For example, experienced chess players losing repeatedly to a complete beginner because they’re used to playing
against stronger and stronger opponents as they were gaining their experience.
One interesting question here is what are the features of games where this does happen? In my view a much weaker player may win against a much stronger player in a game where the following features are present:
(a) There is strong “metagame” (that is, multiple equilibria). A beginner may not be aware of the current equilibrium and may defect in hard to predict ways that may give an advantage.
(b) There is randomness. A much stronger player may be modelled as a computationally omnipotent adversary. Such adversaries still cannot “read the minds” of randomness sources. A game that interprets a beginner’s flailing as randomness can make it situationally powerful.
(c) The game is short enough such that the stronger player cannot learn what’s going on due to (a) or (b) quickly enough to turn the tide.
One interesting question here is what are the features of games where this does happen? In my view a much weaker player may win against a much stronger player in a game where the following features are present:
(a) There is strong “metagame” (that is, multiple equilibria). A beginner may not be aware of the current equilibrium and may defect in hard to predict ways that may give an advantage.
(b) There is randomness. A much stronger player may be modelled as a computationally omnipotent adversary. Such adversaries still cannot “read the minds” of randomness sources. A game that interprets a beginner’s flailing as randomness can make it situationally powerful.
(c) The game is short enough such that the stronger player cannot learn what’s going on due to (a) or (b) quickly enough to turn the tide.