This was sent to soc.culture.china by an anonymous poster: > GO (A Chinese and Japanese board game) is a lousy game. It is boring and > exhausting. All pieces (stones) are identical, showing oriental culture > does not tolerate individuality. The result is either win or lose and > there is no draw, indicating oriental culture does not advocate compromise. > No physical representation is assigned to any piece, implying oriental people > have no personality. > Yeh, there is a Chinese chess. But that was brought from India and Chinese > made some changes into it. A pawn can not be promoted and Queen is missing > from action. Chinese do not respect small-time nobody and discriminate against > women. They count cannon in as a chessman because they love more violence. > They replace bishop with prime minister because they believe in power than > free thinking. Finally they create two guards for their general or marshall > since they are more scared and they are real "paper tigers". > (There is no King in Chinese chess, the purpose of the game is to catch > the general or the marshall) and here is my reply: > Chess, an Occidental bored;-) game is a lousy game. It's too simple > and doesn't need to much brain. Different pieces are given different > power and ability, showing the Anglo passion for class. Unlike the Go, > as the game progresses, pieces are killed and less pieces are left > than the opening of the game, implying the Occidental culture's > preference for destruction. Whereas in Go, more pieces exist than the > opening, and all pieces eventually coexist in an integrated way, > showing that Oriental culture prefers peace and harmony. Besides, the > black square bishop can not move into white squares indicating the > Occidentals have always been promoting aparthied. However, there is > something good about Chess, the king has to depend on his wife for > strength, a justification for the Americans' choice of Bill Clinton > as their president.
(From the "Rest" of RHF)