…Possibly (?) is transformed to “A race of Strategy and Luck”
by Commodore (HN Rt) Kostas Papachristodoulou (pictured above).
International and National institutions in order to create a concept for translating the pursuit of power formulated a Geo-politic concept which will explain how powers is going to pursue or how they translate the alliances and conflicts in the global with uncovered or covered initiatives. Strategic and Economic pursuits tend to represent this competition as a game of “«chess»” where the terrain or board is “world island” which has been changed to something new circulated in institutional cycles as “multi-polar world” at the most cases or “world ocean”.
From the years of Mackinder, to Brzezinski until the end of 20th century many theorists such as the Kissinger in recent decades, pretended that the Geo-policy and the related Geostrategy and Geo-economy are represented by a game of “«chess»” as the “«chess»” game between adversaries followed a strategy to pursue a situation of the win (power) related to the intellectual capabilities and training. In this sense the two superpowers which dominated respectively the Heartland and the Rim-land (mainly USA-ESSR during the Gold war) were as the two adversaries in the game competed in several areas of the globe with the “world island” being the terrain of the game. All the conflicts took place on the land mostly between the superpowers by diplomatic, political, intelligence and military means administered their means in accordance with steady plan, culture and strategy based on pre-assumed manner. Furthermore, the period of Naval warfare when at about equal adversaries had fought each other was during the 2nd world war in Atlantic (US/UK’s navy with Germans’) and Pacific (US’s navy with Japanese’s) but naval forces’ mobility wasn’t so wide as well as not so modernized to project power on land, that’s why in Strategic planning the naval bases were the most important.
“Chess” against «Backgammon» as a personal activity
Every personality either administered a conflict, a war or play a “«chess»”, «backgammon» game who execute some actions and tactics have some characteristics, abilities and capabilities to deploy which are directly related to the IQ and EQ such as “soft skills”, for example their abilities to maintain uninfluenced and alert, flexible and sharp, as well as resisted to anxiety, maintained open and clear mind and think fast and rational, timely acting and successfully influencing. All the above mentioned and many more are factors in a function which assume on how much is the probability, how much the competitor is capable to win (not to win for sure but has the strength) as well as the capacity and the means to win. While the winner of a «chess» game is based on the above mentioned with the absence of “luck”, the «backgammon» is based not only to the aforementioned but also to the “luck” due to the dices, inserting the factor of intuition. Additionally, the movements of «chess» pawn are administered from strict rules related to their kind, while the «backgammon» pawns are administered by a choice of the player following the results of the dices draw. In the terms of rationality, the «chess» is indeed “the game of Thrones” where wins who is intellectually superior but frequently in the game box the board for the “chess” have on the other side the board for «backgammon».
Strategy and tactics in the frame of the two games
To simplify the two words of the capital on this paragraph, the reference to the strategy means how we approach the game in relation with the strength of our adversary while with the tactics we mean the technics on what we have exercised and have had educated, presented covered or uncovered to pursue the goal of winning or a situation of surrender. While in “chess” usually or at the most cases the Strategy is not changed, the Strategy in “«backgammon»” is changed due to the both adversaries’ dices results related to each other’s. Sometimes in every set, a convenient result makes the player in row to make a movement which is offensive but the other due to better or more convenient dices result present to be more offensive creating conditions for the first to be defensive whatever the next dices draw would be for him on his next successive turn. For example, a convenient result of one’s forces the other to be defensive and the player in the row to be offensive and vice versa while the score on the sets plays a role to continue offensively or defensively. «backgammon» appears to be simple but it is not so simple in practice especially between players which are experienced and having sharp mind in calculations. Thus, from turn to turn the initiative changes from one player to the other something which is not changing so fast in «chess». As a result, what’s the unknown is of how much the luck will influence the game of each one player while in “chess” it is needed just a batch of capacities and movements to turn the disadvantage into advantage and vice versa. What’s more, in «backgammon» you can blame your dices draw or your adversary dices draw in case of you lose the game as well as it is difficult for anyone to analyze what’s went wrong in the strategy and tactics of the looser.
I believe that “chess” seems to be more intellectual and is played by more rule pre-trained and studied people while the “backgammon” is nearer to real life of our era with players with sharp mind and longstanding experience due to the simpler rules. It seems that the training for «chess» is more time-consume due to the characteristics and the motion of each pawn is differentiated while in «backgammon» all the pawns have the same characteristics until they take a position on the board which is decided by the dices results. In simple terms the deciding factor for the win is not always the ability, capacity, knowledge and experience but is mostly related with comparison of the dice’s results, also. The best exploitation of dices draws is counted.
Another important difference, the “chess” seems rational connected at the rational movements as the pawns have a specific position at the beginning of the game having 32 positions available to move while the pawn in «backgammon» are inserted in the game by the same position having 24 positions to move (considered one dices draw could permit 24 moves even if the probability is 1/36).
You could see an extended analysis in the following link:«backgammon» vs «chess»: A Comparative Guide on Rules and How to Play – «backgammon».wiki
Strategy and Tactics in Geo-politics related to the aforementioned simulation
The Geo-policy of 20th century pursued the “power” and the issue as it is so far it is that the new theories trying to draw not just directions for the operational analysis development but also global Geo-political superiority related to the both Geo-Strategic and Geo-economy goals of the superpowers pursuing globally pursuing through the upgrade of operational capabilities the supremacy in time and place where it is needed. Additionally, the Geo-political chart is changing.
due to several chart-view diversifications for example due to the melt of glaciers in North pole. Furthermore, it seems the superpowers (mostly the “sea-power”) to rule other sectors of planet by the use of not stationary forces but with expeditionary forces which pursues Strategic goals intervening in other states’ territories with a programmed withdrawn, leaving them with internal issues at a mess but controllable by the superpower as superpowers have achieved their goals. We shift from a “stationary war” to a “liquefied war”.
The most important difference is that «backgammon» is forced the player to change the Strategy from turn to turn not only the tactics due to the dices draws. What is more important this change could be influenced by just some dices results while in «chess» the possible gradually shift of Strategy or tactic is related to a rational mistake of one of the adversaries’ deficient move or initiative.
Politicians do play “monopoly” while Geo-policy try to be reformed in a “multi-polar” idea. All are prone to blame the operational capabilities or mostly the dices (the luck or an international deficiency) for any fault of their policy. This terrain is like an ocean’s environment where the direction of waters is diversified by the air and sea-currents direction, atmospheric pressures, the movement of earth’s axis even the melting glaciers. The “liquefied of terrain” has been happened due to the changes in the continuity of “world island” as well as due to the development of Strategic capabilities and operational means and of others than superpowers resulted in the 20th century Geo-policy doesn’t so accurate being simulated by «chess».
“It is not sure that a computer can beat a human when the dices are drawn independently than the computer functions as adversary on human during respectively turns”.
What is the most compatible to explain the 21st century Geo-policy concept:
The Strategy of Battle
or
The race for Strategy and Luck?
