I understand some folks frustration with accessing the deeper levels of the play. Especially since there isn’t any guidance currently into how to do this beyond calculating and analyzing all the time. Part of the challenge is that Qyshinsu requires a different way of thinking than perhaps most games. The key is learning to understand how to limit your opponents options in a way that will lead them to a state in which they can no longer perform a legal move. In this respect, ones attention needs to be on what the other player cannot do because of your actions.

This is my primary motivation for writing the next volume. To provide ways for folks to “flow” – a more intuitive, creative, style of play.

Suffice to say, I don’t have all the answers but I can assist in ensuring that we are asking the right questions. In the meantime, here’s a tip – when you place or remove a stone, think about which stones your opponent cannot place (if option is available) on their next turn.

Peace

RF

In the early stages of creating Zhadu, I began to contemplate the paradigms surrounding the scenario of 2-player strategy games and the phrase “not-two”. The dynamic between two people in this context is sometimes expressed in terms of “other”, “opponent”, “enemy”, etc. The appropriateness of these metaphors, or lack there of, was not what I called into question. It was my unreflective attachment to them. One of the conceptual foundations from which these metaphors seemed to rest upon intrigued me the most – “separateness”.

I began to explore various lines of questioning: What is the nature of being a “player” in the context of Zhadu? What if the “other” was not separate from oneself? What if the resistance expressed through the play was considered to originate not from something outside and apart from oneself, but from a different aspect of oneself? What if there is no “enemy”? What if the true purpose of the play was not to conquer or subdue this “other”, but something else…