Sahul e cu roluri. E fain ca si regina si chiar si regele pot intra in lupta la un moment dat, e interesant ca regina e mai tare decat regele, dar lupta se da intotdeauna intre cate doi combatanti. E ca si cand faptul ca o batalie e castigata sau pierduta ar depinde de ce face fiecare luptator in parte.
Go-ul e mai democratic. Nu exista roluri privilegiate. Fiecare piesa e un soldat. Toti sunt soldati. Nu exista nici cavaleri, nici generali, nici alte chestii. Nici o piesa nu poate captura de una singura o piesa a adversarului sau un grup. Captura e totdeauna rezultatul unui “efort colectiv”.
Piesele de sah se misca. Ai zice ca jocul e mai realist, fiindca intr-un razboi trupele se deplaseaza. Dar daca te gandesti la o singura batalie, de obicei razboinicii nu se duc dintr-o parte intr-alta, ca turele sau nebunii. Se bat acolo unde au fost pusi sa stea, isi pastreaza pozitia sau mor.
E important ca un grup de luptatori sa nu se lase incercuit de dusmani. La sah nu prea vezi asta. La go e o chestie esentiala. Un grup incercuit a pus-o. Vorbind in mare, normal.
Si mai e ceva. Piesele de sah care au fost capturate dispar din joc. Nu mai conteaza, pur si simplu. La go, prizonierii conteaza. Nu castigi sau pierzi doar in functie de cat de mare e teritoriul pe care l-ai cucerit. Prizonierii asteapta cuminti pe marginea tablei si sunt luati in calcul la numaratoarea de la sfarsit. Iti poti inchipui ca raman in viata pana se incheie lupta. La sah, daca ai iesit de pe tabla, nu-i mai pasa nimanui de tine. In cel mai bun caz, te duci inapoi in cutia de piese.
Nu vreau sa spun ca vreunul dintre jocuri e mai interesant sau mai inteligent. Dar mi se pare ca o partida de go e o metafora mai buna pentru o batalie. Intr-un razboi ca pe vremuri, asa,…
Interesant ca zilele astea am citit ceva din Deleuze si Guattari despre sah si go. Redau si aici pasajul : “Let us take chess nature and intrinsic properties from which their movements, situations,
and Go, from the standpoint of the game pieces, the relations between the and confrontations derive. They have qualities; a knight remains a knight,
pieces and the space involved. Chess is a game of State, or of the court: the a pawn a pawn, a bishop a bishop. Each is like a subject of the statement
emperor of China played it. Chess pieces are coded; they have an internal endowed with a relative power, and these relative powers combine in a subject of enunciation, that is, the chess player or the game’s form of interiority. Go pieces, in contrast, are pellets, disks, simple arithmetic units, and have only an anonymous, collective, or third-person function.
“It” makes a move. “It” could be a man, a woman, a louse, an elephant.Go pieces are elements of a nonsubjectified machine assemblage with no intrinsic properties, only situational ones. Thus the relations are very different in the two cases. Within their milieu of interiority, chess pieces entertain biunivocal relations with one another, and with the adversary’s pieces: their functioning is structural. On the other hand, a Go piece has only a milieu of exteriority, or extrinsic relations with nebulas or constellations, according to which it fulfills functions of insertion or situation, such as bordering, encircling, shattering. All by itself, a Go piece can destroy an entire constellation synchronically; a chess piece cannot (or can do so diachronically only). Chess is indeed a war, but an institutionalized, regulated, coded war, with a front, a rear, battles. But what is proper to Go is war without battle lines, with neither confrontation nor retiring without battles even: pure strategy, whereas chess is a semiology.Finally,the space is not at all the same: in chess, it is a question of arranging closed space for oneself, thus of going from one point to another, of occupying the maximum number of squares with the minimum number of pieces. In Go, it is a question of arraying oneself in an open space,of holding space, of maintaining the possibility of springing up at any point: the movement is not from one point to another, but becomes perpetual, without aim or destination, without departure or arrival. The “smooth”space of Go, as against the “striated” space of chess. The nomas of Go against the State of chess, nomas against polis.
Da, interesant! Dar ideea ca nu ar exista “battle lines” in Go e ciudata.