Go and Chess: A Tale of Two Games and Two Nations' Policies
Unraveling the Strategies of the East and West Through the Lens of Ancient Games
Before delving into the world of geopolitical strategies and intricate foreign policies, consider this: the ancient Chinese game of Go possesses more potential combinations of moves than stars in the observable universe. The estimated number of legal board positions in Go hovers near 2 x 10^170, significantly greater than the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, approximately 1 x 10^24. This staggering complexity not only reflects the profound depth of the game but also provides an illustrative metaphor for understanding the intricate strategies employed by nations on the global stage.
Firstly, let's decipher these two games. Chess, with roots in the Western world, is a game of linear, decisive confrontation. The objective is to corner the enemy king using an array of pieces, each having distinct movements. Every move forces an immediate reaction, aiming to achieve a checkmate, forcing the opponent's surrender.
In contrast, Go, which originated in China, is a game of strategic encirclement. The objective is to control more territory than your opponent. Each stone has equal value and purpose, and the game encourages long-term planning, patient building, and slow encirclement over direct confrontation.
Much like the principles guiding Chess and Go, the foreign policies of the U.S. and China follow similar patterns. The U.S. has traditionally approached international diplomacy as a Chess game – direct, confrontational, aiming for immediate and measurable results. On the other hand, the CCP's foreign policy resembles a Go game – it is incremental and subtle and seeks to gradually change the status quo without provoking direct conflict.
The CCP's techniques of buying time through negotiations are a classic Go strategy. They use time as a tool, working patiently to build their strength and influence. They buy time to develop and expand behind the scenes through protracted negotiations, much like the silent accrual of territory in a Go game.
Economic warfare, lawfare, and forced tech transfers are other tools in the CCP's arsenal. They represent the slow and steady encroachment on the global stage without creating immediate confrontational flashpoints. Economic warfare is seen in the Belt and Road Initiative, where China incrementally creates economic dependencies. Lawfare involves using international and domestic laws to achieve strategic ends, gradually altering the game's rules in their favor. While frowned upon globally, forced tech transfers create a technological leap for China, strengthening its position on the board of global power.
The U.S., on the other hand, with its Chess-inspired foreign policy, often finds itself frustrated at the lack of immediate, concrete results and the seemingly never-ending negotiation processes. U.S. policymakers must understand that they are playing a different game with different rules and strategies.
Recognizing this fundamental divergence in approach is the first step toward a more effective U.S. response. A deeper understanding of the Go-style strategy could encourage the U.S. to take a longer-term view, focusing on subtle, incremental gains and sustained influence rather than seeking immediate "checkmate" victories.
The differences between Chess and Go provide a profound metaphor for the different strategic approaches of the U.S. and China. Acknowledging and understanding this divergence is crucial for the U.S. as it recalibrates its foreign policy to engage with the CCP's patient, encircling strategies more effectively.
Given the game of Go that the CCP plays on the grand scale, the U.S. Congress, the Executive branch, and investors must adapt and counteract to mitigate risks and seize opportunities in this gridlocked strategic landscape.
It is more critical than ever for the U.S. Congress to enact resilient legislative policies that strengthen our technological and economic sectors. This includes robust investment in research and development to ensure our advantage in critical technologies, implementing stringent regulations to guard against forced tech transfers, and advocating for transparency in international trade and investment agreements. Embrace the essence of Go: make strategic, incremental gains that cumulatively solidify our position against the stalled negotiations.
The Executive branch should revitalize options that recognize and deters the CCP's time-buying tactics, which have effectively gridlocked recent negotiations. We must approach diplomacy with a panoramic view of the larger game, deciphering the broader geopolitical implications beyond immediate stalemates. Reinforcing alliances and partnerships is paramount, creating a collective front that can resist the CCP's encircling influence.
Institutional and individual investors can play a significant role in this evolving landscape. It's essential to discern the risks and rewards of engaging with China's challenging economy, particularly amid negotiation impasses. Investors should evaluate the long-term implications of their investments, scrutinizing how they could inadvertently contribute to China's Go strategy. Diversifying investments and promoting businesses that reinforce U.S. domestic capacities in critical sectors can effectively hedge against encroachment.
Understanding and countering the Go-style strategy of the CCP isn't a task confined to policymakers or strategists. It's an urgent call to all stakeholders in this interconnected world to act strategically to preserve a balanced global power dynamic. The game is far from over, and we must play wisely for the future stakes.
Well what would great powers be if not adversaries? Tell me
Historical Chinese board games also include a chess variant that is in some ways more fluid than Western chess.
And if confrontation is the name of the game, it is important to “know” your adversary. Psych maneuvering will be critical to both sides so it should not be surprising that Xi’s daughter majored in psychology at Harvard. Of TLG’s relatives, only Mary is a psychologist and she certainly isn’t an ally or advisor to her uncle.
Great Powers need not be adversaries, especially if separated by vast distances and commercially compatible instead of competitive. We’ll see how this game plays out.