Life In 19x19 :: Go and Negotiation

I'm usually unwilling to answer questions from people who don't explain why they want to know, but as a way of putting off transcribing a game with 240 moves on one diagram with faded Chinese numerals, I'll toss out Troy Andersons' "The Way of Go" and Miura Yasuyuki's "Go and Asian paradigm for business strategy" as your starter for ten.

Would you care to elaborate the question even further? I am having a hard time understanding the connection between the two.

In a negotiation, the person who names the price first is at a disadvantage. This might correlate a bit to the idea of playing a probe in order to get one's opponent to say what he wants.

Even in positive sum games the negotiation is typically about the relative sizes of the two 'wins' in that 'win-win'. The person who makes the first offer will anchor the negotiation around the level of their choice - a big advantage if they understand what is going on.

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.

Bill Spight wrote:

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.

Bill Spight wrote:

Author:	Actorios [ Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:48 pm ]
Post subject:	Go and Negotiation
Hello, I'm looking for books / articles (online or print) relative to "go and negotiation" (similarities between both activities, go as a model to negotiate). Would you know of any good sources relative to that aspect? Many thanks in advance,

Author:	EdLee [ Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:18 am ]
Post subject:
Interesting, I wonder if game theory people have something to say about it.

Author:	Abyssinica [ Sat Jun 14, 2014 2:25 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Go and Negotiation
I can talk with my hands.

Author:	Krama [ Sat Jun 14, 2014 2:43 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Go and Negotiation
Would you care to elaborate the question even further? I am having a hard time understanding the connection between the two.

Author:	John Fairbairn [ Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:17 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Go and Negotiation
I'm usually unwilling to answer questions from people who don't explain why they want to know, but as a way of putting off transcribing a game with 240 moves on one diagram with faded Chinese numerals, I'll toss out Troy Andersons' "The Way of Go" and Miura Yasuyuki's "Go and Asian paradigm for business strategy" as your starter for ten.

Life In 19x19 http://prod.lifein19x19.com/

Go and Negotiation http://prod.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=10444	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Aidoneus [ Sat Jun 14, 2014 4:18 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Go and Negotiation
Perhaps this article from Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 ... -ron-paul/ and this comment on the article by Peter Shotwell http://www.usgo.org/files/bh_library/originsapdxVII.pdf will interest you.

Author:	Actorios [ Sat Jun 14, 2014 7:31 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Go and Negotiation
John Fairbairn wrote: I'm usually unwilling to answer questions from people who don't explain why they want to know, but as a way of putting off transcribing a game with 240 moves on one diagram with faded Chinese numerals, I'll toss out Troy Andersons' "The Way of Go" and Miura Yasuyuki's "Go and Asian paradigm for business strategy" as your starter for ten. Thank you for your response. I didn't think the background was so important but I'm glad to share it. I could give three reasons: The question mainly relates to a recent discussion I had with a friend working in trading who learnt about the game of go in relationship to sales negotiation. He was interesting to learn about the game and I wanted to bridge his interest with the game. That's one reason, another is that my job requires also some negotiation and as a side-interest, I was interested how it would connect to the game of go. Finally, my brother had and experience in relation to the game of go twenty years from now or so. He could see that a job interview he did could be looked at in terms of go terms (in the way some questions "enclosed him" in the responses he could provide). There are quite a few consulting companies in France which provide sales/management training in connection to go. That's probably as much as I could identify so far. This, plus a few references in negotiation books in French (usually very sporadic). I do own Troy Anderson's book. I've heard of the other one but didn't have a chance to read it.

Author:	Actorios [ Sat Jun 14, 2014 7:37 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Go and Negotiation
Krama wrote: Would you care to elaborate the question even further? I am having a hard time understanding the connection between the two. I guess my statement above already clarify a little bit the topic. I'd be curious to know if some people did the parallel between typical negotiation techniques and go practice, selling/purchasing attitudes, strategies... Some books make interesting connection between topics like Golden Opportunities (go and history) or 36 stratagems applied to go, I was wondering if some people covered this field in writing...

Author:	daal [ Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:13 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Go and Negotiation
In a negotiation, the person who names the price first is at a disadvantage. This might correlate a bit to the idea of playing a probe in order to get one's opponent to say what he wants.

Author:	Bill Spight [ Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:24 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Go and Negotiation
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.

Author:	Bill Spight [ Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:26 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Go and Negotiation
daal wrote: In a negotiation, the person who names the price first is at a disadvantage. This might correlate a bit to the idea of playing a probe in order to get one's opponent to say what he wants. Or to filling your own territory.

Author:	ez4u [ Sat Jun 14, 2014 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Go and Negotiation
Even in positive sum games the negotiation is typically about the relative sizes of the two 'wins' in that 'win-win'. The person who makes the first offer will anchor the negotiation around the level of their choice - a big advantage if they understand what is going on.

Author:	daal [ Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:27 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Go and Negotiation
ez4u wrote: Even in positive sum games the negotiation is typically about the relative sizes of the two 'wins' in that 'win-win'. The person who makes the first offer will anchor the negotiation around the level of their choice - a big advantage if they understand what is going on. The linked article wasn't the one about anchoring negotiations, but the the 2 systems of thought as well as the idea of cognitive illusions that Kahneman discusses in the interview that appeared, "thinking fast vs. thinking slow," are also excellent metaphors for go.

Author:	ez4u [ Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:06 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Go and Negotiation
The linked article is the one on anchoring and negotiation (7th video). However, the page automatically keeps cycling through the 10 short videos by Daniel Kahneman so don't go away to fix a cup of tea! I agree that much of what he is talking about is (or is potentially) applicable to all of us when we play Go.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Unusedname [ Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Go and Negotiation
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.

Author:	skydyr [ Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Go and Negotiation
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.

Author:	Bill Spight [ Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Go and Negotiation
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. Well, it's true that my favorite kind of win is one in which the opponent got everything he wanted. 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. BTW, in such games it is usually the other way around. My opponent does not appreciate the power of my influence.