What he meant is when you can handle the speed, and no longer have to think about how to get the piece where you want it to go, then you have more time to think about where you want to put it.
My impression was that your language was attacking. Here are my main reasons: 1. You used superlatives to make your post sound more negative than it needed to be. For example, "I'm genuinely incapable of understanding it" and "one of the most useless words in existence" and "This makes no sense at all". 2. Your communication was mostly unidirectional, just like an attack tries to be unidirectional. In other words, you fired off a set of negative statements, but your post was not balanced with polite questions that would have allowed a cooperative resolution of any issues you had (your post did have 1 question, but it was not phrased politely). 3. You seemingly tried to pile on more negative points so that you would have some sort of critical mass to support your view that DIGITAL's post was impossible to understand even after 3 readings. But on closer inspection, 3 out of 6 of the points you made (that's half!) were actually subjective statements on writing style, not examples of impossible sentences to understand. I happen to agree with some of those unnecessary opinions, but they were not a necessary part of your communication, and only served to make it sound more negative than it really needed to be. I think you could make your language sound more cooperative and less attacking by completely dropping your subjective comments about writing style, and then, rather than using superlatives to point out all of the sentences that you think were written so badly that you couldn't possibly understand them, try instead to ask polite and directed questions about the specific sentences you would like him to clarify. I actually think you have a talent for communicating clearly.
That's an interesting question. I'd say yes. The wiki, this forum, and the community in general are evidence of such a phenomenon. Documentations of strategies on the wiki, discussions on the forum, videos/replays, etc. all become an aid to your intuition. Developing software for such a goal...possible but would you take on such a task?
If I'm following what you guys are saying about "intuitions", I'd say there's 2 things that have to happen: You have to unlearn certain placements that are unfeasible at high speeds. Stuff like double and triple tapping. For that right now you can simply grind a little Death 500. The only way a trainer could improve on that, is letting you get the same sort of practice without the speed prerequisite. This could be accomplished by giving long or infinite lock delay,and forbidding inefficient placements in other ways. For example, after a single tap left or right, the trainer could simply not let you single tap again unless lock delay was reset (DAS would still work). You must also learn new efficient placements that are typically neglected. Stuff like auto-synchros and DAS finesse. Right now there are wikis, videos, and Sakura mode for learning and practicing these. The only way a trainer could improve on that is with a lot of handcrafted technical drills that would force-feed the moves to you. Digital, care to confirm this is what you mean? If so, I don't relate to it. I definitely think about piece placements without interruption. This includes thinking about the next piece while I'm placing the current piece. In fact I'd say I'm often thinking about where to place the second preview before the first preview has even entered the screen. Because decision making and movement happen in parallel, sort of like talking while driving a car, movement is done for free. Now, complicated (and therefore slow and rarely practiced) input sequences are not free, but the reduced and polished moveset used by a player who can break the Shirase torikan should be completely automatic.
from my experience in speedcubing (and to a lesser extent SSBM) i'm not 100% sure decision making and movement happen in parallel all the time. Ideally it SHOULD, but sometimes you neglect to think ahead because you are too focused on what you are doing at the present moment. However I would expect strong players (such as yourself) not to have that problem since you're already used to thinking ahead and it's easy. One way I would put it is this: I can hold an intelligent conversation while playing tetris (/speedcubing/playing ssbm), so it shows that I can think about other things while i do "mindless" placement. However, when I do mindless play like that performance generally suffers because you're not making the smartest decisions. Sometimes even when you -think- you're concentrating on playing, you're really not--at least not in the right way. So it helps me sometimes to consciously direct my focus toward the game. I'm not sure how relevant this actually is though. XD ryan heise should know what I'm talking about. This is basically relating to going slow in speedcubing in order to get faster times. somewhat. unwordy version: movement SHOULD be done for free, but sometimes it isn't!
You mean something like a 20G version of Baboo from Lockjaw? Baboo applies a movement cost metric, and you have to get the high score while your remaining movement drains to zero. Have you any ideas how to measure the cost of movement in high-speed 20G?
I just gave an example in my post I think? Expressly forbid tapping more than once per lock delay reset. That's all it takes really.
Zaphod hit the point but I think maybe he overstated it just a bit. I'd say that thinking about where you want to get the piece to go is never completely eliminated but reduced (no matter how small) depending on the speed you can handle. This can be considered as improving your mental processing speed. I'd also like to add that mental and physical reaction contribute to increasing the time you can dedicate to piece placement decisions. When you say you think about the placements without interruption, which includes thinking ahead, I'd like to argue that the ability to confidently handle the speed (all 3 aspects of speed) enables you to do the former. Decision making and movement can happen in parallel, but there's an extent to this as you pointed out with "complicated" input sequences. Similarly, there are also "complicated" placement decisions that would demand more thought for the following pieces. The reason I put complicated in quotes is because it's an arbitrary (relative/subjective) term. You said that "complicated" input sequences are not free. If they are not free, then what do they cost? Surely the potential quality of your placement decision has to suffer if you have to devote more time to the input sequence. I don't want to get carried away with this "input sequence" term because it's too specific so I am using it in respect to the 3 aspects of speed. The "reduced and polished moveset" sounds like another way of saying "less complicated maneuvers." Every maneuver that requires input is complicated to some degree. The only maneuver that is not complicated is the one where you don't press any input. It sounds to me like you are saying that less complicated maneuvers become free once you can handle a certain speed level. If this is so, then why does it become harder when you attempt to tackle a speed level that is higher? I'm trying to say that there is an inverse correlation between speed and strategy. If one goes up, then the potential of the other will go down. Like I said above, the term "complicated" is arbitrary, even when applied to a single player. What can be seen as a maneuver that is easy to perform without much effort can become a chore when you are overwhelmed with thinking about placement decisions. The same applies to less complicated placement decisions that become increasingly harder to think about when the amount of time you are given to make those decisions continues to decrease. The driving car analogy is flawed. Let's call the quality of the conversation as the "placement decision" and the ability to drive the car as the "input sequence." Therefore, we can consider driving the car to be a "less complicated maneuver." As you increase the quality of your conversation by putting more thought into it, would it not become harder to drive the car? Can you discuss complex theoretical physics (let's assume that this is a "complicated placement decision") or something of the sort and still drive with the same level of competence? DDRKirby, I just noticed that I managed to repeat what you were saying.
It's something I'd like to do, although all of the ideas I'm thinking of depend on having a good AI to teach good intuitions. The rules need to be either extracted from a good player, or developed using some computer-scientific method such as genetic programming, simulated annealing or neural networks. Either way, it is not an easy task.
interesting question as well noticed. imo, documentations of "strategies" on the wiki related to TGM will not help you much. So far i see nothing related to concrete strategy, only stuff barely related to guru mumbo jumbo coding/disassembling. Sometime i read interesting though on this forum, but still not really concrete. recently i don't have much time to play TGM, and i'm losing faith in this community, just barely enjoying bashing amnesia wich is the wierdest pserson to listen to about TGM. After turning the M-roll problem upside down again and again, i understood that real strategy is essential... Actually my knowledge is not measurable. so i started to study the chess board, and was convinced to develop a software tool to enhance intuition. Yeah, such a brainstorming task... that 's i'm still researching and compiling. knowledge is Power. But light burn eye. and i was very afraid to discover that i know almost nothing about the game. So, yeah such a task. So much work done, and so much to come, and time needed for learning... TGM is played with the mind and not with the hands
You make it sound so depressing in that first paragraph jago. You're right though. Even with all our combined knowledge, we have not even compiled anything truly concrete. I'm not just referring to TGM style of play but to Tetris strategy in general (and we have a lot of those). It's natural as we are still in our infancy as a community, though I'm sure we can use a better outlet to discuss strategies and whatnot. Years down the line, I'm sure we'll be able to present something worthy.
at least it's not a big wall of text plus I've expressed the importance of playing naturally in irc before this topic
I'd agree with this, but let's take Master Mode for example. For a player who can clear level 999, I'd reckon he needs to spend about half of his TGM time solely playing invisible mode if he aims to get a GM any time soon.
Ah but caff, the death is consistent, no? To solely train in invis sounds quite similar to training in speed by starting at that level.
For consistency don't use trainers. But if you want to improve, I think trainers can help massively. For some people at least - we all learn in different ways.
What do you mean death is consistent? Speed itself is very scalable, but invisible mode is totally different than the usual game. Also something that I didn't mention before, don't start over. Never. Someone probably mentioned it higher up in the thread, and if so I'll reiterate. When you quit early, what you're really doing is robbing yourself of improvement. Forcing yourself to play through misdrops and general funkiness will force you to learn how to fix these problems, put more pressure on you not to make them in the future, and educate you in consistency altogether. If I were to make a Tetris game, I'd never put a quick restart or quit button. The problem comes when people think that trainers are a quick fix. In the end, marathon runners still have to put in the miles every week.
It's really an apples and oranges comparison since invisibility training is totally different to speed training in that they focus on different traits. The ability to play with invisibility is almost like a third trait: memory. Speed and strategy seems to be a lot more related. But I'm willing to bet memory somehow influences these two traits and vice versa, though to identify these influences would probably be very vague with my current understanding. If I had to guess, I would say something along the lines of memory having a positive correlation with both speed and strategy. If memory goes up, the potential of both the other two goes up and vice versa. But if either speed or strategy decreases (not both), something weird happens with memory and I'm not entirely sure how to describe it yet. My point from before is just saying that the death is still consistent because strategy and speed are both at a level where you can reach 999 and die in the invisible roll with similar results just about every time. It's progressive growth because you will still gradually improve in invisibility (assuming there is a connection between memory and speed/strategy), making it consistent. If we assume that there is such a connection among all three traits of memory, speed, and strategy, wouldn't it reasonable to conclude that training in one influences another? Let's say Player A just reaches 1200 Shirase and is completely overwhelmed by the speed minimum. He can either start over from 0 until he gets to that point again or he can start at 1200 and train that specifically. Now let's say there is a Player B who just reached the invisible roll and is completely overwhelmed by the memory minimum. He can either start over from 0 until he gets to that point again or he can start at the invisible roll. Using the connections I established above, increasing your potential speed will give you more comfort room for strategy and increasing your potential memory will give you more comfort room for both speed and strategy. I am only noting the similarities (that they both increase the potential of the other traits) and not debating the efficiencies of these two training methods. I wholeheartedly agree. I never restart unless I'm sure that there is no probability of fixing such problems. It has to be something EXTREMELY catastrophic to the extent where it's blatantly obvious there's no solution. I think that's what leads to many of my videos displaying some new form of mess that I've never dealt with before. But I have to admit, it's become confusing even for me about what is clearly a mess and what is seemingly a messy resolution. I can only imagine how much more confusing it might be for the person watching. Just to be sure, I'm not saying that trainers are a quick fix.
man, just buy a shitty rubbish out of function stick (10 bucks) , a new thrustmaster usb pad (10 bucks) and a sanwa stick with tsix seimitsu buttons (you can even buy only three to save a few more bucks) 30 bucks and you got your stick. and as for consistency, I've improved my best TAP time by 20 seconds in two weeks only by trying to get as many gold SK as possible.
