> there are generally two necessary aspects to "getting good": game knowledge and understanding your opponent
At the risk of overcomplicating an astute observation, I'd say that there are actually three aspects: game knowledge, maneuvering, and metagaming. That is to say that the ability to understand your opponent is fundamentally separate from one's ability to effectively foil them.
Iceworld embodies the platonic ideal of a maneuvering test by massively compressesing the total number of possible gamestates into a 3x3 grid of sightlines. The map itself isn't exactly a masterstroke, but it's nonetheless extremely impressive in the way that it manages to avoid collapsing into degenerate gamestates after jettisoning so much complexity.
At the risk of overcomplicating an astute observation, I'd say that there are actually three aspects: game knowledge, maneuvering, and metagaming. That is to say that the ability to understand your opponent is fundamentally separate from one's ability to effectively foil them.
Iceworld embodies the platonic ideal of a maneuvering test by massively compressesing the total number of possible gamestates into a 3x3 grid of sightlines. The map itself isn't exactly a masterstroke, but it's nonetheless extremely impressive in the way that it manages to avoid collapsing into degenerate gamestates after jettisoning so much complexity.