Newton discovered that there is an interaction between two material objects, the character of which is that two bodies attract each other with a force which is directly proportional to their mass, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. It turns out that the nature of interaction taking place between living objects can be described in a similar way. It is obviously not as simple as Newton’s law of universal gravitation, yet it is quite formalized. I have read many books about a mathematical approach to the issues of life, but none of them dealt with the concept of pursuance, and none of them attempted to generalize the interaction between living objects.
The issue itself is relatively simple and, as we will discover in a moment, it successfully explains many situations. Its deeper analysis allows for discovering complex phenomena, with direct results such as: tactics and strategy, improvement mechanisms or issues regarding the feasibility or effectiveness of actions.
Pursuance is a generalized type of interaction between two objects, resulting from their pursuit of a goal; a specific goal, which is a result of a natural conflict of interest between living objects. Let us discuss it using an example of a group of phenomena and issues occurring during a chase and an escape. It would be an error to identify pursuance only with the idea of a chase, because the goals involved can be very different such as wealth, satisfaction, a watch or food, and there are many ways to pursue these things. For example, wealth can be obtained with a slick political manoeuvre, winning the lottery or working effectively, and one can own a watch by buying or stealing it, or possibly by making it oneself.
But to the point. Let’s examine two objects: N - pursuantly chasing (pursuantly trying to achieve its goal) and C - pursuantly fleeing (pursuantly trying to prevent N from achieving its goal, because the achievement of its goal by N will be equal to a loss for C). The goal of N is to catch up to C, the goal of C is to escape from N. The conflict of interest is that what N is pursuing is exactly what C wants to avoid.
Let’s look at the drawing which shows this situation at the initial state t0. The action performed by N consists of the following sequence: locating the position of the fleeing object, tracking the direction of the chase, performing an action which transforms some of its resources into speed in order to move closer to the goal. It is obvious that the sense of speed vector is the same as the direction of the chase, but its value is not as obvious. For if it is too small, N will not catch C. If it is too high, it will be harder to manoeuvre, and in an extreme case, could even cause N to self-destruct. There is also a possibility that C will dodge to the side and the speeding N will pass by, thereby not achieving its goal. High speed is also related with an increased use of resources and can cause the pursuant to be forced to stop before it has reached its goal as it has exhausted them. Already at this stage of our discussion, we can see an outline of few interesting issues which a pursuing object might have to consider. These include: issues related to locating the goal, the methodology of determining a suitable speed of pursuit, balancing resources and estimating the chance of achieving its goal.
Let's examine the situation in the next moment - t1. N locates the position of C again and concludes that C is not on the course of the chase set out in t0. Based on this observation, N concludes, quite reasonably, that C is not standing in one place but is changing its location. A question arises here; is this a natural change, which confirms with C's regular behaviour, or is it a result of the fact that C noticed that it is being chased by N and has taken appropriate steps related with an effective escape? N must take each of these possibilities into account in its analysis to determine the new direction and the new speed of the chase. N must make some assumptions about the movement of C. It could, for example, assume that C will continue to move in the same direction as before, meaning that in time period t1t2, it will move in exactly the same way as in t0t1.
Let’s say that N has adopted this assumption and set out a new direction for its chase on this basis. This situation is presented in the drawing “t1 moment of the pursuance - prognosis". By the way, let's notice that at t0, N did not have to think about this aspect and was not basing its actions on any assumptions, it simply directed itself towards C and started to move. At that point, it was obvious for us: since N knew nothing about the behaviour of C, it assumed the simplest method for the chase, which initially seemed to be the most effective. At t1, this method is neither the most obvious nor the most effective - all because C started to move. Taking this fact into account, N must engage all its intelligence in order to find the most effective chasing method. This methodology of preparing its next move, which will take us to our goal in the most effective way, is called tactics.
Let’s see how the situation developed in the third stage - t2. Everything depends on whether N has predicted the behaviour of C correctly. If so, it will make a slight correction in direction at t2, which takes into account the further movement of C at a fixed rate, in which case it can speed up, reducing the duration of the chase. So, if object N manages to determine the character of C's movement correctly, the pursuance will use less resources and will be shorter. Let’s not forget, that each action carries a certain expense. Everything costs: generating speed, measurements and analysis, and the object must use its resources to cover these costs.
Let us now consider another possible variant of the situation in the t2 moment. Let’s try to find out how the chase would develop if the prognosis of the fleeing object’s movement was incorrect and C was in a different location than that predicted by N. It would then require a major correction in its movement and, as a result, increase its costs. Speeding up the chase would not be possible as, in short, the chase would become less effective. The correction of movement itself is a problem, because it is not certain which method should be applied. N could try to discover the pattern of C’s movement and wonder if it moves on a sinusoid, for example, but as for now, there is too little data for such analysis. An attempt to discover the pattern in the escaping object’s movement is nothing else but determining its characteristics, or, to put it in a more general way, to discover the escape tactic. Let us note that object C can also look for effective solutions, similar to N. It can, for example, want to be caught because the achievement of the goal by N is equivalent to gaining of an advantage by C, or the opposite. Aware of the threat of a loss, it might want to escape at any costs, using an analysis of the chasing object’s movement.
Let us consider how this chase would look without the attempts to discover these characteristics? If N kept using the same method, let's call it straight pursuance, it would consist of performing the same actions at every moment: locating, setting out a direction of the fastest approach and moving in that direction.
Most of us cannot do this, because either we are not able to measure or set ourselves realistic goals (the desire is not a goal) or use the wrong methods. Everyone wants to be rich, but not everyone wants to be an Olympic champion because we know how much hard work and sacrifice it costs. If you want to be rich, you need to realize that the path to this goal is very similar to sports training - tedious, monotonous and continually consistent.
Our army is object A opposing B, object A must conquer B:
The military staff were pretty inefficient, they lost the ability to command almost immediately when the army began to move. They did not have enough means of communication and if they had them, they did not know how to use them. And besides there came another "unexpected" factor, "by his persistent counterattacks the enemy disturbed our perfectly created plans".
In short, the soviet military staff were more like a groups of retarded school children rather than the "brains of the army".
[Bieszanow W., "Defence of Leningrad", page 161]
This is a typical case where A wrongly assumes that B will not react. And in reality B reacts so efficiently that it destroys the pursuance abilities of A.
Play against better players and learn off them and then adapting how you play.
First, get involved and then we'll see.
The art of speech shows that speeches previously prepared does not create the desired effect on the audience. The speaker should alter his speech depending on the impression he has already made.
Gustave le Bon "Psychology of the crowd"