I'm saying that regardless of whether you have a policy of satisficing or maximizing, both methods benefit from additional time spent thinking.

Taken literally, this is obviously and trivially true. You get more resources, your solution is likely to improve.

But in the context, the benefit is not costless. Time (in particular in a chess game) is a precious resource -- to justify spending it you need cost-benefit analysis.

Your position offers no criteria and no way to figure out when you've spent enough resources (time) and should stop -- and that is the real issue at hand.

Time (in particular in a chess game) is a precious resource -- to justify spending it you need cost-benefit analysis.

Position is also a precious resource in chess. You need to structure your play so that the trade-off between time and position is optimal, and cutting off your search the moment you think of a playable move is not that trade-off. Evidence in favor:

  1. I've personally competed in several mid-to-high-level chess tournaments and have an ELO rating of 1853. Every time I've ever blundered, it's been because of a failure to give the position a se
... (read more)

Rationality Quotes Thread March 2015

by Vaniver 1 min read2nd Mar 2015235 comments

8


Another month, another rationality quotes thread. The rules are:

  • Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be upvoted or downvoted separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
  • Do not quote yourself.
  • Do not quote from Less Wrong itself, HPMoR, Eliezer Yudkowsky, or Robin Hanson. If you'd like to revive an old quote from one of those sources, please do so here.
  • No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.
  • Provide sufficient information (URL, title, date, page number, etc.) to enable a reader to find the place where you read the quote, or its original source if available. Do not quote with only a name.