Hand Conversation

Itt a következő Empty Board bejegyzés, egy remek résszel, amit fontosnak tartok a játékban, mert szerintem nagyon szép és izgalmas. Mint a játék, nem úgy, mint a győzelem.

Hand Conversation

by William Cobb

The Japanese use the term "shudan" as a metaphor for Go. It is composed of two kanji, that for "hand" and that for "conversation", so we can translate it as "a conversation with the hands". This metaphor points toward some important things about Go, and it also offers some real help for a common problem. Everyone is familiar with the experience of getting ahead in a game only to lose in the end as a result of later inattentiveness. Thinking of the game as a conversation may help to overcome this.

The first thing that comes to mind in thinking about this metaphor is that Go enables two people who do not have a common language to engage in social interaction by playing a game. One can get a general impression of another person in this way, at least as far as their personal style is concerned-for example, about whether they tend to be timid or aggressive, whether they are thoughtful or impetuous and whether they are attached to winning. One can also share the experience of enjoying a common enthusiasm.

Our first reading of the metaphor is thus likely to focus on the image of a pleasant and somewhat informative social exchange. However, the metaphor of a conversation has a lot more to suggest than this, even though, like every use of metaphor, its application will have limits. To unpack the metaphor we need to reflect for a moment on what is characteristic of a good conversation.

A conversation must be distinguished from a lecture and from an interview.

A lecture, which can be by one person to another individual as well as to a group, and an interview, or any sort of exchange where one person is questioning and the other answering, both aim at results. That is, a good lecture or interview is one that yields something useful, usually information. Moreover, lectures and interviews are characterized by an inequality between the people involved. One person has the information that the other desires. This and other kinds of inequality do not hinder a good result in these activities. One may be usefully lectured by one's boss or interview a king. A casual discussion of the weather is another kind of verbal exchange that is expected to be useful. In such cases, the result aimed at is simply avoiding boredom, passing the time, or maintaining a sociable atmosphere, and here again inequality between he participants is not a problem.

Conversations are a quite different kind of activity. In this case it is a process rather than an outcome that the participants are concerned about. What matters is the quality of the process, not its results. Thus, a conversation is not evaluated on the basis of what one learns from it or accomplishes by it, but on the basis of how entertaining or fascinating it is to participate in it. A conversation is an example of an activity that is an end in itself.

In a good conversation there is a mutual exploration of a topic of common interest. Equality is crucial here. If both participants are not equally informed about the topic, the exploration will become a lecture, not something equally shared (like a teaching game), and the more learned will need an external motivation, such as a fee or a desire to improve the inferior person. Moreover, if there are inequalities of power, the person in the inferior position, such as the employee or the commoner, will not be able to respond freely to the flow of the interchange, but will always need to take into account the possible adverse effects of saying something that may upset the other. When there is approximate equality, however, a conversation can be a very exhilarating activity, giving one an opportunity to actualize some of the capacities that are most distinctively human. It is no accident that we tend to have a very high regard for people who are good conversationalists and that we find engaging in good conversation one of the best ways to fill, rather than merely pass, time. I do not need to dwell on the obvious parallels to a game of Go here.

However, having a good conversation requires a great deal of the participants. They must try to find novel and fruitful ways to lead the conversation forward. Each must seek to go beyond lines that are already familiar, and each must pay close attention to what the other says. Mutual respect is essential. One assumes the other is always trying to say something that will enhance the process, and if one does not immediately see the point of a remark one assumes one is overlooking something.

In a conversation one hopes the other will find something to say that, while relevant and stimulating, is unexpected, so that the process will not become boring. One also hopes the other will constantly offer a challenge to one's understanding that requires an effort to live up to as the exploration of the topic continues. Thus, a conversation is not under the control of one person. It is a mutual creation, and continues to unfold with the possibility of significant change as long as there is any openness left in the topic.

This is where the metaphor begins to speak to the situation of the person who has difficulty winning 'won' games. The issue is how to maintain the proper attitude when one gets ahead in a game. If we think of the game as a conversation, then we remember that the other is always trying to come up with an unexpected way to change the direction of the process. In fact, we hope that the other will find exciting challenges to the current situation.

We want the other to strive to keep the conversation going and not to acquiesce in a straight-forward following out of the most obvious implications of the momentary position, which would become boring. If we think about a game this way, we will not fall into thinking that the game has been settled, the conversation over, when the other is still speaking/playing. We will think, "Now, what is the point of that remark/play?" "What unexpected development is the other trying for here?" "What is being pointed to that I have not thought of?" We even root for the other to find an unexpected challenge so that the quality of the process will be enhanced.

When the further development of a conversation is entirely predictable it becomes boring, but whether that point has been reached is a function of the ability of the conversationalists. To assume that the further development of one's game has become entirely predictable, then, is to fall down in one's respect for the other player. Being behind in a game creates the stimulus that will provoke one's greatest effort. Therefore, to be ahead is the situation in which one should expect the most from the other, and one should hope to encounter just that, the other's best.

So, when you find yourself with the lead, say to the other player, "Come on, rise to the challenge and stretch your imagination. Say something interesting." This is the time to hope for really exciting play from the other that will avoid the boredom of just following out a line that already seems obvious. Don't hope the other will resign; hope the other will say something fascinating. If you keep expecting something unexpected, perhaps you won't find yourself disappointed.

The Empty Board #7

American Go Journal XXXI, 1 (Winter 1997), 34-35