4 ms·

I concede that this is a pattern that I enjoy contemplating and could be confirmation bias. A "Go" philosophy, if it were indeed a thing, is in itself certainly

I concede that this is a pattern that I enjoy contemplating and could be confirmation bias. A "Go" philosophy, if it were indeed a thing, is in itself certainly not morally superior, as it ultimately tries to surround and eliminate enemy pieces in an attempt to control most of the board. Chess on the other hand also includes plenty of moves that are intended to control the board or provide small longterm advantages that are hopefully not fully clear to the opponent. I do think that the Eastern way of avoiding direct confrontation is a major cultural difference to the West, and is reflected in both Go and geopolitics. Going back to the article, any Strategist should probably study a wide range of games to maybe gain a small improvement in strategic thinking.

hef19898 3y ago
How do you define "Eastern", because the Mongols, Huns, Chinese, Japanese definetly didn't shy away from direct confrontation. Historically speaking.
- ajuc 3y ago
  And USA was isolationist not that long ago. Chess was already invented ;)
  - hef19898 3y ago
    West and East are relative anyway. Also, go far enough east, and what used to be west is all of a sudden east of you.
icegreentea2 3y ago
I think strategists should study a wide range of actual wars and conflicts, and fall back to games (as opposed to actual "war games") as like a third tier approach. And I think you're perception of "go" philosophy <-> geopolitics as practiced is absolutely confirmation bias. For one thing, Chinese Chess is absolutely a thing, and at least within China, is at least as popular, if not more popular than Go.