From: yucao@cco.caltech.edu (Yu Cao, aka Bobbo)
Subject: Re: Real world analogies to Go (& some comparison with Chess)
Keywords: go analogy life power chess 
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world 
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 18:38:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.175721.20148@ists.ists.ca> sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin) writes:
>Chess is no less abstract than Go.  While the figures on a chess board may
>remind you of people in some way or other, these similarities stop at the
>wood carving.  The real essense of chess is the relationship these figuress
>have with the board and with each other; and this is highly abstract.  There
>is nothing in the world which is a good analogy to the spirit of these little
>chess forces which zoom about in chess space altering relationships in a little
>chess universe.
>
>The only difference between chess and go as far as analogies go, is that in
>go the abstraction is more apparent. 
>
>On the other hand, in both chess and go I think there are strong analogies
>between each and the real world level at a still higher level of abstraction.
>
>In any situation which turns out to be a struggle for scarce resources,
>where victory is predicated on adjusting the relationships between groups,
>forces, sides, institutions, cultures, etc., until you have won advantages
>for yourself by making the "proper balance" of the situation favourable
>to you -- the thinking that goes on, and the fights that occur, and the
>conflicts are all similar to what happens on the go board.
> 
> And any situation which turns out to be a fight to the death between
> sides which have already obtained their resources; where victory is due
> to the side most able to manuever with those resources so as to concentrate
> the maximum force on some vital point.
>
> The analogies occur between these games and the type of thinking one must
> do.  Which is why I think Go is largely a strategic exercise, where one
> alters the situation to the point where even if one were to lose all of the
> local battles, overall victory is assured.  Whereas Chess is dominated by
> tactics, where one employs strategy only to produce a tactical advantage
> at some future point.
>
> Of course there is much overlap.  Sometimes the turning point of a grand
> strategy in Go depends on winning some advantage in some local fight,
> making the tactical analysis of that situation crucial.  While in Chess,
> someone who lacks the ability to develop situations won't go very far --
>  
>I think there is nothing in chess to compare with the strategic depth of Go; 
>and there is nothing in Go to compare with the tactical depth of chess. 
>
A side mark which may be obvious to all. I think the reason go is so 
strategically deep is because the interactions between pieces are local,
and a small battle can have a small effect on the whole board. While in
chess, with the existence of queens, castles and bishops, all the postions
on the board are tightly coupled (the board is smaller too). So just a couple
of 'tactical' moves can result in crucial difference.

Being a physics person I say go is a bit like the growth of crystal, with
different kinds of beauty on different scales and dimensions. (Come and think
about it the black and white pieces are indeed like + and - charges -- they
do cancel each other's effect when observed from a distance.) Chess is like
merging galaxies, having all the stars with huge momentum colliding with
each other and resulting in disasters.


--Yu
-- 
Yu Cao 					yucao@cco.caltech.edu
Caltech 103-33                          
Pasadena, CA 91125
Newsgroups: rec.games.go