Newsgroups: comp.ai.games
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!simtel!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!lugb!lux!cs583953
From: cs583953@lux.latrobe.edu.au (.oO FactorY Oo.)
Subject: Re: HELP: Recognising stratigic dispositions.
Message-ID: <1995May19.170226.10689@lugb.latrobe.edu.au>
Sender: Factory
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 17:02:26 GMT
References: <3oro0c$egf@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au> <Pine.SOL.3.91.950516222830.3530B-100000@student.canberra.edu.au> <3pbtj1$2n8@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>
Organization: La Trobe University
Lines: 24

ccamuys@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au (Andrae Muys) writes:
>Personally I prefer Sun Tzu's philosophy.  Basically it holds that to win 
>without fighting is best, and the aim of war is to capture territory 
>without damaging it.
>BTW: does anyone know if there is a e-text version of The Art of War 
>anywhere?
>
>Andrae.

http://timpwrmac.clh.icnet.uk/Docs/suntzu/szcontents.html
  for the Art of War (not the 1960's translation, an older one) , and

http://fermi.clas.virginia.edu/~gl8f/paradoxes.html
  for George Silver's Paradoxes of defence, which is probably
in a similarr vein, but I have not got around to reading it yet.

  Anybody who does any type of strategic or tactical stuff should
read at least the Art of War, very good stuff indeed.

-- 
  ______ _____________________________________  _______ 
 (_ ___ /     /     /     /       /      /    |/   /  / 
   (__ /  ___/     /     /       /      /     /   /  /__
      /  __//  .  /  ___/__   __/  __  /  .  /____  /___)_
