As I expect many chess players have done I have studied different versions of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War".  Each time I read the teachings I think about how it applies to the game of chess.  I want to see how other players relate "The Art of War" to their chess game.

I will start out by relating one of Sun Tzu's ideals to the game.

Translation by: Lionel Giles

Chapter 10: Terrain

Ideal #10: "With regard to Precipitous Heights. if you are beforehand with your adversary, you should occupy the raised and sunny spots and from there wait for him to come up." 

When I read this I think about the importance of controlling the center of the board.  After studying the Art of War for the first time I began to think of chess board as a hill with the four center positions being the peak. The opening sequence shown below demonstrates controlling the center before your opponent. In this example any attack on the white pieces at the center of the board results in at best a trade in material with white retaining control of the center.

I look forward to seeing how others relate "The Art of War" to chess and will probably post additional examples myself.

I have corrected the opening sequence which was flawed due to my inexperience in inserting move sequences in my posts.  Thanks for the heads up  Liburkin.

Why don't you read chess books instead?

Yes, that's right.  Stand out in the open for me to shoot at you.

Ideal #10: "With regard to Precipitous Heights. if you are beforehand with your adversary, you should occupy the raised and sunny spots and from there wait for him to come up."

To me the key concept in play here is "wait".  It reminds me of the strategy of the hippo or other modern defense in chess , or just any time where you set up an impregnable defense and wait for your opponent to over extend himself to do something drastic and rash.  Summoning up whatever sparse military knowledge I have, the initial strategy of the Saxons in the Battle of Hastings to just wait on the high ground comes to mind, and they were winning until the deceptive retreat ploy by William forced the Saxons to break rank and follow him down the hill.  Or just even Ali's Rope a Dope, or whatever.  I'm just bringing up things that anyone with cursory military knowledge would be aware of.

The point of this topic is to demonstrate how "The Art of War" can be thought of as a book on chess strategy therefore by reading it you are reading a "chess book".

zen

Ideal #10: "With regard to Precipitous Heights. if you are beforehand with your adversary, you should occupy the raised and sunny spots and from there wait for him to come up." 

I like to imagine those 'raised and sunny spots'  in the corners of the chessboard rather than in the center, that can be a big valley battlefield. So I would translate it in this way: "Castle soon, and wait. When the opponent's army is below your mountain, unleash the hell in his backranks :)"

Sun Tzu describes 6 types of terrain, # 5 is Precipitous Heights which I originally presented.  This new idea is to have the King protected in the corner therefore the corner would ideally be at Precipitous Heights. 

If you read a little further into Sun Tzu's writing he talks about Terrain #6 "Positions at a great distance from the enemy" Chapter 10 Terrain-Ideal#12: If you are situated at a great distance and the strength of the two armies is equal, it is not easy to provoke a battle, and fighting would be to your disadvantage.

I think this perfectly describes the corner position once you have castled.  If we analyze this position we see that we are the greatest distance possible from our enemy considering constraints of the chessboard.  With equal strength armies it is difficult to attack the corners and it takes a great deal of maneuvering to reach the corners with your armies intact.  But I agree, it doesn't hurt to have this position at Precipitous Heights. 

Here's another one:

Chapter 3: Attack by Stratagem

Ideal #1: "In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not good.  So, too, it is better to recapture an entire army than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them"

This ideal to me relates to end game play where there is an opportunity to "clean up" extra material before playing for the checkmate but instead you go directly for the mate which may take some extra maneuvering due to the opponents pieces still on the board. 

By the way the best example of this ideal is "Fools Mate" which most chess players know and easily avoid.

Have you looked at the chess book, "The Art of War Revisited" on the 1992 Fischer-Spassky match? This book may be of interest to you.

 You are correct, I am interested in finding this book but it seems to be out of print.  I have checked B&N, Books A Million, Amazon Books, The Chess Store, and Wholesale Chess.  It's not available anywhere.  I will watch for it on ebay.  Thanks for the information. 

Also "The Tao of Chess" and "Samurai Chess" may interest you as well.

"The Tao of Chess" may be a good addition.

Because one of the authors of "Samurai Chess"  is Raymond Keene, I'd stay clear of that title.