The greatest flaw of the sages of ancient China

The greatest flaw in the theory of sages of ancient of China is the point of view we had of them. And this point of view is reflected by others points of view also flawed. No one claims to have the knowledge of Confucius, hence no one is able to completely understand Confucianism; No one claim to know the Dao道 as Laozi老子, hence no one understands Daoism completely, no one claims to have the knowledge about strategy as Sun Tzu孙子, hence no one is able to fully understand his teachings of war, No one claims to know the theory of the Yi jing(I ching) 易经 (易經) as King Wen or the Duke of Chou, hence no one is able to understand fully its content.
Even if these sages were perfect, the points of view we have or receive of them are flawed. We see their texts through a number of copyists if you see one of the copies recovered by archaeologists, and even a transforming language through the time in the received texts (see the modernist school of the Yi Jing as a good example), if by a translation, by its author; you see the forms of Taijiquan (Taichichuan) 太极拳 (太極拳), that are even more abstract then texts, through a number of persons.
My point of view is perhaps also flawed; it is your role to point my faults.

A new way of consulting the Yi Jing: a rational use

I offer a new way of using the yi jing: a rational way, an alternative to divination; is not my intention criticize or end with divination, is exactly the contrary, I would be happy if this method continues to be used, and attract more people to the Chinese culture, maybe they think Chinese martial arts are interesting, ask me for advice of consultations of the Yi Jing.
We have two methods of using the yin yang theory, divination and rational. For example you could observe and use knowledge to see if hot is yang or ying, using the rational method, or throw coins, or arrange sticks, for answers of gods, subconscious, universe, etc( I don’t want to over simplify the method of divination, there’s various methods and various reasons for acquiring an answer); the two are the same, they are what I call “categorization of reality” you can use the divinatory system in any of these “categories of reality” or reason in any of them, the four images: define with reason what season of the year you are, the bagua to determine the level of yin and yang, and the Yi jing, of course.
The rational method is used long ago, the Chinese don’t thrown coins or other methods to see what side of the mountain received sun and what not, they observerd and used reason to see a side received light and called it yang 阳（陽）(literary the sunny side of the slope) and the other yin (literary the shadowy side of the slope), they don’t used sticks to see what was rigid, in chinese gang, represented by a solid, rigid line, they used reason, and used this to name the other type of line, the yielding, flexible, represented by a broken, yielding line, of a flexible, curved line. The rational method is used in Chinese medicine to determine if a patient have a yang or yin characteristic. In feng shui you should arrange the bagua using observation and determine what is the north to arrange the baguas accordingly. In Martial arts we use reason to see an attack as yang and yield with an yin move, etc. Of course divination should have its advantages, but I’m not specialist to say if it is bad or good, I don’t see why both can’t coexist.
In fact saying that I use the rational method is a misconception as I use the rational and the intuitive, the whole; if you want a concrete example of rational use with the Yi Jing(I ching)易经(易經) I present will present them in my next texts.

A comparison of Weiqi围棋(圍棋)(go) and western chess, again

There’s already plenty of material about the subject, this is a text about the misconceptions I have seen.
Go and chess don’t represent a war of “West versus East”, Chess came from China, not even India, it is evident by the advanced society China had, and the games of Liubo六博, Chinese chess 象棋 xiangqi, etc., although there’s some resemblances in their focuses (the more immediate thinking of chess and the long term strategy of weiqi).
There’s a question: what is the most complex game? Some people argue that a 1 million by 1 million tic tac toe game would be more complex; I don’t think so. Such a game would have only 2 diagonal chances of winning the game and just one of your moves in a 1 million spaces of a row or column would make a loss in that space impossible. The Size 19×19 of weiqi been greater than chess cannot be pointed as the only cause for its greater complexity; what about a 1 million by 1 million game of go?
What the ideal size for these games? If you played bigger variants of chess like the dragon chess and most of its variants, have flaws on their openings that make them almost unplayable. 8×8 Chess, compared to the rules of go, is already much complex. The 19×19 go is complex for many people and is the only thing that prevents it to be bigger; The go in any board size that the rules would be so simple and would be visually by seen the colors that predominate a certain area, would be easy to see the strategies, it could be played in any board size.
The fact that computers don’t play well weiqi because there is more time of research, don’t we forget that the chess has been played for centuries and, weiqi, for millenniums; and we all know that every year the advancements in computer software and hardware are increasing exponentially, a few decades would not make so much difference. I heard someone saying “at least we don’t loss to a random number generator”, maybe they’re referring to the Monte Carlo method of search; In a simple game like chess is possible to exhaust a good number of moves ahead for every move, but with a complex game like go we would not go further than seeing part of the board. Imagine a engine of chess searching the moves for the queen’s rook pawn, the queen’s rook, the queen’s knight pawn, , the queen’s knight… and have to move; it would not play a brilliant game, would be better use random search for moves .It is not really playing random moves.
The best game would probably be one of simple rules versus complexity of gameplay, weiqi has the most simple and intuitive rules, that is nearer from math perfection; they are thought to be universal, as the chess world champion Emanuel Lasker said “If there are some rational beings in some other planets, they sure know Go”. Wei qi has so subtle strategies that mimics conflict, war and the universe as never seen. But its complexity is criticized, and Go is even cited wrongly as a game of luck, making chess a better game for some people or a game for kids or introductory game.
I certainly can affirm” Chess is the game of kings, go is the game of gods”.

War is never over

As I recommended a new way of count go victories, a game is never the end of all (this is true in all games played more than once, as counting victories or ratings, but in my weiqi 围棋 (圍棋) (go) calculations, the results of your acts continues to have influence, similarly to life).
War is never over. We could see this in the results of the starving of the German army in the First World War (WWI), that produced a feeling of revenge that caused the second world war (WWII). That produced a sense of non-aggression in the countries that lost the war (mainly Japan and Germany), and have reflex in all the world, the whole universe is at war. And these events can be traced back since the start of the universe to all times to come. Is important to notice this, all is connected and the comprehension of this can make we understand better our actions.