As the saying goes, “the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.” but this should not preclude us from laying out a path and exploring. I think this is your point, or at least a portion of it.
Akin to the game of chess; the game is only possible when you have an opponent and your strategy will be modified as the match unfolds. By necessity, your course is altered because, at best, just like any other relationship in life, you have only 50 percent say in the outcome.
It becomes the game to manipulate the opponent into maneuvering to your will. However, if you are daft enough to underestimate the opponent, you forget you are being manipulated as well. This is the experiment: Test of skill, test of will and a test of adaptation. If we take the same familiar course to the destination we are unaware of what lies in the shadows. This is how we become ignorant and complacent while gaining competence. What hides in the shadows will eventually take you by surprise.
I will argue though that implementing constraints is not the same thing as game planning. Or maybe it's a very unique subset of game planning.
When I think of game planning, I think that it's about working backward from a specific aim. But with constraints there is no specific aim (except of course to get outside your main line and be forced to solve novel problems)
I love this idea of covertly constraining your open sparring. I’ve never heard of it. I usually just do my game and see where it goes. I’m trying to be more goal oriented when it comes to sparring, like having a plan when it comes to training. Thanks for this concept it’ll help me figure out what Id like to work on and how to in each sparring session.
As the saying goes, “the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.” but this should not preclude us from laying out a path and exploring. I think this is your point, or at least a portion of it.
It's when the plan goes awry that we have the opportunity to learn.
Agreed.
Akin to the game of chess; the game is only possible when you have an opponent and your strategy will be modified as the match unfolds. By necessity, your course is altered because, at best, just like any other relationship in life, you have only 50 percent say in the outcome.
It becomes the game to manipulate the opponent into maneuvering to your will. However, if you are daft enough to underestimate the opponent, you forget you are being manipulated as well. This is the experiment: Test of skill, test of will and a test of adaptation. If we take the same familiar course to the destination we are unaware of what lies in the shadows. This is how we become ignorant and complacent while gaining competence. What hides in the shadows will eventually take you by surprise.
Exploration is then paramount.
There be dragons in the shadows, that should be no surprise. Nor should it be a surprise that they're guarding something valuable.
Exploration is not for the faint of heart, and neither is combat... or any other contest.
I will argue though that implementing constraints is not the same thing as game planning. Or maybe it's a very unique subset of game planning.
When I think of game planning, I think that it's about working backward from a specific aim. But with constraints there is no specific aim (except of course to get outside your main line and be forced to solve novel problems)
I love this idea of covertly constraining your open sparring. I’ve never heard of it. I usually just do my game and see where it goes. I’m trying to be more goal oriented when it comes to sparring, like having a plan when it comes to training. Thanks for this concept it’ll help me figure out what Id like to work on and how to in each sparring session.
Glad this idea sparked something in you! Report back with what you discover.