeled state)?

Also as an avid poker player, I think many aspects of poker are rapidly leaning this direction, even though poker does not have complete information.

I’m not sure how much you know about the current poker scene, but GTO solvers have opened the poker world’s collective mind about what “good” play looks like, and the players are riding the tails of the computers in terms of strategic and tactical evolution.

In some formats, like heads up limit hold em, the game has been effectively solved.

Bringing it back to the original topic, I would love to see a GTO version of life. Even if it is hard to implement, it could provide a guide that informs decision making.

I personally don’t think I will see it in my lifetime. That said, like Go AI, I hope I’m wrong.

[abnry]

As someone else said in a comment, while any metaphor has its limits, I feel that there are many more analogies to make with chess.

As a mediocre chess player who has played too many subpar bullet games, I've begun to recognize patterns. For instance, sometimes my opponent has a good move that they are ignoring, but then I make a bad move that naturally highlights that good move. And then my opponent makes that good move. To me, it seems there should be some good analogies to make in business, where your decision spurs your competitor to make a great decision. I just can't think of any.

Or the idea that chess is about keeping your options as wide open as possible and limiting your opponents options (i.e., to restrict the king). That's one reason you might play for the center. It is certainly why the Queen is more valuable than all the other pieces... she has more squares she can move to. Typically a knight on the edge of the board is inferior to a knight in the center because the edge reduces its 8 maximum moves. IIRC, you can compare point values assigned to each piece with the number moves a piece can make average over all position in an empty chess board and see that the proportions match up. It is also why playing positionally matters. Your opponent could be up a piece but if one of them is trapped, it is almost like they are. That is an example of a un-usable advantage.

Or take simple tactics. Forks are when you have two threats on your opponent and they can't deal with both. It is a lose-lose situation for them. Or a pin is about restricting their movement. Sometimes the pin or fork is subtle, where the fork is between checkmate and capturing a piece.

There is a lot to explore here that goes far beyond "chess requires thinking deeply, chess requires anticipating your opponents moves, etc" that requires the pattern recognition that comes from playing many games.

[sorokod]

Zermelo's theorem for chess [1] emphasizes how different chess-like-games are from life.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%27s_theorem_(game_theo...

[rcoc]

In Dan Carlin's Hardcore History episode about the Nuclear Age, he makes a similar point about chess. The American leaders at that time didn't play chess, they played bridge as it simulated a more dynamic environment with a lot of missing information.

[paulddraper]

Indeed there exists a perfect chess game, where each side plays the optimal move. Any different move results in an equal or worse outcome/speed of outcome.

[jvanderbot]

"Unwise generalization to business" is the essential contribution of this blog. I've had the same feeling about nearly every post that made its way here.

[jvanderbot]

Referring to fs in particular.

[phkahler]

>> While I appreciate the “middle” metaphor,

You kind of have to use a metaphor to praise monopolist practices ;-)