The Game of Go in Chinese strategy

Teller August 10, 2020 at 06:55 2950 views 11 comments

I'd be interested to know if anyone on TPF has followed recent articles about the game of Go and recent Chinese strategy, particularly in the South China Sea.

Several of the pieces I have read are encouraging US military and intelligence officials to learn the game to gain insight into China's intentions

Thoughts?

Comments (11)

Banno August 10, 2020 at 10:21 #441681 0 likes

Citations?

fdrake August 10, 2020 at 13:24 #441712 0 likes

Every time there's a western - Asian conflict of some sort someone will always bring out the Chess vs Go strategy paradigm clickbait article. It was done with the Vietmin, it's being done now. The story goes that Chess playing nations think they win if they achieve "the key objective", Go playing nations think they win if they achieve "the greatest overall control". Over the years I've seen maybe... 4 or 5 news stories like that, and I don't remember any of them having any ounce of research in them. Just speculation and trope matching.

Ciceronianus August 10, 2020 at 18:29 #441755 0 likes

Really, you know, they're just games. Wonderful games (chess I know is, Go I heard is), but games nonetheless.

Dogar August 10, 2020 at 19:21 #441760 0 likes

Reply to Banno

I would be curious in reading this too if you could link the original article OP.

Deleted User August 10, 2020 at 21:25 #441788 0 likes

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Teller August 11, 2020 at 00:30 #441858 0 likes

Reply to Dogar Reply to Banno

"Learning from the Stones": A Go Approach To Mastering China's Strategic Concept, SHI. David Lai, www.carslile.mil/ssi May 2004.

Dated, but I believe accurate

Banno August 11, 2020 at 03:18 #441887 0 likes

Reply to Teller Anyone able to provide a link?

Hanover August 11, 2020 at 12:55 #441988 0 likes

I recall several years ago (which is documented in the Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo#cite_note-latimes_milestone-66, which is a cite (sort of) as demanded by @Banno) that Go was thought of as too complex a challenge for AI programmers due to Go being a spatially based game with generalized principles. Chess, on the other hand, lent itself to mathematical number crunching, so it was something that could be deciphered by AI programmers.

That theory held true until AI programmers began making Go programs that beat the top players, suggesting to me that the real reason Go AI programs lagged behind chess ones was likely due to commercial reasons in that there was more money in deciphering chess than Go.

opt-ae August 11, 2020 at 13:40 #441999 0 likes

War strategists can learn from chess or go, in the same way war strategists can learn from poker or a video game; recently Mark T Esper said "America will never lose it's ability to dare" - which I'm sure is a poker/gambling reference.

I'd say collectively, every type of game, is only quart of the truth about war - and China is wrong to have suggested it should be thought like Go. War is not always played; war is like a performance, war is like a race, like food, etc. The best way to think about war logically is more about a mind-game than it is a man-made game; in theory, China played a bad mind-game here which will be easy to retaliate to, and it may end up problematic.

Ciceronianus August 11, 2020 at 14:47 #442015 0 likes

https://fortune.com/2016/03/12/googles-go-computer-vs-human/

Hanover is right (see link). And, as a chess player who has resented claims that computers can beat people at chess, but not at Go, I say to Go fans nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah.

Banno August 11, 2020 at 20:19 #442112 0 likes

Meh. Wife recently bought me Stratego, which has been played enthusiastically for a week or so. Unlike Chess, and more like life, there is no perfect strategy.

Stratego AIs have only achieved mediocrity.