Eastern vs Western Mind (Go vs Chess) by Josef Pieper

 To Whom It May Concern:
   I have been researching the question of habits of mind and culture

as being promoted by and/or reflected by certain board games. In particular, I have been investigating whether weiqi/go is representative of the “Asian mind” and whether international chess is representative of the “Western mind.”

   Apparently, I am not alone in raising this question.  Analysts in

political and military fields have been suggesting that weiqi/go, in particular, is emblematic of a particularly Chinese world view, rooted in Chinese philosophy and the Chinese practice of diplomacy and war. In contrast, international chess (along with poker, boxing and American football), have been proposed as expressive of a generically Western and particularly American world view, grounded in assumptions about conflict systematized in a magisterial fashion by Carl von Clausewitz in the 19th century (with roots going back much further) and largely vindicated by American experience throughout the 20th century and still being refined by Americans in the 21st century.

   The writers I have reviewed argue that achieving “victory” depends

upon which “game” one is playing. Paradoxically, one’s opponent may be playing an entirely different game. One is ignorant of such a datum at one’s peril. Specifically, Americans have been playing chess, poker, boxing and football (as examples of “force on force” games) in military and diplomatic arenas, while the Chinese have been playing weiqi/go. Consequently, the future may well belong to the Chinese, as weiqi/go emphasizes the wisdom of long-term strategy and planning and the rich rewards of patience. Several authors urge the West, and Americans in particular, to familiarize themselves with weiqi/go and thereby the Chinese mind, in order to understand and compete with an opponent who might otherwise be incomprehensible and therefore undefeatable.

   In pursuing this line of research, I have made use of a martial

arts analogy. I've read that one can develop a Tai Chi body and state of mind, or a Hsing-I body and state of mind or a Ba Gua body and state of mind. Do weiqi, xiangqi (Chinese chess) and international chess, mutatis mutandis, develop states or habits of mind and cultures that are unique to them? If I were to force the analogy, I would say that weiqi is like Tai-Chi, with fluid movements. International chess is like Hsing-I with its direct lines of attack and its emphasis on control of the center. Xiangqi is like Ba Gua with its emphasis on maneuver. As recently as 2004, the Strategic Studies Institute published a monograph that exhorted the study of weiqi/go as a means of understanding strategic conflict with China. I trust that you will find this excerpt to be illuminating:

   “The philosophy behind chess is to win decisively. For the winner,

victory is absolute, as is defeat for the loser. In chess, both players have the same clear and overriding objective―capturing the opposing king―and accomplish this objective by decimating whatever opposing forces are standing in the way. In go, total victory usually happens between two mismatched players. That kind of victory, as Sun Tzu puts it, is not the pinnacle of excellence. In a go game between two well-matched players, the margin between win and lose is usually very small, often decided by only a few points. The philosophy behind go therefore is to compete for relative gain rather than seeking complete annihilation of the opponent’s forces. It is dangerous to play go with the chess mindset. One can become overly aggressive so that he will stretch his force thin and expose his vulnerable parts in the battlefields.

   In chess, the focus is on the king. All the moves are geared toward

checking the king. In designs to capture the king, chess players always try to eliminate the powerful pieces such as the queen, knight, castle, and bishop. Chess players typically focus on these powerful military units as the ‘center of gravity’ and ‘decisive point’ (in Clausewitz and Jomini’s terms). Naturally, chess players are single-minded. In go, it is a war with multiple campaigns and battlefields. There is no one single focus on the board. A go player must always keep the whole situation in mind. Attacking the opponent’s strategy therefore is much more appropriate in go. As a prolonged and complex game, go players focus on building or creating rather than chess players’ emphases on removal and destruction.” (David Lai, “Learning From The Stones: A Go Approach To Mastering China’s Strategic Concept, Shi, pp. 28-29)

   As early as 1969, a junior fellow of the Society of Fellows of

Harvard University advocated the exploitation of a weiqi/go paradigm (“the protracted game”) as a means of at least understanding if not contending with Maoist China (and by implication, Vietnam): “Any school of strategic thought, whether Chinese Communist or Clausewitzian, contains two intellectual elements: on the one hand, universal pan-strategic principles; on the other, axioms which are the distinguishing features of the particular system and which represent the empirical and subjective conclusions of its exponents. The function of the wei-ch’i model is to provide a systematic methodology for analyzing and structuring the contingent elements of the Chinese Communist strategic system.

   The importance of this function may be illustrated by the following

passages from an essay Fung Yu-lan, one of modern China’s leading philosophers. As already mentioned, the hsiang-ch’i referred to is the Chinese equivalent of Western chess; both wei-ch’i and hsiang-ch’i are generically called ch’i. Wrote Fung:

‘Wei-ch’i has wei-ch’i rules; hsiang-ch’i has hsiang-ch’i rules. If one is playing wei-ch’i then one is bound by wei-ch’i rules; and likewise for hsiang-ch’i. Nor is it necessarily a matter of choice what form of ch’i is played. Stones and grid-board are necessary prerequisites for wei-ch’i; the chessmen and the eighty-one squares, for hsiang-ch’i.’

   Turning to the shortcomings of the Chinese intelligentsia of the

early republican period who failed to recognize the problems of Chinese society, Fung proceeds:

‘This is just like someone who only knows how to play wei-ch’i and who does not know that there is more than one kind of ch’i, who, when he sees the opening position in hsiang-ch’i, cries, “How can you start like this? You’re wrong, you’re wrong!” Again, seeing a piece move, he criticizes, “How can you move a piece already played? You’re playing illegally.” When the wei-ch’i people of this world, who don’t know hsiang-ch’i, criticize it in this fashion, it can truly be said to be the funniest thing in the world.’ (Fung [Feng] Yu-lan, “Hsin Shih Lun [Changsha: Commercial Press, 1940], pp. 66-67.)

   The problems confronted by American, and in fact, all Western

statesmen, soldiers, and scholars in dealing with the People’s Republic of China or with Maoist strategy in general are precisely those of the hsiang-ch’i player faced with a wei-ch’i game and a wei-ch’i strategy. All too often the Western reaction resembles that implied by Fung Yu-lan: suspicion, confusion, and contempt. ‘Know yourself and know your enemy,’ said Sun Tzu; ‘one hundred battles, one hundred victories.’

As a means, if only partial, to knowledge of the Chinese Communist

player, understanding of the protracted game is a critical adjunct for the Western side in all strategic situations of Sino-Western conflict or accord.” (Scott A. Boorman ,“The Protracted Game: A Wei-ch’i Interpretation of Maoist Revolutionary Strategy,” pp. 183-184.)

   I am not writing as a political scientist, a military strategist or

a diplomat. I am writing as a game player, seeking counsel from other game players. Do you find the notion that board games can establish habits of mind and frames of reference and can form, reflect and interpret cultures to be credible? Perhaps even persuasive? If so, what should we as parents, educators and policy makers be doing in terms of the promotion of game playing among our younger generation? Do these considerations motivate you to study any of these games more intensively? Why or why not?

   I thank you for your time and attention, and I look forward to your

responses.