Protracted Game: A Wei-Ch'I Interpretation of Maoist Revolutionary Strategy

by Scott A. Boorman

While still a teenager, Boorman wrote The Protracted Game : A Wei-Ch’i Interpretation of Maoist Revolutionary Strategy (1969), an analysis of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. He shows that the U.S. thought it was playing Chess, while in fact the game was Wei-Ch’i (also known as Go). He systematically explores the similarity between the military strategies of Chinese Communist insurgency and the Chinese board game wei-ch’i, in contrast to parallel U.S. analyses of the same events. Boorman also argues that wei-chi’s analysis of a strategic system presents a more sophisticated and flexible form of game theory than the traditional western models of strategic choice.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, China, Go

256 pages, Paperback

First published September 15, 1971

Reviews

[Aaron Gertler · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars. Contains a well-written introduction to wei-ch'i, and a few interesting points about Mao's victory against the Nationalists. But there are better books about Go strategy for the sake of strategy, and the author's views on how the Communists took advantage of wei-ch'i tactics could have been summarized in half or a third of the length.

I'd have liked the book more, I think, had it been written a decade or two later, with the Vietnam War completed and more chances for Chinese writings on the Communist/Nationalist war to have been exposed to the West. What would Mao and his lieutenants think of Boorman's ideas? This book doesn't give us much evidence either way. (Still, it's an interesting effort, and if you aren't familiar with Go, the first 30 pages could very well be worth your time.)

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Warning, reading this book will destroy your Go playing skills. I wouldn't say this book turned me into a Maoist but I will say that the contrast of Wei Chi with "chess thinking" explained in this book still informs my approach to many aspects of my life.

[Peter Faul · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book constructs analogies between Mao's communist insurgency and the board game Go (in Chinese Weiqi). On the one hand there is the obvious geographic/militaristic analogy, where the board represents territory and the stones military units. But also considered is a psychological battlefield where the board represents people and the stones ideological pressure. The latter analogy I find quite weak and the specific constructions quite artificial.

The geographic analogy is more interesting and has some pragmatic basis to it - Mao would often describe his maneuvers later with reference to the game. However I feel the analogy is taken too seriously. While I think there is some pedagogical basis for using Go analogies to describe Mao's communist insurgency there are enough problems to warrant doubting it as a serious model with predictive power (as the author tries to do in the last chapter).

The first issue is the genericness of the analogy. Most of the points would apply to any successful military campaign, Asian or not. Encircle the enemy, fight easy battles before difficult ones etc etc. This is acknowledged in the book but it is pointed out that while these are fairly common sense tactics, no western military campaigns have used as many simultaneously as Mao. Perhaps this is true.

The second issue is the ways in which Mao's insurgency does not accord with Go. Much effort is invested in justifying these discrepancies I feel rather unsuccessfully. One rather damning example is that Mao insists always on complete victory, whereas in Go you are happy to share the territory in the board so long as you have more than you opponent. The real reason for this discrepancy, which is not acknowledged in the book is that in Go, a group may be made immortal so long as it has 'two eyes'. Given this emergent mechanic there is simply no way that a player could demand complete domination of the board. Since there is no such notion as 'two eyes' in the real world and hence no immortal military bases, there is no reason anymore to not ask for complete domination.

Nevertheless I found this a fun way to learn about this period of Chinese history.

[Ben · Rating 5 out of 5]

An Excellent and insightful book whose thesis has only been strengthened by the passage of time.

Excellent for anyone with an interest in grand strategy china or the game of Go.