[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: computer-go: Leibniz
Title: Re: computer-go: Leibniz
Thanks! You get some of the places where
the French puzzled me and I wasn't sure how to translate it. I
stuck primarily with the German, because there are places where the
French clearly omits things that are in the Latin, and other places
where it seems to elaborate beyond what was said. I
would be very interested to hear if anyone knows Latin well enough to
settle some of the differences between the texts. A few more specific
comments below.
Very
nice translation. There are a few discrepancies between
your translation and the french version, see below. This text is a
part of the article:
GOTTFRIED WILHELM LEIBNIZ,
ON SOME GAMES AND MAINLY ON THE CHINESE GAME,
ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GAME OF CHESS AND THE GAME OF LITTLE
ROBBERS (OR LATRUNCULES), AND ON A NEW TYPE OF NAVAL
GAME.
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Robert de Neufville
[mailto:rden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Envoy : vendredi 18 octobre 2002 14:01
Ė : computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Objet :
I took a stab at
translating the Leibniz passage on go. I thought it was quite
interesting. One caveat (besides the fact that I am not a
translator) is that I translated it primarily from the German and
French translations, so I can't vouch for how well it accords with the
original Latin. The German translation seems like it might be
pretty close to the original, but the French clearly takes a lot of
liberties and is quite garbled in places. Anyway, here is
roughly what Leibniz had to say.
________________________________________________________________________________________
I come now to the account
of a Chinese game, to which I will take the opportunity to add several
remarks. There are several pictorial representations of it
in a book of Chinese drawings in the library of the famous Prussian
kings in Berlin, one of which drawings I have made an engraving of.
This game is one of those that are based on skill alone with no
element of chance mixed in. It has the peculiar feature that the
players (so it seems) do not take each other's pieces in turn, but
rather corner and surround each other so that in the end the player
who takes away the other's freedom to move wins, as it were, without
murder or bloodshed. This can happen in other games too, but
here it is always the case.
But on this game listen to
Nicolas Triglautius, in the eighth chapter of the first book of On
the Christian Expedition to China, from the notes of Matthaeus
Riccius, one of the illustrious founders of the mission to China. He
has this to say:
The most substantial game
among them is of the following type: several people play on a
board with three hundred squares [in my opinion the word
"several" must be read as meaning that the game is played on
a board with more than three hundred squares since there are only two
players; this may be the result of a Latin translator who
misinterpreted the Italian of Riccius or the French of Triglautius]
with two hundred stones, of which some are white and some are black.
With these stones each player tries to push other's stones into the
center of the board in order to control the remaining squares; at the
end, the player who controls the most squares on the board is
considered the winner.
The magistrates are wild
about this game and often spend the greater part of their day playing
at it; between skillful players a single game takes a whole hour.
Those who have mastered the game, even if they are distinguished in no
other area, are nevertheless praised and sought after by everyone.
These masters even read at the traditional ceremonies, so that
others can learn the strategy of the game from them. (?)
Even magistrates usually attach to
themselves [meaning: employ] some strong players, to be instructed by
them and learn the rules of this game.
The problem is that the
German specifically mentions "ceremonies" and as far as I
can see the German, Dutch, and Latin all use a word for "read"
(which is not in the French)--perhaps some idiomatic usage I'm not
aware of--and to be honest I am not even totally sure whether it is
the masters or magistrates who "read." Can anyone help
me with the Latin or German? Does "read" here
translate as "employ?"
Thus
Triglautius. But a visual examination of the game's design
reveals a problem with this account.
"This is
Frigantius's report. But to this description should be added the
visual aspect of this game.
One problem with the
French is that the Latin has "Triglautius" and the French
has "Frigantius." I suspect the French translator was
working from a hard-to-read copy. Your translation is perhaps
better than mine here. The German talks about a "Fehler"
in Triglautius' account, and the French talks about what it lacks, so
I was trying to capture that sense of something missing from it.
But it may capture Leibniz' meaning better to say that something
should be added to it.
Namely, that the board is a square, with eighteen squares
on a side. Therefore there are in all eighteen times eighteen
squares, that is, not three hundred, but three hundred and
twenty-four.
And
the rest of the description doesn't accord well enough with the actual
facts: it is obviously not always possible or
necessary for one player to push the other into the middle of the
board, since it is enough to surround your opponent, either in the
middle or in a corner. And the player who has control of the
most squares (however one wants to define this) would not be the
winner unless, after surrounding his opponent, he alone has a free
field.
The rest of
the description is of little importance; since each one of the two
players is trying to push the other towards the middle of the board,
it is obvious that he can do so, but that it is not absolutely
necessary, because it is enough to keep the
opponent surrounded, either in the middle, or in one of the
corners. The winner is the player who controls the most squares; what
can this mean? that the player who has his adversary surrounded
is the master of the battle field.
This passage puzzled me
in both the French and the German. The German says it isn't
always possible to push your opponent into the middle of the board,
whereas the French says it is. Latin experts? The last
sentence was confusing to me in French because the structure is so
odd. I think the German version says the same thing and is
better because it includes the parenthesis (which is in the Latin, as
far as I can see), and because it talks about a *free* field (the
Latin is "campum liberum"), which fits with all the comments
about restricting your opponent's movement.
Even
though we don't know all the rules, the number of stones and the size
of the board make me certain that this game requires very great skill
and is extremely difficult. Certainly, it is worth noticing its
peculiar manner of play, namely, that the point of the game is not to
destroy the opponent but rather only to push him back across the board
(unlike in our games). And one can well believe that the creator
of this game was some brahmin who abhorred killing and wanted a
victory without bloodshed. For it is known that most of the
peoples of the East Indies are in these things more Christian than
those who call themselves Christian, and as rule avoid killing even in
war.
--
Robert de Neufville
rden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx