Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:43:39 -0400
From: "j. patrick fadely" <jpf22-AT-uga.edu>
Subject: Re: d/g&wei-qi/igo


bailey & list-

interesting analysis of Mancala. The idea seems sound. The 
interplay is less combative (since pieces are not 'assigned' 
to a player at start, 'capture' is out of the ?). The 
accepted heterogeny seems to stand at odds with tribal sense, 
if the game is taken as created out of socio economic 
influence. 

as for go, i have a problem with the term 'center.' as you 
point out insightfully, there is not 'a' center, but many 
across the more organic game space. the centers shift with 
each move played. to me, the term 'center' signifies both 
singularity and situatedness. perhaps a series of nodes, with 
certain nodes being primary and others secondary.

certain proponents and players of the game have suggested 
ideas of microcosm on the go board. i'd like to hear what you 
think about this.

also, i see the connection with suburban sprawl, but i would 
relate go more to urban de and re territorialization. 
suburban sprawl is monodirectional (out) and single minded. 
go, again as you pointed out, is dialectical. there are in 
and out movements. stones must be abandoned, and abandoned 
stones suddenly live again ('bohemian' revivals of warehouse 
space). a completely "sprawled" finished wei-qi game would 
consist of white stones on every liberty as the player 
mindlessly fills in its own territory homogenously (terra 
incognita), thus defeating herself. 

look forward to more on this. i will give mancala some more 
thought. anyone on the borges-d/g cnxn. if any?

off,
j. patrick fadely

ps. bailey- are you a go player? perhaps get together on a 
server online for a game and some conversation. interested, 
but tend to rank very low!