3. TRIPLICITIY AND UNITY IN CHINESE CHESS

My study of Aikido exposed me to the Japanese concept of Budo [1], the martial way, and to various aspects of martial strategy. At the same time, my interest in Taoism lead me to studying the Tao Te Ching, Sun Tzu’s Art of War, and the ancient Chinese arts of strategy. I found common ground between the two in the board game of Chinese Chess, or Xiang Qi. While thought by modern historians to be a variant of International Chess, Chinese tradition tells us that Xiang Qi was independently created in 203 BC by a General named Han Xin, who wished to occupy his troops in their free time with a game that could teach them the principles of Sun Tzu’s Art of War, while they waited for the arrival of spring so they could begin battle with the army of the Prince of Zhou [2]. I had recognized in Aikido several strategic concepts which demonstrated a strong correlation to principles from the Art of War, so I was intrigued that an ancient board game could also offer something similar.

After struggling to learn the game, I was fortunate enough to be taught the basics by a visiting Chinese professor from a university in Wuhan, China, who was an avid player of the game, while I was studying at Griffith University in Brisbane. I was introduced to a formal syllabus for study, such as learning various aspects of game-play in separate sections, and progressing onto subsequent sections after grasping earlier ones, as well as learning simple strategies before approaching more advanced. I was also introduced to several classic Ming dynasty works on the game, such as “The Secret Inside the Orange”, “Victories all the Way” and “The Plum Blossom Meter”, each of which are collections of games devised to teach and drill the student in various aspects of game-play and strategy.

After two or three years I became a relatively confident player, and could hold my own against enthusiasts of the game from Malaysia, Singapore and China. It was, and still is a fun and very engaging game to play, and my interest was further spurred on by finding obvious similarities to strategies in Chinese Chess to some of the principles and strategies I have learned in Aikido. As I continued to study finer points of the game, I eventually realized that a systematic approach to understanding Chinese Chess would lead to a greater competence in playing the game. I found that a single game consisted of several distinct stages, from start to finish, that were marked by particular types of moves and strategic placement of pieces. The intention behind the positioning of these pieces for each move was governed by the stage of play one was at in the game. Furthermore, I found that the drills and lessons in the practice “Master Games” from the classics were geared towards concentrating on particular stages within the game, and developing skills for moving various pieces by examining them individually within a variety of situations.

When one first encounters Chinese Chess the game appears to be no more than a series of alternating moves by each player leading to a check-mate, the conclusion of the game. Learning to play in this manner makes it difficult for one to understand basic strategy, or to develop and apply any systematic plan of attack or defense, and can lead the beginning student to become somewhat confused about the whole method of play.

With a structured framework first established in the mind of the beginning student, learning to play the game is much easier. Different aspects of game-play can be separated and allocated to the relevant sections of the framework, and the student will be less confused by what they are learning. Areas in which the student is weak can be isolated and concentrated upon with extra exercises, and one’s ability can be improved by having a broader understanding of the change in “tone” of the moves over the course of a game. With this in mind, I began to teach my son, who was eight years old at the time, how to play the game using the idea of a three-fold aspect of the game as a model for learning. Needless to say, he picked it up very quickly, and at ten years old has turned into a reasonably competent player.    

TRIPLCITIES TO DESCRIBE SEQUENCES OF EVENTS

It was interesting to discover that the game of chess is also divided into three generally accepted stages; Opening, Mid-game, and End-game. These three stages exhibit remarkable similarities in nature to the Entry, Execution and Finish aspects of Aikido techniques. Understanding these three stages, what they consist of, and where they fall within the course of a game, goes a tremendous way towards improving one’s ability.

The Opening stage in Chess is where both players move their pieces into defensive formations over the course of around 8-10 moves each. During this stage, the players typically do not engage each other by moving their pieces into enemy territory, or by directly confronting their opponent’s pieces with those of their own.  Instead, the moves are focused on building a good defense within their own territory, preparing against the opponent’s possible attacking moves that are yet to come.

The Mid-game stage begins with the direct engagement of each player’s pieces. It is during this stage that both players pieces mix among each other as they struggle for a dominating position. There may be several separate fronts where one player’s pieces are directly conflicting with the other’s, as during this stage the idea is to position one’s pieces into a good, offensive formation while weakening the formation of the opponent.

The End-game is the closing stage of play where a plan to defeat the opponent has been formed, and the pieces that have been moving into a favourable position are now setting into motion the final play, which is checking the general. Focus at this stage is no longer on individual pieces around the board, but on the general in the palace (the four central squares on the baseline of each side– see diagram below),

By applying the geometry of triangle, circle and square to these three stages of game-play, we can see how they relate to the equivalent three stages in an Aikido technique. Entry is where the defender positions themselves to prepare for engaging the force of the attacker. Execution is where the defender’s and attacker’s bodies meet in direct contact and a struggle for dominance ensues, while the Finish is where the opponent’s power has been neutralized and the decisive, finishing technique is being applied, dispensing with the attacker completely. We also see via the diagram, that the course of the game runs in a linear fashion from beginning to end in the same fashion as an encounter in Aikido. Each of the three stages in both scenarios possess a similar role within their particular scenario. The diagram of the triangle, circle and square thus describes a particular geometry that represents the sequential activity taking place in both scenarios.   

Further triplicities can be found on closer examination of the game. The Mid-game phase is probably the most critical of the three stages, as most moves occur during this stage, and the balance of power among the two players is decided here by their interplay. David Li, in his five volume study of Xiang Qi has identified a further 3 phases within the Mid-game phase [3], that of Accumulating, Battling, and Concluding. In Accumulating, the emphasis is on gaining advantages in position, tempo and coordinating the playing pieces, in order to form the attacking formation. Battling is execution of the smaller, sub-strategies of the attack that weaken the opponent, as well as respond to the opponent’s own strategies. The Concluding phase is where the major battles have taken place, some of the opponent’s attacking pieces have been taken, and the balance of power is now in favour enough so that you can commence your End-game phase.

The strategic roles the pieces play within the game are also divided into three categories; Attacking, Defensive, and Tactical Moves, giving the pieces what is called a “triple threat capability”. These three roles are very similar to the types of modern military warfare, Attrition, Manouvre, and Guerilla warfare (see Part III chapter 15). Attacking moves and Defensive moves are quite self explanatory. Tactical moves are a bit more complex in nature, because they are a mixture of attacking and defending moves, that have neither an attacking or defending effect on the game, but rather a repositioning to gain advantage. Tactical moves are further divided into three categories; active, diversionary, and passive. Taking the active role in Tactical moves means that the pieces actively seek advantage to the overall position, tempo and coordination with other playing pieces. Diversionary activities within Tactical moves are moves that distract or mislead the opponent, that rescue pieces in trouble, or cause the opponent to lose their momentum on their active strategies. Passive activities within Tactical moves involve such things as providing decoys, or acting as bait for traps.

When playing the pieces at each move, it is suggested that we always look for opportunities for a triple threat. That means each move should ideally exhibit an attacking result, a defensive use, while at the same time, furthering the tactical positioning of the piece within the layout of the force on the board. Thinking this way maximizes ones effectiveness during the game.

These examples from Chinese Chess show not only how many aspects of the game can exhibit a triplex nature, but they also demonstrate that individual components of a triplicity can be further broken down into sub-triplicities. The geometry that one decides to use depends upon the level of detail, or what aspect of a topic you may wish to examine. It is important to understand that the geometry is simply a graphic tool to illustrate the relationships between various groups of information within a larger group.

TRIPLICITIES TO DESCRIBE SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS

If we look at the Chinese Chess board, we can also see it is divided not into two areas, but three. The red and blue territories are separated by a third entity, the river, which marks their boundaries. Instead of simply having a red side and a blue side, we also have a third element which is part of neither, but separates both. Thus, we can also divide the spatial relationships of the elements of the chess board into a three-fold representation. Red side is on the left, and is represented by the triangle. Blue side on the right is represented by the square. The river in the centre is left with the circle, which occupies the central position in the geometry.  In this case however, the geometry shown in the diagram above is inaccurate because in it both arrows are pointing to the right, which suggests a continuing sequence of activity from one point in time to another. If that were the case, then gameplay would only involve moving from Red side, across the river, to the Blue side, which we know is not the way the game is played. If we were to correctly represent the elements on a chess board spatially, and the directions in which they move during the course of a game, we need to adjust the geometry to reflect this, thus the right arrow should be moved to point left.

We now have a new geometry, one that does not depict the sequence of events in each scenario, but one that depicts a three-fold representation of the spatial relationships between the elements within the game on the board.

With this new geometry, we could not use it to represent the notion of an Aikido defense consisting of entry, execution and finish, or a chess game consisting of opening, mid-game, and end-game, because the structure of the geometry is now different, due to the right arrow pointing inwards to the centre. In effect, this new geometry is representing a new triplicity. This geometry shows two opposing forces coming together and mixing at the point of contact.

This geometry could now be applied to the attacker/defender scenario in Aikido, if we were to slightly shift our criteria over what it is that is being divided. In an altercation where one needs to defend oneself, there is the attacker and the defender, standing opposite each other. When the attacker engages his victim, and they come into direct contact and their forces meet, we now have a third element to the scenario, that of attacker and defender mixing energies. If our criteria for examining the attacker/defender scenario is shifted to that of spatial relationships, then the new geometry becomes accurate in its depiction of how the three elements are in fact related to each other.

Despite such a small change to the diagram, that of swapping the right arrow from pointing right to pointing left, the whole geometry of the two previously discussed triplicities are entirely different. The first geometry describes three separate elements in a sequential progression from a beginning state, to a state of transition, ending with a state of completion. The second geometry also describes three separate elements, but that of two extremes in opposition to each other, coming together and meeting in the middle.