[lit-ideas] Re: Russia & chess
- From: John Wager <john.wager1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:36:27 -0500
Julie Krueger wrote:
http://zydor.newsvine.com/_news/2008/08/16/1752837-the-west-needs-to-relearn-the-international-game-of-strategic-chess?email=html
I'm interested in the list's reaction to this -- especially the final
section. Irene? what thinkest thou of this assessment? Andreas?
Eric? Lawrence? et al .... (in short, the usual suspects...).
May an UNusual suspect offer a reaction?
The whole idea of "chess" as a metaphor for international conflict
usually turns me off, so that no matter what insights the essay may
offer, I go into reading it with a good deal of skepticism to overcome.
I'm so bothered by the first paragraphs I typically don't get to read
the final section.
Even the idea of chess as helpful in understanding "an" international
conflict is misleading. No government is ever in "an" international
conflict; they are ALL ALWAYS engaged in several simultaneous conflict
of interests, whether peaceful or not.
Chess is a game between two adversaries, where the "pawns" come out
first and fight it out to the death, leaving only the richest elite to
survive the war. Using this metaphor for contemporary conflicts seems
both inadequate and dangerous.
Especially in dealing with "Asian" cultures, "Go" would seem to be a
much more instructive and helpful metaphor. (I sometimes say that the
U.S. lost the war in Vietnam because they were playing "Go" and we were
playing "chess.")
In "Go" there are no pawns, no front lines, no slaughter, just fields of
influence and mutually dependent encirclements. There seldom is a
"Checkmate" at the end, where one side is forced to concede; the game is
over when the weaker opponent recognizes that it's not appropriate to
continue the contest and concedes at a time of their choosing. There is
a "handicapping" system so that conflicts between more advantaged (more
experienced) players and less advantaged (beginning) players can be
managed so that both sides are willing to engage the other; this allows
beginners to compete with masters. Without this, neither side would try
to resolve their "game" differences. The opponent that stays most in
harmony with their opponent is usually the one that wins; the opponent
that pushes too hard, or doesn't push hard enough, typically loses.
--
-------------------------------------------------
"Never attribute to malice that which can be
explained by incompetence and ignorance."
-------------------------------------------------
John Wager john.wager1@xxxxxxxxxxx
Lisle, IL, USA
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
