The book is much better than my one-sentence summary of it. As a small example, the author notes that Communist forces would often set up bases on the boundary of two warlords' areas, so that they could not be surrounded.
My point is that given enough contortion or reduction, one can apply any real life strategy to almost any strategy game.
In the first example of controlling the middle vs the edges, well, there are chess openings with the strategy of explicitly giving up the center. A reply in a different chain on this post mentions these, known as hypermodern openings.
It does sound like a good book since I'm a fan of history, chess, and go, so I'll give it a read.
And they did that because it makes sense from a military perspective, not because they were aping go strategies. Are you being obtuse on purpose? You're taking two radically different problem domains and producing a shaky, extremely high level mapping between some elements in them that is essentially unfalsifiable.
In the first example of controlling the middle vs the edges, well, there are chess openings with the strategy of explicitly giving up the center. A reply in a different chain on this post mentions these, known as hypermodern openings.
It does sound like a good book since I'm a fan of history, chess, and go, so I'll give it a read.