While the U.S. Plays Chess, China Go(es)?

When someone places Fareed Zakaria and Henry Kissinger in the same room and turns on the video recorder, you are bound to hear something unique and intriguing. Anyone paying attention to the news lately heard that China’s President Hu Jintao recently visited the United States, making stops in Washington, DC, and the great City of Chicago.

With all of the news coverage (and endless comments about Michelle Obama’s striking red dress) we heard much about the strained relations between both countries. China has grown increasingly active in their neck-of-the-woods, and has been more vocal about their criticisms towards the United States. This more assertive posture has caught many a diplomat’s attention, and has certainly raised a few eyebrows over at the Pentagon. Making news with a fighter jet with purported stealth capabilities will do that, especially when our defense chief is visiting. Although we know very little about its technical specifications, China merely exposing the potential for stealth warfare gets everyone excited. Coupled with their actions across Asia, many are worried and concerned about China’s intentions.

On top of that, of course, are the never-ending stories about how much smarter the Chinese students supposedly are when compared to the American educated class. No doubt, with 1.1+ billion humans in China, there are going to be quite a few smart people. It should be noted that many of those Chinese students still travel to the United States for higher education.

Now, let’s not even get started on the economy – with the U.S. suffering its worst economic downturn in 70 years, and China continuing to outperform many countries, some commentators would have you believe that we will soon be speaking Chinese and buying our Starbucks lattes in yuans.

But really, this post is not about the strained relations, the economic comparisons, and the educational demise of anyone. It’s about a step towards possibly understanding the Chinese, rather than thinking that they are out to get you at every turn.

So, what about Kissinger? And what about chess? When asked by Mr. Zakaria if the Chinese were decidedly “better” than the United States, Mr. Kissinger simply said they are “different.” How so?

In the United States, we favor chess; in China they favor an ancient game called Go. Huh? According to Mr. Kissinger – an esteemed China scholar and someone who has studied China most of his adult life – it comes down to board games?

Of course, not exactly just about board games, but he raises an interesting perspective. It’s one opinion for sure, but Mr. Kissinger’s comparison does give you something to think about, and potentially to better understand the Chinese when it comes to foreign affairs. He is not suggesting that Go is better than chess, or that Go players are smarter than chess players. He is just simply saying that they are different games, and those differences help elucidate an aspect of Chinese relations.

Both games are clearly higher-level thinking games (unlike, say, beer-pong), and rely on some specific rules for game play, but there are some stark differences to which Mr. Kissinger refers when using Go to explain Chinese diplomacy.

Chess: mainly tactical game, with fixed set of pieces defined by specific rules of movement. Object of the game is to beat down your opponent and destroy all of his (or her) pieces. You win by taking over and destroying.

Go: more strategic in nature, with thousands of more variations than a game of chess because the number of pieces is not fixed, and each turn introduces more pieces to the game board. Also, the object of the game is not to destroy, but to encircle your opponent and capture more territory. There is still a winner and a loser, but it is a more subtle and complex end-game.

In terms of complexity and mathematical possibilities for each move, Go far surpasses chess. It is one of the primary reasons that a computer system has been able to beat arguably the greatest chess player in the world , whereas computer programs have a much more difficult hill to climb against Go players.

Mr. Kissinger’s comparison gives some food for thought.

For some additional thoughts, albeit a little more dramatic in a History Channel sort-of-way, this video positions an interesting contrast between chess and Go in the context of the Vietnam War:

A bit ironic since it was Mr. Kissinger who – seeing no hope for the U.S. in Vietnam – negotiated the end-game with his Asian counterparts. Just some things to think about when eating your next batch of Chinese food!

Chicago Politics – The Song Remains the Same

Ok, so I only live in the suburbs of one of the greatest cities on the planet. I do not pay city taxes – not even Cook County taxes (DuPage and Will Counties), and I have not ridden the El train regularly since 1991. However, I grew up in the Chicagoland area, live there now, and did live in the City of Chicago at one point earlier in my life. Even as a teacher back in the 1990s I assigned my high school students a project to locate a statue somewhere in the city and to write a short report about it. I compelled them to go into the city because so few of the suburban kids had ever been. Wow, did I ever get flak from some parents on that (you mean I need to drive my kid into the city?!?)!

So, needless to say, I do feel that I have the right to comment on issues around the Chicago mayoral race. After all, my evening news is full of Chicago political news, so I should have an interest in who is mayor. So it is clear, my interest lies with having Rahm Emanuel take the helm after the Daley reign. His chief opponents, Carol Moseley Braun and Gary Chico label Mr. Emanuel as “an outsider.” Precisely, and that is why he should lead. While Mr. Emanuel is hardly the “Washington outsider” that Moseley Braun labels him, Mr. Emanuel will bring a cosmopolitan style with him that is backed by significant experience in Washington DC. The last thing we need is some entrenched politico who lives and breathes the ethos of Chicago two-bit politics.

The most lively conspiracy theorists will see today’s appellate court decision as a dark-handed attempt to influence the outcome of the mayoral race and to prevent democracy from working. They may not be far off the mark, but that would be giving too much credit to those who are working to undermine the system. Those seeking to have Emanuel removed from the ballot are not capable enough to engineer such a surprising and arrogant decision as handed down by two of three appellate judges. The dissenting judge’s comments speak volumes (see link, pp. 25 on): “The majority’s new standard is ill-reasoned and unfair to the candidate, voters and those of us who are charged with applying the law [and] disenfranchises not just this particular candidate but every voter in Chicago who would consider voting for him.” Even those seeking Emanuel’s removal from the ballot were surprised by the decision. Bad judicial decisions generally are surprising. Both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times agree.

The good news is that Mr. Emanuel is not quitting. He still plans on participating in an upcoming debate, and he has asked the Illinois Supreme Court for an emergency stay to prevent the printing of ballots without his name. He will fight unfairness with his bare knuckles if he has to. Frankly, that is why he should be mayor.  Hopefully his ongoing efforts will upend the sleazy tactics of those around him. Maybe one day we will get the full story behind this challenge to Mr. Emanuel’s candidacy. In short, it is democratic cowardice, brought upon those who can muster neither the votes not the money to win fairly. Certainly, it was not simply a lawyer and his two clients labeled as “concerned citizens.” Chicago politics are too rough-and-tumble to believe that.