Go and China

It is said that a society casts its shadow over whatever it produces. By examining the games, the food, the writings of a society, one can catch a glimpse of how it lives, grows, believes, and prospers. Go (the chess, not the programming language) is no exception. Through playing it, one can clearly see a picture of ancient Chinese society.

Let's start with trivial stuffs. Go board has 19x19 intersections, thus 361 possible moves, which is approximately the number of days in Chinese calendar year. There are stars, signifying the importance of astrology (not astronomy, mind you) in Chinese society. The pieces are black and white, similar to yin and yang; black always moves first, since yin is at disadvantage to yang. The objective of the game is to gather territories, or "lands", and pieces survive with access to land, die without land; this shows the importance of land in Chinese culture and history; early on, great countries have great land mass, weak countries are small, with small, sometimes bad, lands.

However, the description of Chinese society and history goes beyond just these little things.

First, notice the board, and how a game usually plays out. The center is wide open, but difficult to defend; the edges and corners are small, but defensible, thus usually becomes the bases for players. Look at China. The center, basically the land area between Yellow River and Yangtze River, was the fertile area, with most people and activities. However, it was difficult to defend. On the other hand, the sides, with mountains to the west, Yangtze River to the south, desserts to the north, and sea to the east, were the land where one can "advance to strike, retreat to defend" easily. Most major dynasties (Chou, Qin, Han, Shu and Wu during 3 Kingdoms period, Tang, Yuan, and Quing), most influential states (Qi to the east, Chu to the south, Qui to the west) took advantage of this strategic elements. They first occupied an easily defensible areas (usually to the West, since it is mountainous enough to defend, but near enough to advance), then gradually expand their territories until complete dominance. Such is a standard Go strategy: first occupy the corners (easy to get, easy to defend), then extend to the edges, then strive for the center.

The second importance element to Go playing is access to land. A surrounded group of pieces is a dead one. To invade, to attack, to occupy, first the access to free land, preferably 2 eyes, are vital; then, one can think about how to fuck with the opponent. This reflects faithfully to most of Chinese history (the reason I say most is because I have not read the rest). When one reads novels and treatises on Chinese military, the first, foremost, highlighted, repeated over and over part is not the valor of the soldiers, not the strengths of the generals, not the masses of the armies, but rather food supply. Most of conflicts are like this: A attacks B, B kills of A supply, A retreats. First question before a campaign? Well, do we have enough food? Second question: how do we bring our food to where we are attacking. Third one: where is enemy's storage of food? Let's burn/rob/destroy it. A hungry army is never brave, strong, or honorable. Contrast this with Western world, in which valor seems to solve everything. It was not until near modern time that serious treatises on military matter were written. What's their content? An army matches on its stomach. Of course, this reflects on its chess: the knights, for goodness' sake, jump just about anywhere, with no blockage, no exceptions.

Thirdly, but very importantly, one can see that Go pieces are identical to each other. Chess? Well, a rook is a rook, and even if it is in the corner, it's still more powerful than a pawn. All pieces are on an absolute scale of power: a Queen is more powerful than a Rook, which is more powerful than a Bishop, etc. With Go, the world is different. A piece, in and of itself, has little power. Its position, its timing, its allies, its enemies decide its power. Even "power" is relative. An extension is strong, but with little promise; an invasion is weak, dangerous, and risky, but if it succeeds, boys, you cripple your opponents (usually, this is worth like 20 to 40 points. Huge deal). This relates to how Chinese look at a person. The Western super-hero myth is that there are super-heroes, who are just better than others (the mass, the mob) in just about any respect, and they will prevail, no matter what. This heroic quality is something built-in, born-with, and no amount of education, food, training can put it there. Chinese, on the other hand, believes that all people can become sages, gentlemen, or productive. As a popular saying goes, the situation makes the man. Any person can learn and train to be great; any person can trays down to criminals. Thus, China can be said the be the first truly democratic culture which encourages all people (well, all men) to aim higher, to become the best they can be, and to contribute to their world.

Amazing, is it not? I would say that Western classical culture (Greek and Roman) is superior to Chinese in most tangible stuffs (architecture, art, maybe even math and philosophy), but governmental and structural aspects, China just rocked. Let's face it, they had fucking to many people. Thus, their board game just rocks. Well, one may say that such is why China fell behind later. Who knows?

State of Political Debate

The other day, my sister and I had small silly discussion over various stuffs, and at one point, she said something like, "I wonder why Obama does not destroy the stock market." She went on and said that the market was only "played" by rich, white men, so it was extremely racist, and it nourished the already rich population, while left many many black (colored, I guess), poor people in poverty. As such, it should be destroyed, and Obama, as a black president, was most suited to destroy it.
I was, frankly, stunned. Not that it was a bold stuffs (believe me, my sister is always a bold, smart, and passionate person, and I have heard much more interesting stuffs), nor was it that bad of an idea either, but it was just totally out of the line. To destroy the stock market (totally, and not allowing it to pop up again) means to shift away from capitalist mode of production, and requires, literally, bloody revolution to get there. Okay, don't want to get to the dirty details here, but to destroy the stock market right now is unrealistic. Plus, there was no promise either. It's kind of like moving to a different city: you may get better, but you can also get worse, but you surely will have to pay for the price to move. In short, there is no reasons (except if you are a hard core Marxist) to "destroy the stock market."
It seems to me that my sister, much like myself when I had been at her age, was utterly under-informed about what role the stock market plays in an economy, as well as why only white, rich men benefited from it (mostly because of inequality in wealth and education). The market only seemed to her bad, racist, and bad in general. Thus, she wanted to destroy it. An utterly understandable and reasonable idea, if one knows not what a stock market is.
Worse, I also see this kind of things going on in the political debate everyday. For example, "government spending is bad during recession" (WTF?), or "gold standard will solve everything." How about this: "the government oppresses us, so we should curb it down to nothing but military"? Or, "Intelligence Creation is a science, and the 'scientific community' is stupid and rejecting anything unpopular." The list keeps going on and on and on. No, these things are not even controversial, they are flat out unrealistic, contradicting within themselves, or provenly wrong multiple times. Still, people keep on arguing for these propositions, getting passionate to the point of bigotry, pissed at anyone disagreeing with them, and refusing to even consider any contradicting evidence.
To make the matter worse, there is a weird kind of philosophy in Western world that if you hold a deeply unpopular idea, you are being Copernicus or Galileo, fighting for truth against the mindless, stupid, uninformed mob, struggling for the betterment of your world. This, of course, is bullshit. Remember, popular ideas get popular for a reason. Remember, also, that Copernicus and Galileo's works were accompanied with concrete evidences, observations, and proofs, and these proofs are irrefutable. Lastly, remember that these works were not formed in days or even months: they were accumulations of worries and questions spanning centuries (Ptolemy model was formed in 2nd century, only rejected by Copernicus in 16th century, that's 15 centuries!), and took decades to finalize, prove, and perfect; they also usually require advancement in multiple other aspects of the society (steering away from the Church, invention of telescope, etc.) to appear. Thinking up an idea from nowhere, supported by a small group of people, with no concrete evidences, you are not holding truth, but just get in the way of other people.
Yet, the political sphere seems to be filled with such people: eager, passionate, intelligent, but under-informed, under-educated, and misled; sometimes, brainwashed and conditioned. They then join political parties that take advantages of their weaknesses for different, sometimes utterly contradicting, purposes. It breaks my heart every time to see how freedom lovers get fooled into shams like Tea Party (which does not resemble the original one at all), or weird churches, or paying for incompetent people who cannot even manage their own lives (yes, I am talking about Sarah Palin and the likes).