Wednesday, January 29, 2014
A Content-Free Reference to Go
As strategist and a student of the game of 'Go,' I am always intrigued to see references to the game - particularly when in the context of East Asian geopolitics.
I am often disappointed. Sadly, Boorman's The Protracted Game and Lai's "Learning from the Stones" [pdf] are the exception, not the rule. Most authors who cite Go when talking about East Asian geopolitics simply invoke it and then don't say anything of substance about it.
Such is the case with a recent article by Jin Kai in the Diplomat: A Game of Go: China and Japan Seek Advantages in East Asia. Besides Kai's title, he makes a single reference to go, saying that: “If we look at East Asia’s political map as a Go game board, China and Japan are rival players running into a deadlock, both holding their strategically important game pieces.” There is no insight specific to Go contained in Kai’s article. He mentions it and then goes on to characterize the geopolitical situation in terms that could be interpreted with equal validity using chess, or checkers for that matter.
Kai's superficial reference to Go galls me in particular because his article focuses on the "three main game pieces" that Japan and China each bring to bear in their competition. This is simply inappropriate for an article that supposedly looks at "East Asia's political map as a Go game board." Each stone is identical in Go; there are no different types of game pieces in Go. Stones derive power due to their proximity to friendly stones, which is why Go players study groups. Kai's framework of focusing on different types of game pieces is actually analogous to chess, not Go. I'd expect an article that claims to use the lens of Go to interpret East Asian geopolitics to at least get these elementary facts correct. When it doesn't, it makes the reference to Go meaningless.
I am often disappointed. Sadly, Boorman's The Protracted Game and Lai's "Learning from the Stones" [pdf] are the exception, not the rule. Most authors who cite Go when talking about East Asian geopolitics simply invoke it and then don't say anything of substance about it.
Such is the case with a recent article by Jin Kai in the Diplomat: A Game of Go: China and Japan Seek Advantages in East Asia. Besides Kai's title, he makes a single reference to go, saying that: “If we look at East Asia’s political map as a Go game board, China and Japan are rival players running into a deadlock, both holding their strategically important game pieces.” There is no insight specific to Go contained in Kai’s article. He mentions it and then goes on to characterize the geopolitical situation in terms that could be interpreted with equal validity using chess, or checkers for that matter.
Kai's superficial reference to Go galls me in particular because his article focuses on the "three main game pieces" that Japan and China each bring to bear in their competition. This is simply inappropriate for an article that supposedly looks at "East Asia's political map as a Go game board." Each stone is identical in Go; there are no different types of game pieces in Go. Stones derive power due to their proximity to friendly stones, which is why Go players study groups. Kai's framework of focusing on different types of game pieces is actually analogous to chess, not Go. I'd expect an article that claims to use the lens of Go to interpret East Asian geopolitics to at least get these elementary facts correct. When it doesn't, it makes the reference to Go meaningless.
