|
I posted this to the Starcraft subreddit earlier this week, and I figured I might as well post it here. Here is a free, legal PDF of Sun Tzu's The Art of War, one of the best-known and most respected military book. It was written 2,500 years ago, and the lessons found therein are still true today.
The Art of War has been applied to not just military campaigns, but also to business and politics. Most interestingly to this community, a lot of the concepts have applications in Starcraft.
I hope you enjoy, and it's only 30 pages long, so you can read it in an evening (though it takes a lot longer to truly understand and appreciate the ramifications of all the points).
Sun Tzu - The Art of War
|
Great, reading through it right now.
Some of his stuff is great for quotes (cough cough)
|
ty
|
|
This is actually pretty cool to find a free PDF version. Thanks man!
|
"Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory."
i am soooo applying this to my PvT.
|
He who has 1-1 upgrades should move out
|
Sorry to be a hater, but the book is really pointless to read for educational or improvement reasons. Everything in it is very, very obvious and is stuff you already know. It's one of those books that the intelligista like to brag about reading/applying but don't realize how worthless it actually is. There is historical value in it, though.
If you disagree I challenge you to quote something from the book that is both useful and not obvious.
|
On September 10 2009 13:19 cz wrote: Sorry to be a hater, but the book is really pointless to read for educational or improvement reasons. Everything in it is very, very obvious and is stuff you already know. It's one of those books that the intelligista like to brag about reading/applying but don't realize how worthless it actually is. There is historical value in it, though.
If you disagree I challenge you to quote something from the book that is both useful and not obvious.
for someone so in touch with what the intelligentsia likes, you don't seem that familiar with burden of proof!
|
On September 10 2009 13:34 Scooge wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 13:19 cz wrote: Sorry to be a hater, but the book is really pointless to read for educational or improvement reasons. Everything in it is very, very obvious and is stuff you already know. It's one of those books that the intelligista like to brag about reading/applying but don't realize how worthless it actually is. There is historical value in it, though.
If you disagree I challenge you to quote something from the book that is both useful and not obvious.
for someone so in touch with what the intelligentsia likes, you don't seem that familiar with burden of proof!
Just quote something that is both useful and not obvious. I suppose I could rephrase my earlier to post to ask the OP to back up his claims, thus putting the burden of proof on him, but that would take more work.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
Its worth reading but yeah its really overrated. Its really more a "philosophy of how to set your mind when you go into battle" than anything but people seem to treat it like it actually has advice on how tactics work or something.
Thanks for the file
|
this has been on project gutenberg basically forever.
|
On September 10 2009 13:37 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 13:34 Scooge wrote:On September 10 2009 13:19 cz wrote: Sorry to be a hater, but the book is really pointless to read for educational or improvement reasons. Everything in it is very, very obvious and is stuff you already know. It's one of those books that the intelligista like to brag about reading/applying but don't realize how worthless it actually is. There is historical value in it, though.
If you disagree I challenge you to quote something from the book that is both useful and not obvious.
for someone so in touch with what the intelligentsia likes, you don't seem that familiar with burden of proof! Just quote something that is both useful and not obvious. I suppose I could rephrase my earlier to post to ask the OP to back up his claims, thus putting the burden of proof on him, but that would take more work.
Just don't fucking come and post in a thread about something you don't like. The thread was titled correctly, it was obvious to you what it was, stay away.
|
United States42688 Posts
I agree that most of what it says can be deduced logically but I disagree that makes it useless. The way I see it, most bw strategy is obvious. It's a series of choices and if asked at any given time what to do the average D player can work out the correct one. Sometimes you just need someone to say it.
|
On September 10 2009 14:38 m4gdelen4 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 13:37 cz wrote:On September 10 2009 13:34 Scooge wrote:On September 10 2009 13:19 cz wrote: Sorry to be a hater, but the book is really pointless to read for educational or improvement reasons. Everything in it is very, very obvious and is stuff you already know. It's one of those books that the intelligista like to brag about reading/applying but don't realize how worthless it actually is. There is historical value in it, though.
If you disagree I challenge you to quote something from the book that is both useful and not obvious.
for someone so in touch with what the intelligentsia likes, you don't seem that familiar with burden of proof! Just quote something that is both useful and not obvious. I suppose I could rephrase my earlier to post to ask the OP to back up his claims, thus putting the burden of proof on him, but that would take more work. Just don't fucking come and post in a thread about something you don't like. So basically people should only post in a thread when they like/agree with the idea? This place is called forum for a reason.
|
On September 10 2009 14:43 Kwark wrote: I agree that most of what it says can be deduced logically but I disagree that makes it useless. The way I see it, most bw strategy is obvious. It's a series of choices and if asked at any given time what to do the average D player can work out the correct one. Sometimes you just need someone to say it.
I disagree with this. Or at least to the magnitude of it. Most bw strategy is not at all obvious to the level of what The Art of War is. Think of it like this: the average comment in the book is something like "be aware of what your opponent is doing" or "attack when your enemy is weak, not strong". That's not the equivalent of being given a 5 hat hydra build or learning a proper timing window, it's the equivalent of someone telling you "don't fight 12 zealots with your 3 zerglings, save them instead". What constitutes legitimate strategy in starcraft is an order of magnitude or many steps away from what the Art of War gives, which are just basic, very obvious comments.
In other words, if I wrote a 30 page book filled with comments such as:
"Don't waste your units, but rather save them." "Always try to be aware of what your opponent is doing and try to negate him from doing the same to you."
and I said that those comments should help people improve their bw game, I would be laughed off the forum. That's the equivalent of what the Art of War contains, except I used starcraft terms above. In that same sense, that the Art of War might help anyone improve starcraft is also laughable. That said there is historic value and perhaps some sort of pre-game psych value in the book, but as for learning anything new, that's not going to happen. It's a very, very overhyped book of limited to no functional value.
I'm not trying to take away from the OP posting a copy of the book, just stating my view on the book itself.
|
On September 10 2009 14:38 m4gdelen4 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 13:37 cz wrote:On September 10 2009 13:34 Scooge wrote:On September 10 2009 13:19 cz wrote: Sorry to be a hater, but the book is really pointless to read for educational or improvement reasons. Everything in it is very, very obvious and is stuff you already know. It's one of those books that the intelligista like to brag about reading/applying but don't realize how worthless it actually is. There is historical value in it, though.
If you disagree I challenge you to quote something from the book that is both useful and not obvious.
for someone so in touch with what the intelligentsia likes, you don't seem that familiar with burden of proof! Just quote something that is both useful and not obvious. I suppose I could rephrase my earlier to post to ask the OP to back up his claims, thus putting the burden of proof on him, but that would take more work. Just don't fucking come and post in a thread about something you don't like. The thread was titled correctly, it was obvious to you what it was, stay away.
This has got to be ban-worthy.
|
United States42688 Posts
On September 10 2009 14:58 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 14:43 Kwark wrote: I agree that most of what it says can be deduced logically but I disagree that makes it useless. The way I see it, most bw strategy is obvious. It's a series of choices and if asked at any given time what to do the average D player can work out the correct one. Sometimes you just need someone to say it. I disagree with this. Or at least to the magnitude of it. Most bw strategy is not at all obvious to the level of what The Art of War is. Think of it like this: the average comment in the book is something like "be aware of what your opponent is doing" or "attack when your enemy is weak, not strong". That's not the equivalent of being given a 5 hat hydra build or learning a proper timing window, it's the equivalent of someone telling you "don't fight 12 zealots with your 3 zerglings, save them instead". What constitutes legitimate strategy in starcraft is an order of magnitude or many steps away from what the Art of War gives, which are just basic, very obvious comments. In other words, if I wrote a 30 page book filled with comments such as: "Don't waste your units, but rather save them." "Always try to be aware of what your opponent is doing and try to negate him from doing the same to you." and I said that those comments should help people improve their bw game, I would be laughed off the forum. That's the equivalent of what the Art of War contains, except I used starcraft terms above. In that same sense, that the Art of War might help anyone improve starcraft is also laughable. That said there is historic value and perhaps some sort of pre-game psych value in the book, but as for learning anything new, that's not going to happen. It's a very, very overhyped book of limited to no functional value. I'm not trying to take away from the OP posting a copy of the book, just stating my view on the book itself. Bw really is that simple. I watch replays with bad players all the time and those are the things you say. I'll get them to pause and say "what do you know about his build, what should you do against that". If put on the spot they can either work it out or say they don't know enough. If they don't know I point out they should be scouting and they're like "oh yeah :S". Anyone can work that out if asked. What's harder is to maintain that kind of decision making in game. Seriously, everyone understands the basics, like storm against hydralisk or scourge against corsair. It's the decision making that wins it. You gotta apply the basic logical decision making at high speed to your gameplay. That's how you win bw.
|
On September 10 2009 15:11 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 14:58 cz wrote:On September 10 2009 14:43 Kwark wrote: I agree that most of what it says can be deduced logically but I disagree that makes it useless. The way I see it, most bw strategy is obvious. It's a series of choices and if asked at any given time what to do the average D player can work out the correct one. Sometimes you just need someone to say it. I disagree with this. Or at least to the magnitude of it. Most bw strategy is not at all obvious to the level of what The Art of War is. Think of it like this: the average comment in the book is something like "be aware of what your opponent is doing" or "attack when your enemy is weak, not strong". That's not the equivalent of being given a 5 hat hydra build or learning a proper timing window, it's the equivalent of someone telling you "don't fight 12 zealots with your 3 zerglings, save them instead". What constitutes legitimate strategy in starcraft is an order of magnitude or many steps away from what the Art of War gives, which are just basic, very obvious comments. In other words, if I wrote a 30 page book filled with comments such as: "Don't waste your units, but rather save them." "Always try to be aware of what your opponent is doing and try to negate him from doing the same to you." and I said that those comments should help people improve their bw game, I would be laughed off the forum. That's the equivalent of what the Art of War contains, except I used starcraft terms above. In that same sense, that the Art of War might help anyone improve starcraft is also laughable. That said there is historic value and perhaps some sort of pre-game psych value in the book, but as for learning anything new, that's not going to happen. It's a very, very overhyped book of limited to no functional value. I'm not trying to take away from the OP posting a copy of the book, just stating my view on the book itself. Bw really is that simple. I watch replays with bad players all the time and those are the things you say. I'll get them to pause and say "what do you know about his build, what should you do against that". If put on the spot they can either work it out or say they don't know enough. If they don't know I point out they should be scouting and they're like "oh yeah :S". Anyone can work that out if asked. What's harder is to maintain that kind of decision making in game. Seriously, everyone understands the basics, like storm against hydralisk or scourge against corsair. It's the decision making that wins it. You gotta apply the basic logical decision making at high speed to your gameplay. That's how you win bw.
Yeah I added a bit more to the post you are responding to, making it a bit more clear what I'm talking about.
|
On September 10 2009 14:59 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 14:38 m4gdelen4 wrote:On September 10 2009 13:37 cz wrote:On September 10 2009 13:34 Scooge wrote:On September 10 2009 13:19 cz wrote: Sorry to be a hater, but the book is really pointless to read for educational or improvement reasons. Everything in it is very, very obvious and is stuff you already know. It's one of those books that the intelligista like to brag about reading/applying but don't realize how worthless it actually is. There is historical value in it, though.
If you disagree I challenge you to quote something from the book that is both useful and not obvious.
for someone so in touch with what the intelligentsia likes, you don't seem that familiar with burden of proof! Just quote something that is both useful and not obvious. I suppose I could rephrase my earlier to post to ask the OP to back up his claims, thus putting the burden of proof on him, but that would take more work. Just don't fucking come and post in a thread about something you don't like. The thread was titled correctly, it was obvious to you what it was, stay away. This has got to be ban-worthy.
Leave that for the Mods... they dont need help banning people.
@on topic: Thx im going to read this... Ive heard a lot of things about this book... maybe its time to get my own opinion.
|
|
|
|