Unusedname wrote:Bill Spight wrote:Well, go is a zero sum game, while most negotiations in real life are positive sum games. And while there may be some transfer between the two, I think that that is a huge difference. Go is a game of trade-offs, but it is purely competitive, aside from the social aspects, while negotiation typically involves both competition and cooperation.
So then go is more like a scam than a negotiation.
Either you strong arm somebody into taking less then they wanted.
Or you give them what they wanted and you're both happy.
Except your opponent is only happy because he doesn't realize you swindled him.
Because you have inside information that the influence you just gave him is going to be negated soon by your reduction on the other side of the board.
I see it ideally as a negotiation, where if neither player messes up, you divide up the board in equal ways. You give some here to get some there, and so on and so forth. Since it's clear that balance should follow from best play on both sides, it follows that you can tell when your play is off because the result wasn't as good for you as for your opponent. There is an objective truth on the board, and you may or may not have a good idea of what it looks like, but it's there to be discovered, and if one player discovers it faster or more accurately than the other, they can use that information to negotiate better and by extension, take more and win.
But I prefer to think of my advantage in such games is better judgement instead of inside information. Go is a game of perfect information, after all.