Go in the News (The Economist 2 April 1994, p. 86)
aesop
- Arts, Books and Sport -
"The game Go ([shown] in Japanese characters above) is a test as much of
character as of intelligence and skill" _The_Economist_ 2 April 94, p. 86
SOME pundits say the success of Japanese business strategy can be explained
by the ancient Oriental board game called Go. The object of the game is not,
as in chess, to weaken the opposing force and pick off the king; rather, it
is simply to control the greater territory. Aggression must be balanced with
prudence, greed with patience, power-mongering with harmony. A single point
wins the game as decisively as a hundred.
The match unfolds on a thick wooden board. The board measures about 42cm by
45cm (16.5 inches by 18 inches) -- the Japanese frown on symmetry. This is
inscribed with a grid of 19 vertical and horizontal lines. Black and white
bi-convex pieces, resembling chewy mints, are played on the 361 intersections
of these lines. In good sets, these centimetre-thick "stones" are fashioned
from slate and clam-shell. If the Go board is a huge market to be divided up
between the two players, then the stones are chunks of investment, aimed at
capturing a greater and greater market share.
Black always starts. There is a handicap system to even up play between
unequal opponents. Since the weaker player begins (it is polite), his first
move, under handicap rules, is often to nab between two and nine designated
choice spots, known as _hoshi_. ['stars'] Stones, held between the tips of
the index and middle fingers, are whacked onto the board. This whacking
sound is to Go what slurping is to eating Japanese noodles -- essential
etiquette. Players alternate, and in the clutter territory is claimed.
A player controls all the space surrounded by horizontal and vertical walls
of his stones; mere diagonal links can be open to attack. For security
reasons, the fenced-in territory should have at least two points inside it
("eyes") where the opponent would lose his stone if played. (Despite
Japan's _hara-kiri_ traditions, "suicide" under Japanese rules is generally
forbidden; the slightly-different Chinese rules sometimes allow it.) Eyes
are especially important for a small territory. They ensure that the
opponent cannot swallow it up, and "kill" it, by simply surrounding it in
turn.
Once placed on the board, a stone does not move -- unless it is captured.
That happens only when it is stranded in the enemy territory or when all four
adjacent intersections ("liberties") are occupied by enemy stones. When
players command as much territory as is possible, and no further moves can
be made, the game ends. The one with the greater spoils wins.
Far-sighted strategy and strong intuition are keys to winning the game.
Players shart by staking out broad swathes of turf. Then, like playground
bullies, each one probes and jabs, testing his opponent's limits, until areas
fall under the general control of one or the other. Efficient configurations
on the board "have good shape" and are used to develop more territory -- or
"have bad shape" and are likely to be attacked and perhaps killed. It is
considered a mistake to concentrate too much on a small area. The good
player acts both globally and locally.
The rules are simple, but the game is not. Computers, for instance, are
easily stumped. Since 1986, a Taiwanese businessman, Chang-Ki Ing, has been
offering $1m for a Go computer programme that can beat a specified Taiwanese
professional in a seven-game series. Despite the carrot, none has even come
close to doing so. The main problem for computers is that at any given turn
hundreds of plays are on offer. Short on intuition and lacking the human
talent for recognizing shapes, computers are regularly outsmarted by Go
novices.
Go rankings are confusing. There is a lower-amateur class -- the white-belt
players of Go -- with rankings from 30 [35] _kyu_ up to 1 _kyu_. Better
amateurs are rated from one to seven amateur _dan_. Professionals, the black
belts, are ranked from one to nine professional _dan_.
There are about 1,000 active Go professionals in the world. There have been
only four non-Oriental professionals and only one, Michael Redmond, an
American, has risen above the status of one _dan_. [Not true? James Kerwin
is two or three _dan_...] ([Michael Redmond] is an impressive seven _dan_.)
South Korea's Yi Chang-ho, at age ten, was the youngest-ever professional
player. Now 18, he holds 12 of 15 Korean titles and wants to be the world's
best before hs is 20 years' old. Koichi Kobayashi from Japan has held that
honour for the past few years, and in 1990 earned more than ť100m (then
nearly $3/4m) from Go. But with the recent loss of an important title, his
pre-eminence is now in question.
Go is thought to have originated in China, before 2000bc. According to
legend, Emperor Yao devised the game as a mental exercise for his dim-witted
son. A likelier explanation is that it evolved from ancient astrological
forecasting -- a history embedded in such Go terms as _tengen_ ("axis of
heaven"), the name for the board's midpoint, and _hoshi_ ("stars"), which
refer to the handicap points mentioned earlier. Alongside poetry, brush-
painting and music, Go became one of China's "Four Accomplishments".
Though the game originated in China, it had its heyday in Japan. Introduced
sometime around 700ad, Go was at first popular mainly among nobles and
Buddhist monks, but over the next 1,000 years it proliferated. During the
centuries of clan war, playing Go was considered rigorous moral and
intellectual training; in peacetime, it was a respectable recreation.
And today a model for business? True, most Japanese firms do sponsor in-house
Go clubs and business executives do spend hours honing their game. A few
have even adopted Go terms for company names -- among them, Tengen and Atari
("threat to capture"). But business savvy is not the first Japanese mystery
purported to be unmasked by a reference to GO. In 1942, _Life_ magazine used
Go to explain Japan's entire Pacific war strategy.
(end of article)
============================================================================
Comments: This single-paged article, which includes an inset diagram of an
example Go game, seems to stop just when it begins to get interesting. The
phrase "model for business" isn't easy to comprehend. First of all, why does
_The_Economist_ magazine hint that anyone needs a "model for business"? Isn't
business itself its own "model"? And what is to be done with a "model for
business"? It would seem that someone seeks such a "model" in order to be
abstracted -from- the "business community" but just what does that amount to,
that one doesn't wish to participate in the "business community" proper or
that one wants to carve a new niche for oneself not currently in the picture
of what defines the "model for business"? Now how could it be that so many
readers would each think themselves -special- to the point that no precedence
currently exists for understanding what such "business models" are all about?
What, exactly, has the human race been doing for the past 5,000 years? Have
we been learning nothing about "the business model" or "psychology" or the
"social sciences" or "mathematics"? It's as if no "body of knowledge" were
available, despite attempts at education, which serves at the least as an
agreeable starting point for instilling the sense of history to the seemingly
chaotic present tense.
A study of Go players, and of boardgame players generally, reveals their focus
not so much upon "businesslike practice" as upon cognitive skill development
and the arts. The fact remains that most "business people" don't care very
much about cultural arts but are primarily bent upon increasing their personal
wealth, sometimes at the expense of the wealth of others. When confronted by
such things as "philosophy" or "poetry" most business people will first ask
themselves if they can -afford- the time investment required to devote a few
minutes to the requisite literature. Not long afterwards there may be a query
posed as to the potential -return- to the business person, resulting from the
few invested devotional minutes. Neither "affordability" nor the question of
"potential return" is really germane to one's fundamental Go research.
From observations of Go players and from perceptions of "dissonance" between
cognition and a "business atmosphere" I would argue that Go does -not- offer
us a "business model" but is instead a complement to busy "business models".
Go is essentially a recreational "intellectual sport" and as an opportunity
for relaxation has as much bearing upon "business models" as would a coffee
break. Go is a -philosophical- activity and its presence in Japanese
business practice stems from the Japanese mixture of business and philosophy.
In this regard one observes that Japan applies quite a number of such "tools"
to business with Go being merely one of them.
Western businessmen are inclined not to mix business with philosophy, in
general, or if they do then a rather different sort of philosophy is being
applied. In either case (East or West) it's doubtful that any particular
"game" serves as a provider of universal "cues" for how business is conducted.
Also of note is an historical opposition by Japanese Go players to Japan's
entry in the Pacific War and of the significant disruption to the processes
of the Japan Go Academy during WW-II. The WW-II Japanese militarism was just
one of Japan's many social fragments. It is not commonly known, for example,
that Japanese military aviators would deliberately avoid flying -over- the
site of the Japan Go Academy in the effort not to show disrespect. Lastly
there is the famous story of how the game of a title match was "coincidently"
moved away from Hiroshima just prior to its bombing as per the recommendation
of Japanese military intelligence. Simply put, Go players were viewed as not
lending much assistance to the war effort as Go had little or nothing to do
with soldiering. Despite Go's popularity among some of the Asian military
commanders, Go's historical influence for humankind has primarilly been an
appeal for peace. I would surmise that this paradox is explained by the fact
that soldiers on the front line, more than anyone else, desire to bring the
war to its conclusion as soon as possible. This leads us to look elsewhere
for what constitutes the "cause" of war, since it is evident that soldiers
are not "causing" it.
- aesop
Chris Chapman
["Economist" article deleted.]
>Comments: This single-paged article, which includes an inset diagram of an
>example Go game, seems to stop just when it begins to get interesting. The
>phrase "model for business" isn't easy to comprehend. First of all, why does
>_The_Economist_ magazine hint that anyone needs a "model for business"?
As Aesop points out, businessmen are often (not always) uninterested
in philosophic and cultural pursuits. However, it has been my experience (I
worked for some time in a management consulting firm) that they often sense
their own *lack* of such interests. It is precisely this lack that drives
them to seek analogies with other, potentially more fulfilling enterprises.
It is also helpful psychologically when one is confronted with the sordid
and unpleasant aspects of business, to say, "Oh, this isn't really bad. I'm
not a bad person. This is just a game, like Go." But this indicates
uneasiness with one's real actions.
Would any serious Go player seek an analogy for Go elsewhere? Suppose I
love Go, and I say, "Oh, business is just like Go! Some people win, some
people lose, and market share is just like territory! Therefore I'd better
learn all about business -- it will help me play Go!" This is ridiculous.
But when a business person does the reverse, it passes for wisdom.
When one's own pursuits are fulfilling, one needs look no further, but can
enjoy them in themselves. I do not make a living from Go, or from music, or
from literature ... but I enjoy them all in their own right. They enrich my
life -- and that is more important than enriching my pocketbook.
-- chris (cchap NR on IGS)
-- cc...@bongo.cc.utexas.edu
david carlton
> Would any serious Go player seek an analogy for Go elsewhere?
> Suppose I love Go, and I say, "Oh, business is just like Go! Some
> people win, some people lose, and market share is just like
> territory! Therefore I'd better learn all about business -- it will
> help me play Go!" This is ridiculous.
What I've heard about the rationale for Ing's byo-yomi rules are
actually a lot like the above - he wants them to reflect his feeling
that time is money. (Which, admittedly, does sound ridiculous to me.)
Then again, I could have been misinformed...
david carlton
car...@husc.harvard.edu
I hope you millionaires are having fun! I just invested half
your life savings in yeast!!
Radford Neal
>Would any serious Go player seek an analogy for Go elsewhere? Suppose I
>love Go, and I say, "Oh, business is just like Go! Some people win, some
>people lose, and market share is just like territory! Therefore I'd better
>learn all about business -- it will help me play Go!" This is ridiculous.
>But when a business person does the reverse, it passes for wisdom.
An interesting reversal. Arguing the other way, though, one might
point out that playing a game of Go takes only an hour or two, whereas
conducting a business venture takes years. Perhaps you can learn from
Go faster than you can learn from business, since you can make mistakes
(and recognize them) at a much greater rate.
On this view, however, business people would learn from Go only if
they actually *played* it. Reading about it would be pointless, since
they could read a book about real business just as fast as they could
read some book about business insights taken from Go.
Radford Neal
Michael Sullivan
Radford Neal <rad...@cs.toronto.edu> wrote:
>In article <cchap.203...@bongo.cc.utexas.edu> cc...@bongo.cc.utexas.edu (Chris Chapman) writes:
>
>An interesting reversal. Arguing the other way, though, one might
>point out that playing a game of Go takes only an hour or two, whereas
>conducting a business venture takes years. Perhaps you can learn from
>Go faster than you can learn from business, since you can make mistakes
>(and recognize them) at a much greater rate.
Playing go crystallizes certain strategic ideas by showing them in a quick
acting, and strictly logical enviroment. Once the idea is fully understood
there are often ways to apply it in the much fuzzier and slow-acting world of
business or personal relationships.
It is really rather similar to the idea
of mathematical modeling, except that the "model" is something that's been
around independently and just chances(?) to be a good model for a whole suite
of real world problems.
I occassionally find myself using go-like principles to justify all kinds of
actions. I agree with your assesment of needing to *play* for there to be any
particular effect, though.
An example: I like to use the idea of tenuki. If you find yourself in a
situation that you can't find a decent response to, sometimes the best idea is
to simply give up and do something else. In phone conversations, when you
deal with someone who simply won't be satisfied, take yourself off the call.
This is common business knowledge but sometimes very hard to force yourself to
do. Go-players who have come to understand the logic of tenuki, will
understand the worth of this suggestion much faster.
But I agree that the suggestions themselves have the same worth whether they
are drawn from go or from the world at large. it is just that *understanding*
a related principle from go may help you understand the business principle
better or faster.
Mike
DR. ROY SCHMIDT
: What I've heard about the rationale for Ing's byo-yomi rules are
: actually a lot like the above - he wants them to reflect his feeling
: that time is money. (Which, admittedly, does sound ridiculous to me.)
: Then again, I could have been misinformed...
This is not correct. If so, Mr. Ing would not have spent so many hours at
the Go club and on the golf course (I've played both with him), since time
would be too valuable.
The Ing byo-yomi rules reflect the philosophy that there is an opportunity
cost involved in extra time. The Japanese rules simply gave you unlimited
extra time, taken in small chunks. So a player could take as much time as
desired working through the intracacies of the opening, knowing that during
the simpler tactical frays near the end of the game, there would be extra
time. No penalty. But Ing's idea was to impose a cost on the extra time,
so that the player would know there is a trade-off in taking too much time
in the earlier stages of the game.
Of all the successful business people I have known over the years, Mr. Ing
is the least interested in money, and the most generous with his time.
--
Roy Schmidt sch...@usthk.ust.hk sch...@uxmail.ust.hk
Business Information Systems Dept, School of Business and Management
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Clearwater Bay, Sai Kung, HONG KONG
Kevin Whyte
>david carlton (car...@scunix4.harvard.edu) wrote:
>
>: What I've heard about the rationale for Ing's byo-yomi rules are
>: actually a lot like the above - he wants them to reflect his feeling
>: that time is money. (Which, admittedly, does sound ridiculous to me.)
>: Then again, I could have been misinformed...
>
>This is not correct. If so, Mr. Ing would not have spent so many hours at
>the Go club and on the golf course (I've played both with him), since time
>would be too valuable.
>
>The Ing byo-yomi rules reflect the philosophy that there is an opportunity
>cost involved in extra time. The Japanese rules simply gave you unlimited
>extra time, taken in small chunks. So a player could take as much time as
>desired working through the intracacies of the opening, knowing that during
>the simpler tactical frays near the end of the game, there would be extra
>time. No penalty. But Ing's idea was to impose a cost on the extra time,
>so that the player would know there is a trade-off in taking too much time
>in the earlier stages of the game.
>
>Of all the successful business people I have known over the years, Mr. Ing
>is the least interested in money, and the most generous with his time.
>
>
One thing I have never understood about Ing's rules is the komi. In
general it seems that he goes for simplicity in his rules. Why not just
have bidding for komi? I have played several games this way, and it is
very easy to do. Each player just bids how many points komi they are
willing to give to play black (this is usually done by putting the stones
in your hand and then revealing them simultaniously). The only real
problem is with ties. I have seen two methods of dealing with this. The
first (and, IMHO, most reasonable) is to decide randomly. The second way,
used in the tournaments I've seen using bidding, is to designate with the
pairings that one of the players bids half points the other integers (i.e.
one player bids .5,1.5,2.5,etc ... the other 0,1,2,...). The problem I
have with the latter method is that komi is an integer (don't ask me which
one :-) ) so the person asked to bid integer+.5 is at a theoretical
disadvantage. Why is this method not more widely adopted? It creates
interesting games and doesn't force people to play at a komi they think
unfair. This seems like the sort of thing Ing would like, and would solve
the problem of Japanese professionals complaining that his komi is too
big.
Kevin
(quayle on IGS)
kwh...@math.uchicago.edu
We are faced with the very real possibility that "digital" and
"manual" will be used as antonyms.
Ed Gamble
....
There are about 1,000 active Go professionals in the world. There have been
only four non-Oriental professionals and only one, Michael Redmond, an
American, has risen above the status of one _dan_. [Not true? James Kerwin
is two or three _dan_...] ([Michael Redmond] is an impressive seven _dan_.)
All the same, he lost three/four weeks ago in the first round of the NHK
television tournament. If my ever-fading memory serves me, it was to a
9-dan and Redmond looked overmatched (assuming a non-dan can judge that...)
Nearly the entire field is 9-dan. I believe Redmond is/was the lowest
ranked in the field. (Although there are a two or three people with
titles/ratings that aren't given in kanji that I can read.)
And the new women commentator for NHK; god she is bad - I wish she would
just shutup or, better, lets bring back the former commentator...
Go TAKEMIYA-san go!
-- Ed
Thomas Kettenring
>david carlton (car...@scunix4.harvard.edu) wrote:
>: What I've heard about the rationale for Ing's byo-yomi rules are
>: actually a lot like the above - he wants them to reflect his feeling
[..]
>Of all the successful business people I have known over the years, Mr. Ing
>is the least interested in money, and the most generous with his time.
Hm... I don't see a contradiction. If he thinks that time is money, he
should handle time and money in the same way, which he does. He is
generous with both. Maybe he has enough of either...
Just a thought.
--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
It's my only line. -- Carol Cleveland
David Gibbs
Ed Gamble <e...@hip.atr.co.jp> wrote:
>
>In article <084HLc...@fred.com> ae...@fred.com (aesop) writes:
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 94 08:41:44 ADT
> American, has risen above the status of one _dan_.
> ([Michael Redmond] is an impressive seven _dan_.)
>
>All the same, he lost three/four weeks ago in the first round of the NHK
>television tournament. If my ever-fading memory serves me, it was to a
>9-dan and Redmond looked overmatched (assuming a non-dan can judge that...)
I think by the phrase "impressive seven _dan_" aesop meant that Michael
Redmond had reached the impressive-for-non-oriental rank of seven dan,
not that he (Redmond) was a stronger than average 7 dan.
I'm not all that surprised at a 7p player being overmatched by a
9p player.
-David
(dag...@qnx.com)
Michael Sullivan
>In article <EBG.94Ma...@hoshi.hip.atr.co.jp>,
>>All the same, he lost three/four weeks ago in the first round of the NHK
>>television tournament. If my ever-fading memory serves me, it was to a
>>9-dan and Redmond looked overmatched (assuming a non-dan can judge that...)
Wasn't the 9p that Redmond lost to Otake?
I think there are plenty of 9p's who might be overmatched by Otake...
He also lost to Kobayashi Koichi this year. I guess his career is really down
the toilet. :-)
Mike
Hans Mulder
>Wasn't the 9p that Redmond lost to Otake?
>He also lost to Kobayashi Koichi this year. I guess his career is really down
>the toilet. :-)
I get the impression that Redmond gets invited to a lot of tournaments to
give them an international flavour. Thus he gets to play 9p's more often
than your average 7p. That hurts his winning percentage, but the experience
of playing top pro's will probably help him getting stronger.
--
HansM