Philosophy

A comparison of Go and chess is often used as a parallel to explain Western versus Eastern strategic thinking. Go begins with an empty board. It is focused on building from the ground up (nothing to something) with multiple, simultaneous battles leading to a point-based win. Chess, one can say, is in the end tactical rather than strategic, as the predetermined strategy is to kill one individual piece (the king). This comparison has also been applied to military and political history, with Scott Boorman's 1969 book The Protracted Game exploring the strategy of the Communist Party of China in the Chinese Civil War through the lens of Go.

?

A similar comparison has been drawn among Go, chess and backgammon, perhaps the three oldest games that still enjoy worldwide popularity.[89] Backgammon is a "man vs. fate" contest, with chance playing a strong role in determining the outcome. Chess, with rows of soldiers marching forward to capture each other, embodies the conflict of "man vs. man". Because the handicap system tells Go players where they stand relative to other players, an honestly ranked player can expect to lose about half of their games; therefore, Go can be seen as embodying the quest for self-improvement?"man vs. self".

the backgammon

Google Advertise

Who's Online

We have 1840 guests online