Some conflicts are played like Chess. Others are played like Go.
Chess is a game of kings, queens, knights, and decisive battles. The goal is clear: trap the king, force checkmate, end the contest. Go, by contrast, is a game of patience. Every stone is equal. Victory comes not from destroying the enemy directly, but from shaping the board, surrounding space, and slowly turning influence into reality.
Many scholars have explored differences between Eastern and Western strategic thinking through metaphors such as Chess and Go, arguing that cultures often approach conflict, balance, and long-term planning differently.[6]
This difference offers a useful metaphor for today’s geopolitical contest between the United States and China, especially over Taiwan.
The Chess Mindset
The United States often acts like a chess player. Its political rhythm is shaped by elections, presidential terms, public opinion, and short political cycles. A president may have four years, perhaps eight, to prove results. This encourages visible moves: sanctions, alliances, military deployments, speeches, negotiations, and decisive responses.
This system has strengths. It allows correction, debate, innovation, and rapid adaptation. But it can also create inconsistency. One administration may build a strategy, while the next changes direction. In geopolitics, this can make long-term planning difficult.
The Go Mindset
China often appears to play a longer game. Its strategy toward Taiwan seems less like a direct chess attack and more like a Go strategy: surround, pressure, wait, influence, and expand options over time.
Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger observed that Chinese strategic culture has historically emphasized patience, indirect positioning, and long-term psychological advantage rather than immediate confrontation.[7]
This can be seen through military pressure, economic incentives, diplomatic isolation, cultural messaging, cyber pressure, and “grey-zone” tactics. Taiwan has recently accused China of using civilian-looking research vessels and other activities as part of a pressure campaign near its waters. Reuters reported such an incident in May 2026 [1] .
China also uses the carrot as well as the stick. During Taiwan’s recent energy concerns, Beijing offered energy security in exchange for political acceptance of Chinese rule. Taiwan rejected the offer, calling it psychological warfare [2]
The Risk of Great Power Rivalry
The growing rivalry between the United States and China has often been discussed through the framework of the “Thucydides Trap,” the historical danger that arises when a rising power challenges an established power.[8]
Strategist Edward Luttwak has argued that the rapid rise of a great power can naturally trigger balancing reactions from surrounding nations, illustrating what he calls the “logic of strategy” in geopolitics.[9]
Taiwan: The Silicon Island
Taiwan is not only a symbolic political issue. It is also one of the most important technological centers in the world. TSMC controls close to 70 percent of the global foundry market, according to TrendForce data reported in 2026 [3].
This matters because advanced semiconductors power the AI revolution, smartphones, data centers, defense systems, and much of the modern digital economy. A destructive war over Taiwan could damage not only Taiwan, but the global economy itself.
That is why a rational Chinese strategy may prefer winning Taiwan without firing a shot. Why destroy the treasure one hopes to possess? Why risk turning TSMC, Taiwan’s infrastructure, and human talent into ruins? In this sense, Sun Tzu’s famous principle still echoes: the highest form of victory is to subdue the opponent without fighting.”[5]
Yin and Yang in Strategy
Yet the metaphor should not become too simple. The United States does not only play chess, and China does not only play Go.
The United States has built long-term structures: NATO, the dollar-centered financial system, Silicon Valley, and a vast alliance network. These are not short-term moves. They are stones placed across generations.
China, on the other hand, can also act tactically and suddenly when opportunity appears. Its long-term Belt and Road strategy continues to evolve, with recent reporting showing renewed momentum and adaptation in 2025 and 2026 [4].
So both powers contain Yin and Yang. Patience can become pressure. Strength can become overconfidence. Flexibility can become inconsistency. Long-term planning can become rigidity.
Final Thought: A Vietnamese Memory
For me, this question is not only theoretical. I lived through the ending of the Vietnam War more than fifty years ago. The North won the war militarily, but winning a war is not the same as winning the hearts of people[10].
After 1975, Vietnam became one country again on the map. But in daily life, in memory, in families, and in the wounds carried by millions of people, reconciliation took much longer. Some wounds heal slowly. Some memories travel across oceans with the refugees who left. Some questions remain inside the children and grandchildren born far away from the homeland.
This is why I believe that if China truly wants Taiwan, war would be the poorest form of victory. A destroyed Taiwan would not be a real victory. A conquered people would not easily become a reconciled people. The better strategy, if wisdom still has a place in geopolitics, would be to avoid destruction and let time, trust, culture, and shared interest do what armies cannot.
Chess may win a battle. Go may shape a future. But the Tao reminds us that the deepest victory is balance: power without cruelty, patience without deception, and strength without destroying the very thing one hopes to preserve.
References
-
Reuters. “Taiwan says it drove away Chinese research ship.” May 11, 2026.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/taiwan-says-it-drove-away-chinese-research-ship-2026-05-11/ ↩ -
Reuters. “Taiwan rejects China's energy-security reunification offer amid Middle East war.” March 19, 2026.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/taiwan-rejects-chinas-energy-security-reunification-offer-amid-middle-east-war-2026-03-19/ ↩ -
TrendForce. “TSMC Maintains Dominance in Global Foundry Market.” 2026.
https://www.trendforce.com/presscenter/news/20260312-12965.html ↩ -
Reuters Breakingviews. “China’s resurgent Belt and Road is built to last.” May 6, 2026.
https://www.reuters.com/commentary/breakingviews/chinas-resurgent-belt-road-is-built-last-2026-05-06/ ↩ -
Sun Tzu. The Art of War.
Public domain translations widely available. ↩ -
Richard E. Nisbett. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently... and Why.
Free Press, 2003. ↩ -
Henry Kissinger. On China.
Penguin Press, 2011. ↩ -
Graham Allison. Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017. ↩ -
Edward Luttwak. The Rise of China vs. the Logic of Strategy.
Belknap Press, 2012. ↩ - Personal reflections and historical memories of the author regarding the aftermath of the Vietnam War and the long process of reconciliation within the Vietnamese diaspora. ↩
