Limits of The Mind Full Text

LIMITS OF THE MIND
TOWARDS A CHARACTERISATION OF BAO MASTERSHIP
ALEXANDER J. DE VOOGT
Research School CNWS

Leiden, The Netherlands
1995
CNWS PUBLICATIONS
VOL. 37
CNWS PUBLICATIONS is produced by the Research School CNWS, Leiden University,

The Netherlands.
Editorial board: M. Forrer; K. Jongeling; R. Kruk; G. J. van Loon; W. van der Molen; F. E.
Tjon Sie Fat (chief-editor); W. J. Vogelsang; W. van Zanten.
All correspondence should be addressed to: Dr. F. E. Tjon Sie Fat, chief-editor CNWS
Publications, c/o Research School CNWS, Leiden University, PO Box 9515, 2300 RA
Leiden, The Netherlands.
CIP-DATA, KONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK, DEN HAAG
Voogt, Alexander Johan de
Limits of the mind : towards a characterisation of Bao mastership I Alexander Johan de

Voogt. -Leiden : Research School CNWS. -Ill. - (CNWS publications, ISSN 0925-3084 ;
vol. 37)
Thesis Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, 1995. - With index, ref.
ISBN 90-73782-49-X
Subject headings: Bao.
Front cover design: Nelleke Oosten.

Printing: Ridderprint, Ridderkerk
10 Copyright 1995 Research School CNWS, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Copyright reserved. Subject to the exceptions provided for by law, no part of this publication may be
reproduced and/or published in print, by photocopying, on microfilm or in any other way without the
written consent of the copyright-holder(s); the same applies to whole or partial adaptations. The
publisher retains the sole right to collect from third parties fees in respect of copying and/or take legal
or other action for this purpose.
To the memory of my grandmother
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In 1990 during a Swahili language course at the Institute of Kiswahili and Foreign
Languages, first contact was made with a group of Bao players of the Kidongo
Chekundu Bao club in Ja'ngombe, Zanzibar. During subsequent travels, this contact
was extended by meetings with other clubs, the local Bao Society, and in particular
by meetings with the masters of Bao. A first preliminary study was conducted in
1992, followed by two intensive research periods in the months of May and October
1994. Only the research of May 1994 received official financial support, for which I
am very grateful to the Society for the Advancement of Research in the Tropics
(Treub-Mij.).
Gratitude is also extended to Mr. H.M. Mshindo, Mr. Ali H. Haji, and their
Ministry of Culture and Tourism for their cooperation in obtaining a research permit,
Mr. Mgeni Mwalim Ali and the Sports and Games Department for their kind
permission to organize Bao championships, Mr. Ali Khamis Ali, Mr. Abdallah A.
Muombwa, and the other teachers and researchers of the Institute of Kiswahili and
Foreign Languages who have supported and assisted me during each visit in the past
few years.
I am especially grateful to Rosalyn Walker, Laurence Russ, Philip Townshend,
and Vernon Eagle for their insights in manqala games, their support during this
research and for making their publications available to me. Also, I would like to
thank the members of the Dutch Bao Society for their enthusiasm and for keeping up
practice in Bao.
Without the help and friendship of the various masters of Bao this work could not
have been written. Firstly, my principal informant and friend Abdulrahim Muhiddin
Foum, who was not only an extraordinary informant, but who also performed the
task of guide through the outskirts of Zanzibar Town and beyond. Secondly, the
masters: Majaliwa J. Seif, Ibrahim S. Mkiwa, Masoud H. Ali (Kijumbe), Shamte M.
Shamte, Nasoro 0. Ali, Rajab 0. Rajab, Masoud Kh. Masoud, and Juma A.
Njowine, who all made great efforts to perform well on experiments and who made
this research successful. Together with Ali M. Hussein, Nuhu Ali, Khamis A.
Khamis, Mbaya 0. Juma, Mwinjuma H. Mabruki, Mgeni A. Omar, and Ameir Sh.
Kumba (Kasanga Turnbo), I thank them for their insights and support.
I would also like to thank Gogola S. Gogola for his friendship and together with
Ali J. Ali (Kipara) for his guidance in DarEs Salaam. Also, Mr. Abbas A. Mdungi
for his guidance in the direction of Tumbatu, and Mr. Kondo Pandu who generously
made the documents of Shaame Kondo Khamis (Nahodha) available to me.
For their correction of the text, I gratefully acknowledge among others my father,
Jean Marc Blankert, Lucien Reurich, Constance Dickmeyer, and Abdulrahim Foum.
Finally, I would like to thank my grandmother and my father who each made
valuable travel companions in Zanzibar, and my mother whose advice and support
made this research such a pleasant one.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Introduction 1
II Bao: the game and its masters 4

A The game 4
B History of Bao 7
1 History of Zanzibar 8
2 History and structure of the Bao Society 8
c History of Championship Bao 9
1 Methods of research 9
2 History of Bao (grand)masters 10
3 The 1994 Masters Tournament 12
D Players' background 15
1 Full name, and epithet 15
2 Year of birth 15
3 Place of birth, and the importance of travel 16
4 From student of Bao to master of Bao 16
5 Latest club information 16
6 Educational levels 17
7 Profession 19
8 Marital stage, number of children 19
E Literature 20
F Summary 21
III Classification of Bao 23

A A classification of board games 23
1 Board games and classification 23
2 War and race games 24
3 Championship games 26
4 Manqala games 27
5 The classification 27
6 War versus race games 28
7 Conclusion 29
B Classification of manqala 30
1 The nature of the move 30
2 The purpose of the move 30
3 The means of play 31
4 Position in manqala 32
5 Conclusion 33
c Variants 33
IV Zanzibar Bao rules 35

A Zanzibar Bao 35
1 Previous research 35
2 The analysis 35
B The board 36
c The basic move or spreading 37
1 Lata 37
2 Endelea 38
D Moves with capture 38
1 Namua 38
2 Mtaji 38
3 Kula 39
E Moves without capture 40
1 Takasa (also takata) 40 .J3
2 Takasia 41
3 Endelea and !ala 42 l
4 The house 42 I
F Irregularities in the game 43
1 Rejesha mistakes 43
2 Touch and move
3 Correcting the stock
43
43 \
G Conclusion 44 I
H The constriction of excellence 44 I
l
1 Recovery 45
2 Delay of victory 45
3 Delay of climax 46
4 Boundaries of excellence 46
5 Increase of boundaries 47
6 Championship games 48 J
7 Conclusion 48
J A quantitative characterisation of Bao 48 :j
1 State-space complexity 48 ,,
2 Game-tree complexity 49
3 Mutational complexity 50
4 Capture modes 50
5 Conclusion 51
v Illustrations of Bao play 52

A Rules of play 52
B Tactical combinations 53
1 Combinations to the house: short flank 55
2 Combinations to the house: long flank 56
3 Forced move to the house: short flank 58
4 Forced moves to the house: long flank 59
5 A first limitation on calculation: Table 3 62
c General principles of tactics 62
1 The bridge 62 I
2 The singletons attack: utitiri 62
3 The fork attack: piga tanji 63
T
I
r B Strategy in Bao 110
1 Methods of research 110
2 Structure of Bao strategy 110
3 Fani 112
c Generalising strategic theory 115
1 Opening play 115
2 The masters tournament 1994 118
D Conclusion 118
IX Conclusions 121
1. Practice 121
2. Limits of the mind 121
3. Dynamic constraint 122
4. Summary 122
Glossary 124
Literature 127
Appendix I: Experiments on Bao 131
Appendix II: Tournament games 135
Appendix III: Time management possible moves 158
Subject index 159
Author index 163
Summary 164
Samenvatting 167
Curriculum Vitae 170
LIST OF TABLES:
Table la: Official clubs 1992-1994 9

Table lb: Background to Zanzibar (grand)masters 22
Table 2: Capture modes 51
Table 3: Forced moves to the house 60/61
Table 4: The time table of condition A 72
Table 5: The time table of condition B 73
Table 6: The time table of condition C 74
Table 7: The time table of condition D 75
Table 8: Exponential increase of time 76
Table 9: Condition P 85
Table 10: Condition A, blind 93
Table 11: Condition P, blind 94
Table 12: Summary table 95
Table 13: Preferred openings in the 1994 Masters Tournament 116
Table 14: Tournament league result 118
Table 15: Characteristics of the short duru experiments 131
Tables 16, 17, 18, & 19: Results of the short duru experiment 132
Tables 20, 21, & 22: Results of the blind simple duru experiment 133
Tables 23, 24, 25, & 26: Results of the blind short duru experiment 134
LIST OF FIGURES:
Plate 1: A Bao board at the feet of a Bao master 5

Plate 2: Semi-finals of the 1994 Masters Tournament 14
Plate 3: Shaame Kondo Khamis (Nahodha) 18
Diagram 1: Bao situation 6
Diagram 4: Classification of board games 25
Diagram 7: Classification of manqala 31
Diagram 8: Kichwa and Kimbi position 37
Diagram 9: Notational system 54
Graph: Exponential increase Majaliwa 77
Graph: Exponential increase Abdu 78
Graph: Length of Bao games (in moves) 120
Graph: Length of Bao games (in minutes) 120
1
II
J
I
l
-I
l
I: INTRODUCTION
Masters of an East African board game called Baa appear to be able to calculate
extraordinarily complex moves, easy for a computer to emulate but very difficult for
humans. Instead of finding a limitation to the present state of calculating abilities of
computers, Baa shows a limitation to the human mind never incorporated in
computer simulations of human thinking.
Board games are invented only by humans. The study of such games should tell
us about those humans. Board games have been studied in many disciplines.
Psychologists have studied players, archaeologists have studied game boards and
game pieces, and computer scientists have written programs to play games.
Huizinga (1938) made the study of games the study of Man, with Homo Ludens. The
masters are the best players. Mastership should allow us to identify those
characteristics which define the limitations of human playing skills.
The aim of this study is to determine what is particular to mastership in Baa.
What makes a Baa master? Can such mastership be defined in terms of limitations
to the mind? The answer will lie in the mental skills used to calculate Baa moves. In
order to understand these characteristics and their relevance to Baa it will be
necessary:
i. to understand the historical and geographical context within which the game is
played;
ii. to document and structure the rules of the game;
m. to collect sufficient material to document Baa masters at play, illustrating where
human mental limitations constrain the way masters play;
iv. to assess empirically the limitations of human calculating and problem-solving
skills appropriate to Baa.
We find games research in anthropology (e.g., Townshend, 1986), studying the roles
that games play in various cultures. Psychologists use games to study people,
studying players from many perspectives. Such different approaches can be divided
into the ethnological, the pedagogical and the use of Artificial Intelligence (see
Reysset, 1995). In the first, scholars use games as a symbol in ethnological theory.
Games are seen as a fundamental biological necessity to accelerate the organic
development of infants, or a mechanism supporting symbols in the fantasy of the
child or the adult (for a summary see Reysset, 1995:98). The pedagogical and
psycho-therapeutic interests result from the assumption that games reflect the
personality and conscience of people. This leads to social developmental studies of
children through using games.
Retschitzky (1990) studied African children's development as measured by their
skill in Awe!e, a West-African game also known as Awari. This game is also used
in Artificial Intelligence (Allis, 1994). In one approach to Artificial Intelligence,
efforts are made, often based upon games-playing, to simulate human thinking by
way of computers. Within this approach Chess has dominated the literature and
revived scholarly interest in board games (e.g., van den Herik, 1983; Levy & Beal,
1991). Every board game has different characteristics for computer scientists. The
study of games other than Chess has provided this field with problems of computing
a winning performance on games like Go (Allis, van den Herik & Herschberg,
2 LIMITS OF THE MIND
1991), with moves that appear almost impossible for computers to calculate but not
for humans.
Bao is a board game, related to Awari, that does not pose considerable problems
for computer scientists. Although Bao rules are complex, Chess has many more
possibilities. Bao itself has provided an example for anthropological studies of
symbolism in East-African culture (Townshend, 1977; 1979; 1986). Bao in
Zanzibar, however, is interesting for its masters who demonstrate extraordinary
abilities in playing the game and, thereby, provide insights into problem-solving and
memory techniques of experts.
The study of masters first became prominent with de Groot's thesis (1946) on
the thinking of masters. Since Simon and Newell (1972), the study of masters has
received much attention. Their studies became interesting for cognitive scientists
who could simulate problem solving techniques in computers. However, studies of
masters in other board games, especially those not influenced by Chess thinking,
remained absent.
A study of Bao masters will have to deal with many perspectives and consists of
intensive interdisciplinary research. The study of the Zanzibar culture and the
Swahili language are obvious prerequisites. However, experimental psychology and
elements of computer science are also central to this thesis. Research on experts in
general, on strategy in games, on African culture, on Chess masters, on blind play,
and even on warfare are all involved for a documented study of this kind.
The following assertions, covered in different Chapters, represents the body of the
argument to be developed in this thesis. The two major underlying assumptions, to
be tested, are that:
1. All competitive games, especially board games, presuppose human weakness

and seek to exploit it. If there were no limits to the human mind, i.e. to human
memory and problem-solving skills, there would be no championship board games
nor masters. Therefore, this study characterises various weaknesses, in terms of
limitations, in master skills in the game of Bao. These limitations are quantitative
limitations, for instance those of duru, a Swahili term for calculating rounds, and
complex duru calculating skills, and qualitative limitations, for instance fani, i.e. the
ways a player has to play a strategic move, including opening specialities.
2. Although masters have several skills beyond a certain minimum, I assert that a
characterisation of a Bao master is an individualised array of limited skills. Bao
mastership is then, in the first place, a combination of special abilities in playing
Bao, different for each master. This is contrary to de Groot's belief (1946:10) that
differences in mastership should be based entirely on the ability to acquire
experience, thereby dismissing special, possibly inborn, abilities. Although I
consider the special abilities of Bao masters not to be innate, the necessity of special
abilities is considered to be central in characterising Bao mastership.
These assumptions are developed in the following order:
Firstly, in Chapter II, it is argued that the backgrounds of masters do not explain
their performances. The playing circumstances in Zanzibar .will show that neither
differences in experience and knowledge (de Groot, 1946), nor in practice (Simon,
INTRODUCTION 3
1979:426) suffice to explain the differences in Bao skills between master and novice
or even between master and master.
Chapter III describes the classification and the rules that determine the thinking
space within which the limits of the master's mind matter. De Groot, Simon, and
others have based their findings on studies of Chess masters. This Chapter argues
that the key difference between Chess and Bao is in the nature of the moves. The
nature of the move also illustrates the key difference between Chess skill and Bao
skill, which is calculating a move - in the case of Bao this is calculating duru.
Chapter IV documents the specific rules of Zanzibar Bao, identifying where the
limits of the mind can be established. The chapter concludes with a quantitative
characterisation of Zanzibar Bao and introducing the concept of mutational
complexity.
Chapter V illustrates combinations in and outside the master's ability to
calculate.
Chapter VI shows that calculating duru appears to provide evidence for the key
difference between Chess memory skills and Bao memory skills. Bao memory skills
introduce an additional limitation to human memory, a dynamic constraint, which
has not been identified in skills for Chess or other games.
Chapter VII continues the experiments, now applied to understanding the skill of
playing Bao blind.
Chapter VIII introduces a number of skills which are essential to masters, in
particular to masters of Bao. Subsequently, the absence of skills in certain masters
identifies qualitative limitations to those master's skills in Bao. It discusses Bao
mastership broadly, taking into account the competitive aspects and reporting the
distinctions in mastership made by the masters themselves.
Chapter IX concludes, summarising certain limits of the mind and, thereby,
characterising Bao mastership. Such a characterisation in terms of limitations
appears to break new ground in the study of masters. Memory and problem solving
skills are more varied among Bao masters than literature leads us to expect for Chess
masters. A description of mastership in Bao, therefore, makes a contribution to
psychological studies on problem-solving and memory.
II: BAO: THE GAME AND ITS MASTERS
The aim of this chapter is to provide the game of Bao and its masters with a historical
and geographical context. It provides the state of affairs in championship Bao in
Zanzibar and discusses the history and some of the backgrounds of Bao
(grand)masters over the last 100 years. Three research questions will be investigated:
Firstly, although research into the backgrounds of Chess masters (de Groot,
1946) and various other experts (e.g., Ochse, 1990; Chi, Glaser & Parr, 1988;
Simonton, 1984) have produced little evidence to the contrary, I will have to confirm
that expertise in Bao, and the possession of other (memory) skills, have little to do
with conventional education, social life, general intelligence, or success. To some
people, Bao appears as a purely mathematical game at which only mathematically
skilled people should excel. In Zanzibar itself, there is a widespread view that Baa-
players are idlers and that the game disturbs your social life, as if it was a dangerous
addiction. The question can be posed whether excellence in Bao makes you an
intelligent person or whether one needs to be intelligent in order to become a Bao
expert. All these biases and related questions are briefly discussed with the help of
the data collected.
Secondly, the age at which Bao is learnt and the age at which players reach
mastership can give us insight into the development of mastership and might confirm
the early findings of de Groot (1946), that Chess masters usually achieve mastership
in their twenties.
Thirdly, what is the relative significance of the number of informants used in this
study? This chapter will relate the number of informants used in psychological
experiments to the total number of present masters and to the total number of
(grand)masters in the last 100 years. This Chapter gives an inventory of the masters
over the last 100 years, together with details of all extant Bao masters. The
limitations of the data are discussed at length, so that the historical value of the
material can be determined. The general background of the participants in the
championship, my informants, and my assistants, can be given comprehensively at
the same time.
This Chapter presents a historical discussion of Zanzibar, the Bao Society, the
1994 Masters Tournament, and Bao champions, followed by a detailed discussion of
Table 1, that lists all the current masters. From this table, presented at the end of this
Chapter, the names listed in the second column will be used when referring to a
particular master.
A. The game
Bao is played between two people. In Zanzibar, most players use a board which is
placed on the floor, one player on each long side. On the board there are four rows
of eight holes, two holes enlarged, usually square, in the middle of the board.
Together with the board there are 64 playing seeds. In the field of computer science
a similar game, Awari (Allis, 1994), has been characterised as a zero-sum, two-
person game with perfect information (Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944).
BAO: THE GAME AND ITS MASTERS 5
Plate 1. A Bao board at the feet of a Bao master.

Each player owns two rows of eight holes, i.e., the ones on his side, and 32 seeds.
The object of the game is to capture all the seeds of the opponent's front row, or to
disable him so that he cannot play any further. Moves are played by spreading seeds,
i.e. placing seeds one by one in adjacent consecutive holes as is common to manqala
games.
The square hole starts with six seeds right from the beginning. Sometimes this
'house' fills up quickly and is constantly attacked and defended. The player who
owns such a full house will try to empty its contents most advantageously and make
many captures in one move by spreading all the seeds in the house.
stock A
22
2 2 6
6 2 2 stock a
22
TYtagram 1...
......
In the first stage of the game, namua, only a few seeds are in play and with each turn
the player adds one seed from his stock to a hole on the board. He then starts
spreading, i.e. placing one seed at a time in consecutive holes, seeds according to the
rules of the game (see Chapter IV). He either captures, which is obligatory if
possible, taking seeds from the opponent's front row and putting them into his own
front row, or he spreads seeds in his own rows starting from the hole of his choice.
Imagine the following situation:
1 1 1 1 1 1 stock A
13
1 1 2 3
1 9 3 5 stock a
1 1 1 1 2 14
Diagram 2
One has to capture if two neighbouring holes on the inner rows contain seeds. If (a)
has the turn, he could either capture two seeds, by entering a seed on his row (into his
hole of three seeds), or three seeds by entering a seed into his hole of five seeds. The
captured seeds are spread one by one, starting from the far left or the far right, into
one's own front row. If the last seed spread in this way reaches a hole that contains
seeds, its opposite hole will also be captured and spread into the front row, this time
in the same direction. If one captures from the two far-end holes on either side (in
this case the three seeds of (A) opposite the five seeds of (a)), it is obligatory to enter
the captured seeds from that end into one's front row. With these rules complicated
captures can be made. Note that the back row, although containing seeds, cannot be
captured. (For the explanation of complicated moves see Chapter V, and the section
on complex duru in Chapter VII.)
Once all the seeds are entered into the game, the second stage or mtaji stage has
begun. Instead of entering a seed, the player now lifts the contents of a particular
hole, either capturing or spreading round if he cannot capture, adhering to practically
the same rules as in the first stage. Consider the following example:
1 4 6 5 1 2 2 1 stock A
0
1 1 2 1
3 5 2 14 1 1 stock a
3 2 1 1 3 1 0
Diagram 3
If it was (A)'s tum, there would be two ways of capturing, i.e. lifting the five seeds in
the back row (which can capture three seeds ), or lifting the two seeds on the front
row. Singletons cannot be moved to capture. If (a) had the tum, the fourteen seeds,
if spread anti-clockwise, would make a capture. Also, the hole with two seeds in the
front row could capture, in either direction. There are no holes that (a) can lift from
the back row. Note that the occupied hole has to be reached directly, i.e. in one
lifting.
If all the seeds in your front row are taken, the game is lost. The game is also lost
when in the mtaji stage you only have singletons left. Play singletons is not allowed,
your inability to play means instant defeat.
A game between masters usually takes less than sixty turns, played in an average
of twenty minutes. The players play relatively rapidly, thinking times rarely exceed
five minutes. Often a combination of captures is made in one turn, and seeds can
make complete laps in the two rows of one player. A skilled player will play such a
complicated move with shortcuts. Instead of placing each seed in the appropriate
hole, adhering to the rules, players pick up a number of seeds and throw them in
adjacent holes, three, four, sometimes five at a time. The end situation is thrown
down without showing how it came about in consecutive spreadings of seeds. Such
shortcuts make the game complicated to the layman, who has difficulty deriving the
rules from what he sees.
After one game of Bao, the players usually insist on completing a set of three.
Three wins to nothing makes a serious beating, this is sometimes topped with sets of
six, nine, or even more. The loser is called tobwe, the winner bingwa. This thesis is
concerned with the bingwa.
B. History of Bao
Bao is one of a group of manqala games (see Chapter III) which are played in large
parts of Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, South-America, and some parts of Europe
(Herskovits, 1932; Murray, 1952; Bell, 1960; Russ, 1962; Deledicq & Popova,
1977). Four-row games, like Bao, are found in East-Africa, Sri Lanka, and have
recently been discovered in China (Eagle, 1995). Bao, as it is described in this
thesis, is only played in East-Africa, in the Swahili speaking areas. Since manqala
games in large parts of Africa and Asia are still remain to be described I will refrain
from speculating on the origin of four row manqala games, or manqala games in
general. Systematic research on manqala games played in China and neighbouring
countries is now starting (Eagle, 1995) but there is still insufficient data for a general
understanding of the historical development and spread of manqala games.
1. History of Zanzibar
The research on the game of Bao has been conducted in Zanzibar. This island is part
of a group of islands off the coast of Tanzania. Together with Pemba it provides the
basis for the continuing Zanzibar Bao championships. Zanzibar has more than
200.000 inhabitants of which more than 70.000 live in the capital Zanzibar (or Stone
Town) itself. Zanzibar has 1658 km 2 of land and is made of coral like Pemba.
Pemba is a smaller island of 984 km2 with less than 200.000 inhabitants.
Zanzibar has a long colonial history. During the larger part of the Middle Ages it
was a small Arab empire, becoming Portuguese in 1503. Then, in 1784, it was
conquered by the Imam of Muscat. This period brought many Arabs to the island and
gave the architecture in the capital a very Arab character. In 1880, Zanzibar became
a German protectorate which was given to the British in 1890. Its long history of
slave trade, being the centre of slave distribution in East Africa, ended with the
British abolition of slavery in 1897 and again, and more completely, in 1907. The
commercial success of this thriving business has been only partly replaced by
plantations exporting cloves all over the world. (See also Ingrams, 1931)
In 1963, Zanzibar became an independent Sultanate. However, the Arab
supremacy was countered by a black revolution in 1964, which put the Afro-Shirazi
Party (ASP) in power. The party changed the Sultanate into a Republic and
nationalised the land. Shortly afterward, the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba together
with Tanganyika became part of an independent Tanzania. The leader of the ASP,
Abeid Karume, became vice-president of Tanzania. After his assassination in 1972,
he was replaced by Aboud Jumbe.
At the time of this research, the political situation in Zanzibar and Tanzania
mainland was stable. The 'socialist' government has produced a large and dominant
public service in which Zanzibar has played a somewhat independent role. Research
visas are different for Zanzibar, and there are separate customs and health officials
checking the incoming passengers from the Tanzanian mainland or, nowadays,
directly from abroad. ·
The scheduled election of 1995, the first free elections in Tanzania, continued the
strife between the old Arab and more recent Shirazi factions, even though racial
differences are blended into one Zanzibar people.
Kiswahili , or Swahili, is the official language of Tanzania. The Zanzibar dialect
was chosen as the official Swahili dialect for all Tanzania. Islam is the dominant
religion in Zanzibar and Arabic is, therefore, a second language to many Zanzibari.
Fortunately, Arab and Indian migrants have only enriched the vivid East African
culture in Zanzibar. Today, Zanzibar's architecture, climate, and history form the
basis for increasing tourism on this African tropical island.
2. History and structure of the Bao Society

The Chama cha Bao (Bao Society) was founded in 1966. Chaired during the years by
Ibrahim Said Mkiwa, Mz. Masquat, and Mz. Jai, the Chama has survived to the
present day. Mz. Jai was known to have built the kikao (open playing house) of
BAO: Tiffi GAME AND ITS MASTERS 9
Kikwajuni, which is one of the main clubs today. Ibrahim Mkiwa presided over the
first years and took up the chairman's position again in 1991.
During all these years, Mwalim Amur was secretary of the Chama. He collected
various details about players and clubs and still has a document of about 150 pages
with all his research written down in Swahili. In 1990, possibly for political reasons,
he was replaced by Fadhil Mwinyi Mohammed, who is not very experienced in the
Bao circuit.
In the last years, the society has lost the participation of the mainland. Amur was
secretary of the club while it still covered the whole of East Africa. Then the players
travelled to exchange players and hold championships. Today, the club organises
very few trips to Dar Es Salaam and its members are only located on Zanzibar
(Unguja) and Pemba.
There are about sixteen official playing grounds. These playing grounds pay a
yearly fee and also delegate one referee each to the championships and/or matches.
Apart from the official playing grounds, there are unofficial groups of players who
own a few boards but who do not send referees to the championships.
Table l.a: Official clubs 1992-1994

(Mkiwa and Fadhil, personal communication)
1. Kikwajuni 10. Kwahajitumbo
2. Mikunguni 11. Mwembe Makumbi
3. Kijangwani 12. Mtoni
4. Kwamketo Shambani (up-country):
5. Muungano 13. Chaani (Gamba)
6. Boraimani 14. Matemwe
7. Wengiwape (Kwamtipura) A 15. Bumbwisudi
8. Wengiwape (Kwamtipura) B 16. Mkwajuni
9. Mkamasini
C. History of Championship Bao
1. Methods of research
All the data presented in Table l.b were taken from personal interviews with the
masters in question. There are two exceptions: Nahodha and Abdi (I will refer to the
masters using their short names that can be found in the second column of Table l.b).
The latter was working on Pemba at all times during my research. Subsequently, his
data were given to me by his half-brother, Masoud. Information about the famous
Nahodha, who died in the early 1980s, was also collected with help from his family.
He is the only player on the list who is no longer alive.
Interviews were conducted in two ways. About eight players were interviewed at
length on video. All other players were interviewed in short sessions and were
specifically asked about the details presented in the list. Some facts, especially about
the older masters, were cross-checked to eliminate accidental mix-ups in people's
memory.
All interviews on video were conducted in Swahili by Abdu. On occasion,
Shamte or Mwinyi replaced him for short sessions, and in Dar Es Salaam both
Kipara, Shamte, and Abdu were present. I can state that almost every interview was
conducted in the presence of at least one Zanzibari. This eliminated any possible
misunderstanding because of language.
Data about masters no longer alive were collected from their fellow masters.
Mkiwa was the only informant who recalled a large number of masters playing
before the war. Kijumbe and Mkiwa provided information about the post-war
masters. Nuhu was too old to remember anything, but he clearly responded when
given a famous name. All the masters mentioned by these people deserve the kind of
attention I gave to Nahodha's story. However, this special and difficult task was
beyond the scope of my research and was not pursued any further.
Nahodha was remembered by almost all the masters on the list, except for the
two youngest ones. However, his full name and his date of birth could not be
collected from his fellow players and only partly from his family. Only when we had
reached his uncle- after nearly reaching his place of birth, Tumbatu- who presented
us something similar to a passport, were we able to complete the details about his
life.
Some older players, who were not able to tell us their year of birth, were also not
able to provide us with any records. In most cases these records would have been
incorrect anyway since their year of birth was simply not registered.
2. History of Baa (grand) masters

The history of Bao (grand)masters begins with the memory of Mkiwa, who recalls
the earliest masters. Mkiwa travelled, after the Second World War, to find and play
against masters. He did so in Zanzibar Town, Donge and Gamba in the Northern
part of Zanzibar, and later in Dar Es Salaam, and Pemba. This oral history is
presented in the following account.
It is said, that Abdallah Kimbeng'acho was the teacher of Haji Chachu.
Kimbeng'acho had died before Mkiwa became master. However, Mkiwa heard his
name, and claims that he was from Kilwa and very well-known (maarufu). Haji
Chachu's name is remembered by Kijumbe, Nuhu, and others. He was already an
older man when Mkiwa played him, but also Kijumbe and especially Nuhu
remember him well. He played in Gamba and became their team-leader when
championships between Gamba and Zanzibar Town were organized. Other players
in Gamba were: Hamadi Salimini, Muhidini Haji Chachu, Johari Mwadini, Ali
Mwadini and Ngwali Mwadini. The first was an old man in 1940 and died before the
heyday of Mkiwa, the second was Haji Chachu's son, the other three were the
brothers of Haji's wife. Mkiwa also remembers a group of players in Donge: Kiringe
Haji, and his son Mohammed Kiringe, Abdallah Kitalala, Abdallah Ali, and of
course Nuhu Ali the only one who is still alive.
Juma Sadiqi (Mkwajuni, Zanzibar), Ali Masudi (Pemba) were also masters of the
1940's and before. All these masters were Swahili, i.e. not of Arabic or Indian origin.
The list of names indicates the number of masters in a certain era. Their relative skill
cannot be determined but their names should not be absent in a short history of Bao
masters.
Mohammed Hasan (Dar Es Salaam) was known for something different in his
time. He was the only one who, according to Mkiwa, could throw (rusha) seven (or
eight) playing seeds at the same time, all in adjacent holes of one row. Mkiwa could
throw 'only' six, sometimes seven. All other players I have spoken with or heard
about throw four, which is already an admirable skill.
When we enter the 1950s and 1960s, after Mkiwa established his fame in
Tanzania, a new generation of grandmasters emerged in Zanzibar Town. Both
Mkiwa and Nuhu continued to play well and were highly regarded. However, their
competition became equally strong. From this time we have at least two sources,
Mkiwa and Kijumbe, Nuhu being too old by the time of this research.
First, Sengeru became well-known. Originally from Tanga, but raised and trained
in Zanzibar Town at a club that is no longer existent. Sengeru died in the late 1980s. I
Then the players from Kwahajitumbo: Kijumbe, Mohammed Issa, Twaha Saidi,
Kasim Mwinyi, and Khamis Bakari all played behind the fish market. The last three
I
have died, Twaha became ill, Kasim, the fisherman, was lost at sea, and Khamis, I
about the age of Kijumbe, died as well. In their time, they were joined by Nahodha,
who became the most famous of them all. Together with Mkiwa, he was one of the
few who travelled to the mainland regularly and received some national fame. As far I'
as we know, Kijumbe, Nuhu and the others travelled to play in Pemba, and perhaps
once in Tanga, but their names are not well known in Dar Es Salaam.
After Tanzanian independence in 1961, the Bao players of Tanzania were
organised in a Society. Mkiwa became chairman, and Mwalimu Amur (a minor
player), secretary. The subsidies now available made it possible to build nice
clubhouses. Such a kikao usually had a roof with a cement floor, and sometimes, like
in Kikwajuni, a storage room. Other chairmen followed, like Mzee Jai and Mzee
Masqat, but Mkiwa returned recently to his former position. Only four years ago, the
secretary was replaced and his job went to Fadhil Mwinyi Mohammed (also a below
average player).
It was after a dispute about travel funds that the Kikwajuni Bao club, where
Mkiwa held office as chairman of the Bao society, and the Kwahajitumbo Bao club
refused to play each other. More accurately, the players from Kwahajitumbo refused
to play Mkiwa. Only Nahodha and later Abdi played both clubs, not too much
disturbed by the fight. Travel after independence did not increase and government
funded trips to Dar Es Salaam and back were hindered by incompetent leadership
and money handling on the part of the Bao Society. In recent years, the funds for
championships have also disappeared.
The high concentration of grandmasters at the Kwahajitumbo club resulted in a
new generation of masters trained at this location. Mwinyi, Dr Mgeni, Abdi, and to a
lesser extent Masoud became well-known players of the 1970s.
In this account we miss the names of Nasoro and Zerkani. They became well-
regarded grandmasters in the 1970s and before. Zerkani blended in with the others,
he was just not from such a well-known club. Nasoro, who was born on the
mainland, travelled to play in various championships. After independence, he
attended an international Bao championship where players from Ethiopia, Zambia,
Kenya, and other countries attended. They were all beaten by the Tanzanian players.
Nasoro taught both Shamte and later Abdu (not be confused with Abdi), when
they played at Kidongo Chekundu. This former Bao club, destroyed by rain in 1993,
was close to their parental homes. Shortly afterwards, Shamte changed to the
Mikunguni club. At that time, the Kwahajitumbo players were regular visitors in
Mikunguni. There was Shamte, Majaliwa, who visited from another nearby club and
also moved to Mikunguni, and Rajab, who originally came from Wengiwape A,
close to the Mikunguni Trade School, also very close by. By the end of the 1970's,
Kijumbe, Mkiwa, Nuhu, and the other older players started to drop out. Nahodha
became the leading player with much competition from Dr Mgeni, Rajab, and Abdi.
But in his mid-forties, Nahodha took ill, returned to Tumbatu and died around 1984.
Kijumbe had left the game altogether by then, and Rajab would soon quit too in
order to study at the University of Dar Es Salaam. Nuhu ~became too old, and Dr
Mgeni left because of the leadership in the Society that would still not produce good
championships or other incentives to keep up practice. Abdi was still playing

exceptionally well, often winning in the championships. When he stopped in 1989,
the general level of play dropped even more. Shamte, Mwinyi, Nasoro, and Majaliwa
still played but met quite irregularly to keep up practice. New masters, like Abdu,
now have difficulty finding competition.
When I started playing in 1990, returning in 1992 and 1994, things had come to a
point that only a good tournament could bring the masters back into competitive
shape.
This is not meant to suggest that the Bao game is about to disappear. There is
still a large and motivated players' community. The Department of Sports and
Games is now in the process of moving the game to the Department of Arts (Sanaa)
together with other ancient games like Pemba bull-fighting. This department might
show more interest in the continuation of championships.
3. The 1994 Masters Tournament

The following account presents the state of affairs in championship play in Zanzibar
illustrating the circumstances under which much of the material of this study (see
Appendix II) was collected.
In May 1994, a series of three meetings were held. At the first meeting (24/5),
Masoud, Shamte, Mwinyi, Abdu, Mz. Muombwa- a researcher from the Institute of
Kiswahili and Foreign Languages (Taasisi) - and myself considered starting a
championship to be organised by the masters themselves, instead of the Bao Society.
Mohammed Ameir Muombwa would host the tournament at his institute, I would
provide prizes, and the others would take care of the organisation, preferably in co-
operation with the authorities.
One representative of the authorities and secretary of the Bao Society, Fadhil
Mwinyi, was invited to a second meeting (28/5). He was asked to provide a list of
masters who were to be invited and to send a request for funds to the director of the
Department of Sports and Games. In this letter, we were to request funds to support
masters from Dar Es Salaam, Pemba, and Matemwe who would wish to join the
games. Fadhil, unfortunately, could not provide a list of masters satisfactory to the
masters and it is said that he never sent the letter.
In order to speed up the preliminaries of the organisation, Masoud and I went to
see the director of Sports and Games ourselves in order to ask permission for the
tournament. Indeed, he had not received a letter from Fadhil, and, therefore, we
presented a copy of the letter. He subsequently agreed to co-operate. On the fifth of
June we held a final meeting. The results of the previous efforts were discussed and
plans were made to co-ordinate the organisation.
The date of the tournament of Bao masters, in Swahili Mashindano ya
Mabingwa, was set on 10/10/1994. The masters on our self-made list were to get a
wild card to enter the tournament. All other interested players could enter the
championship through a knock-out championship prior to the Masters Tournament,
the winners being allowed to continue. Prizes consisted of Bao tables and Bao
games, and interesting amounts of money.
I left Zanzibar and returned three months later. In the mean time, the Bao tables
were prepared by Abdu, the knock-out rounds for other players were organised by
Shamte, and Masoud tried to see the director of Sports and Games in order to keep
him to his promise.
Three months later, a few days before the championships, things looked rather
grim. The director of Games and Sports had been first in Canada, and had then left
for Oman at the time of my arrival. His replacement had no news of the tournament.
Mzee Muombwa had left for India, having suddenly received a scholarship for three
years. The director of his Institute had no news of the tournament and was fully
booked for the coming weeks. Only Shamte and Abdu had been able to complete
their tasks for the preparation of the tournament.
On Friday (7/1 0), the acting director of Sports and Games promised to talk to the
ministry. The letters sent to the department had been lost, the Bao file had no new
letters since 1989. Unfortunately, the minister of Culture had left for Pemba,
eventually the acting director himself left for Dar Es Salaam. In the end, no funds
were made available to the organisation of the tournament. Players from Dar Es
Salaam, Pemba, and Matemwe had to remain absent. The director himself regretted
the unfortunate situation that had arisen and generously put another promise in
writing that should assist the organisation in a new tournament on 1/7/1995.
Monday (10/10), the Institute, after first requesting some payment, agreed to
allow us to use a class room for the first meeting of players. Two players from
Matemwe showed up, but had to return home without entering the league since there
were not enough funds for travel, food, and housing. Ten players from Zanzibar
Town were present who all agreed to enter the league of the tournament and play for
a full two or possibly three weeks.
Tuesday (11/10), we agreed to play at Shamte's Bao club, Mikunguni. However,
the secretary of that Bao club refused to assist. He objected that decisions had been
made in his absence. After some confusion he gave in and the championship could
start. Each player was to play two games with every other player, in total about 55
games.
Few other problems arose. One player left the league prematurely, and in his
stead Rajab agreed to play despite his many years of absence. Half-way through the
tournament Majaliwa left the championship because he lost interest - he had just
become an elected party member for the new Civic United Front -party.
On 22/10, the games of the league had all been played. Since there were only 10
players, we left out the quarter finals. The next Sunday, we started the semi-finals
with the four best scoring players of the league. It now became a knock-out system,
but they had to win two games in a row in order to enter the finals. Shamte played
Nasoro and won two games in a row the very first day. On 26/10, after many draws,
Maulidi and Kijumbe finally ended their match. Kijumbe was exhausted, Maulidi
won two games in a row. Shamte and Maulidi agreed to continue with the finals the
next day. They also played several draws. On 30/10, we decided to change the rules
and instead of winning three games in a row, the first to win three games would win
the finals. This change was not necessary, since on that day Maulidi won three
games in a row and was pronounced the winner.
The rules for the championship were taken from previous championships.
Winning three games in a row is the accepted way of defeating your opponent and
considered to be a difficult task. The idea of a league was also put forth by the
players. Together with the knock-out (semi-)finals they made for an interesting
tournament.
As in other sports, the finals in the tournament do not necessarily present the best
games. Nerves, exhaustion, etc. played an important role in both the league and the
(semi-)finals. Most players were very tired after two weeks of solid play.
Plate 2. Semi-finals of the 1994 Masters Tournament. From left to

right: Nasoro, Kijumbe, Maulidi, and Shamte. Abdu is
watching the game in the back, sitting behind Maulidi.
BAO: TIIE GAME AND ITS MASTERS 15
They started the tournament with a large percentage of draws which gradually
changed into series of 2-0. All were agreed that only this kind of championship
would bring the standard of play back to a higher level. Indeed, some games were
already showing signs of excellent play.
The results and transcription of the games played in this tournament are listed
towards the end of this manuscript.
D. Players' background
1. Full name, and epithet

In the first column of Table l.b, I have chosen to spell the names of the players in the
Arabic way. Therefore, you will find 'Masoud' instead of 'Masudi' and 'Khamis'
instead of 'Khamisi'. The three names of the players represent their first name, the
name of their father, and of their grandfather. Only Mzee Nuhu did not remember,
and is not known by his third name.
A number of these players are well known by their epithet or nickname. Nuhu
Ali is always referred to as Mzee Nuhu, because of his old age, but Kijumbe, Mkiwa,
Zerkani, Rajab Mtoto, and Kasanga Turnbo, for instance, are names specifically and
only known in the Bao playing community. In normal life, Mkiwa is known as Mzee
Ibrahim, Kijumbe·(the go-between) as Mzee Masudi, and Zerkani as Mzee Khamis.
Rajab was called Mtoto (child) because he was so young when he became a master.
The meaning of Kasanga Turnbo and Zerkani was not explained to me.
Nahodha (captain) was used for many people coming from Tumbatu, all being
fishermen. This name, however, had become well-known - as far as I could
ascertain he has been the only Bao master from Tumbatu - even on the mainland of
Tanzania. It is said that President Nyerere personally asked for his participation in a
particular championship, it being necessary to have the best players present.
Dr Mgeni owes his name to his work as a dentist and, nowadays, as a soccer
medical doctor. He is known as Dr Mgeni in his everyday life as well.
Other names are used for a number of players with very general meanings,
for instance: 'Profesa', 'Mwalim' (master), etc. These have not been included in
Table l.b.
2. Year of birth
All dates, with the exception of Nahodha and Abdi, were taken from personal
interviews. This does not guarantee the accuracy of the data. If people did not
hesitate to tell me either their year of birth or their present age, I judged the
information to be accurate enough.
Two people were not able to answer the question: Nuhu and Kijumbe. They also
did not have any papers or records to show me. Even with reference to certain
historical events, conversations with family, and interviewing other masters about
being younger or older, things did not become much clearer. Answers appeared very
contradictory. The experience with Nahodha's history had learnt that estimating age
or year of birth is very difficult for friends or even relatives. Therefore, I placed them
in relative order to the best of my knowledge. Nuhu being certainly older than
Mkiwa, with Kijumbe certainly younger.
One of the youngest masters on the list appeared to be one year younger when his
answer was checked with his records at the hospital. Apparently, old age has very
little to do with inaccuracy. Birthdays are usually not celebrated, and passports are
expensive and hard to obtain, which makes remembering or checking dates of birth
not an easy task for both player and researcher.
3. Place of birth, and the importance of travel

Mgeni learned Bao, and became master of Bao on the island of Pemba. Njowine and
Kasanga Turnbo are players who have always played in Dar Es Salaam. All other
masters were taught and reached mastership on the island of Zanzibar. Nuhu in
Donge, Mbaya in Matemwe, both in the North, all others in Zanzibar Town. You
need masters to get masters. Without masters it is difficult to increase your skill of
play. Travel is, therefore, important in order to become a better player. All masters
travelled from Bao club to Bao club. Nuhu lived in Zanzibar Town for a while, just
so he could play Bao. Nahodha and Mkiwa travelled even more and actually reached
national (Tanzanian) fame in the Bao playing world. Although some masters were
born on Pemba, Tumbatu, or inland, most players came to Stone Town to become
masters.
4. From student of Bao to master of Bao

As a result of his upbringing in Tumbatu and the absence of clubs at his home island,
Nahodha's first contact with Bao was in Stone Town at a relatively late age. All
other masters started playing when (very) young. A number of masters found it
difficult to give an age, almost all of them saying they were very young. Nuhu
especially found it too long ago to be able to remember. The estimated data for
Nuhu, Zerkani, and Kijumbe do not differ much from the data of other masters.
Fortunately, three talents remembered their starting age very accurately. Rajab is
certainly the best-known example. At the time that strong players like Nahodha,
Mgeni, and even Nuhu were still active, he watched the game and played with other
youngsters. He soon beat them and was invited to play with the grown-ups. When
he beat them too, he was sought after by the masters who found an excellent
opponent, who reached mastership only two years after learning the game. Majaliwa
and Abdu claim the same kind of talent at a young age. Coincidentally, all three
talents perform very well on the duru experiments (see Chapter VI & VII).
I agree with de Groot (1946) when he states that most masters reach mastership
in their twenties. All my data confirm this, and I believe it to be a reasonable
generalisation.
5. Latest club information

The latest club of each master tells something about the history of the game. Bao
clubs rise and die. In early days, it was Gamba (now called Chaani) and Donge, later
it became Kwahajitumbo, now it is Mikunguni. Kikwajuni, a large club and base of
the Bao Society, has remained important throughout the years. I have only mentioned
official clubs, i.e. clubs that are member of the Bao Society. There are about sixteen
of them spread fairly evenly over Zanzibar town. Since clubs die and rise every year,
it is impossible to make a sensible estimate of the number of Bao clubs. The official
clubs did remain the more important ones; however, one should add the following
notes:
Mkamasini died as a club, the players moved elsewhere but still represent their
former club in the Bao Society. Kighani died a number of years ago and is not
registered as an official club anymore. Kwahajitumbo died as an important club.
Most masters from this club quit the game or moved elsewhere. A few older men
still play at an old CCM-party office nearby, and a few others play on the old spot
behind the fish market. Ulaya Jamhuri is said to be an official club, but I was not
able to verify this nor to locate its position on the map.
Donge died as a club as well and is not registered anymore. The clubs up north
now being Chaani (former Gamba) and Matemwe. Other clubs can be found inland
but many are not registered with the Society.
Tandika is not a club. The research on Bao clubs was restricted to Zanzibar.
Tandika is just a neighbourhood where Kasanga Turnbo and Njowine happened to be
interviewed near a club called 'Mikogo'. Moreover, there is no official organisation
left in DarEs Salaam that would justify the label 'official'.
6. Educational levels
A master's place and date of birth are very much linked to his educational
background. Those who were raised outside Zanzibar Town usually lived in fishing
or farming communities where school education was either absent or not considered
very important. Secondary schools were present on Zanzibar from the early 1940's
onwards. However, not many people from inland Zanzibar are likely to have
attended such schools. The oldest players listed received a number of years of Koran
teaching in their home towns. As far as I know, none of them know how to write the
modern Swahili alphabet. They do know how to write their names in Arabic.
The people from inland, including Njowine and Kasanga Turnbo who were also
born in farming communities, all have a below average education. That is if we
believe the Department of Education of the Government of Zanzibar (1994/1995)
that states that form 2 or 3 (like that of Maulidi) is average, or at least compulsory.
One generation of players has exceptional high educational backgrounds, those
playing at Kwahajitumbo in the early 1970's. Form 4 (Majaliwa) is reached by
hardly 15% of the children finishing form 3, and form 6 (Shamte, Abdi) by about
15% of those reaching form 4. There is no university on Zanzibar, therefore a
Bachelor's degree (Rajab) is not only a very difficult but also a very expensive
undertaking.
Njowine, who is a player of the same generation, makes a useful exception to this
group. Although I adhere to the belief that Bao masters have a higher level of general
intelligence, this certainly cannot be proven with such a small, even though almost
exhaustive, list of players. Intelligence tests will fail if people cannot write, have had
hardly any formal education, and if intelligence tests are not made by people who
understand Zanzibar society. And since intelligence itself is for the most part
defined by the tests that were developed to test it, the question about Bao masters'
intelligence remains unanswered. All that can be stated here is that Bao masters are
not idlers, who fail school, and who have no impressive intelligence. They are
players with many different kinds of educational backgrounds, largely related to their
place and date of birth.
A few remarks should be made about the data presented here. 'Prof.dipl.' means
professional diploma and in the cases presented in the table the content of that
diploma appears as their profession. 'Adult educ.' is adult education and this assisted
Nasoro and Kasanga Turnbo in learning how to read and write the Roman alphabet.
Koran or koranschool is usually a few years and consists of memorisation and often
some basic understanding of Arabic. Some masters attended many years of
koranschool, this is, however, not shown in the table.
Plate 3. Shaame Kondo Khamis (Nahodha)

7. Profession
Statistics about educational background measure the relative success of people in
school. If Baa-masters are successful people in general, i.e. if they show a relatively
high intelligence in their lives, then some generalisation might still be possible.
A profession appeared to be one of the most commonly known aspects of
masters. Even professions of masters whose full names were forgotten were readily
identified. Twaha Saidi, Mohammed Issa, Kasim Mwinyi, Khamis Bakari, and
Sengeru had the following professions: porter, tailor, fisherman, fruit salesman, and
rent collector, respectively. None of their jobs were highly profitable.
There is one complication, which is that people's professions change in the
course of years. Their profession of the past might show whether jobs influence the
amount of time spent on the game, and their profession at present might show up in
their relative successes. After careful investigation it is concluded that no
generalisations are possible, i.e. professions neither influence nor indicate the
possibilities of becoming a master. Some are successful, and some never were.
There are a few possible exceptions. Nuhu was a clove-gatherer and this
profession was apparently profitable enough for him to spend large amounts of time
in the city in order to play Bao without attending to his work. Abdi has to spend
most of his time on Pemba as a customs official, which sometimes interferes with his
playing. He has not attended championships since 1989. However in 1994 he started
practising again, but was stuck in Pemba at the time of the October championship.
Many jobs are not profitable at all, like cleaning the market place, masonry, or
fishing. A few masters are well to do or have good jobs because of their education,
but they usually become very busy and have difficulty finding time to play. Since
most players reach mastership during or just after school, jobs have· very little
influence at the developmental stages. At a later age, very few claimed to have left
the game because of their job, they simply lost interest because there were no
incentives, i.e. prizes, or good players to compete with.
Some masters changed jobs. Mkiwa sold fish, but became a koranschool-teacher
in 1975. Zerkani held various jobs in governmental offices but is now a fruitseller (at
the Old Slave Market). Nasoro had a coffee-stall, but sold it and accepted a job at the
municipal works, where he now cleans the marketplace. At the time of my research
Majaliwa quit his job as a medical assistant and was elected as a Civic United Front
-party member. Dr Mgeni !s a medical doctor for the Malindi Sports Club now,
usually working late afternoons and, therefore, unable to attend Bao clubs or
championships anymore.
Organising championships brought Rajab and Kijumbe back to the game. Only
Dr Mgeni seems to have lost interest all together.
8. Marital stage1 number of children

In order to complete the picture of each master, their family circumstances were also
investigated. Much has to do with their relative age, and because of Islam there is a
very wide range of possibilities. A second wife means that the first wife died or was
divorced. Two wives means that the person has married two wives in succession,
and that the person supports two households. When people have no children, they
also have little (financial) support when they are older, therefore, children are
important too. Two of the younger players who are single, Shamte and Maulidi,
claim to be in the process of getting married, possibly in 1995 ..
There is nothing unusual, from a Zanzibar perspective about the marital stages of
Bao masters. Considering the findings in the other columns of Table l.b, this is not
surprising.
E. Literature
Bao players learn Bao without the help of written literature. There is only one
manuscript in Swahili that deals with Bao, but it has never been published and is
more an incomplete history with a list of playing rules than a guide to players.
English literature also limits itself to history (Murray, 1952), and rules (National
Museums, 1971), with an occasional work on its anthropological (Townshend, 1986)
aspects.
Since Philidor's "L' Analyze des Echecs" (Hooper & Whyld, 1992), it is difficult
to play modern Chess at a master's level without studying the literature. It appears
that some results from Chess research have to be reconsidered if we compare them
with the results from Bao research.
Hence, the overridh1g factor in chess skill is practice. The organization of the
master's elaborate repertoire of information takes thousands of hours to build
up, and the same is true of any skilled task (e.g., football, music). That is why
practice is the major independent variable in the acquisition of skill.
Simon (1979:426)
De Groot (1946) explained that the differences in Chess performance were

differences in experience. Those players with more practice than others were able to
recognise more Chess positions and were familiar with more situations in the game
than others. Those players who reach mastership at a young age do not disprove this
statement, according to de Groot. Each player usually has a very intense period of
play in which he makes the step from regular to master player. This step can be made
at an early age. Intensity of play and not necessarily time is a key factor in becoming
experienced. Intensity of play is increased by playing blind when there is no board
or when lying in bed, and by reading Chess literature when there is no championship.
In Zanzibar, there is no option for a player to increase his intensity of play
separately from other players. There is usually no opportunity to play outside the
hours of 16.15h and 18.30h. But most importantly, there is no literature to read on
the game, blind play is totally unknown, except for a recent experiment reported
here, and boards are rarely in private possession. In Zanzibar there are, however,
various examples of players reaching mastership much faster than their fellow
players, without playing more frequently. The most convincing example is that of
Rajab Omar Rajab, who watched the game when he was 12 years old, started playing
with other children at the Mikunguni Bao club. He played so well, that after less
than two years he was invited to play against the best players of the island, i.e.
Nahodha, Kijumbe, and later Shamte, being immediately recognised as one of the
grand masters. As in Chess, such examples are extraordinary but not that unusual.
Rajab, Majaliwa, Abdu and other talents were not in a position to play all day,
since they had to go to school. It was also impossible for them to play anywhere else
but at the club, since Bao boards are expensive and club property. Finally, there is
no literature whatsoever that could assist these talents to speed up their development
to mastership. In my opinion, experience cannot be taken as the key factor. On the
contrary, Chess has so much literature, and therefore access to masters' play, that
mastership can be reached with much less playing experience. Since even the rules
of Bao are learnt through pure playing practice, Bao should be considered a game
where people learn almost everything almost exclusively through playing experience.
This makes the argument that players cannot play more frequently than other players
even stronger, since there is no tradition of playing on your own, or after playing
hours.
Therefore, we have to conclude that practice, while important, is not the major
independent variable in the acquisition of skill.
F. Summary
Bao masters cannot be generalised as more or less successful in terms of general

education, or professional/social life. Their education and profession is defined by
their time and place of upbringing. Their educational and professional backgrounds
are manifold.
All masters seem to have learned the game at a young age and reached
mastership in their twenties. Only Nahodha, who started relatively late, and Rajab
(and Majaliwa), who became a master relatively young, seem exceptional. Success
is somewhat determined by the club players play at. Active clubs attract good players
and generate more masters.
The number of masters at a certain time does not seem to be much more than ten.
In difficult times they may have been of lesser quality and at other times they may
have been more numerous, however, the number of active masters does not seem to
exceed ten. The difficulty of organising good championships and the mis-
management of the Bao Society seem to be the key factors in the present decline in
masters' play.
Finally, it appears unlikely that practice is the overriding factor that discriminates
masters from novices.
f
Full name Known as Year Place Student Master Latest club Education Profession Marital stage,
of Birth of Birth• ofBaa of Baa Number of children
NuhuAli Mz.Nuhu 1900's Donge Donge koranschool clove-gatherer 2nd wife, 3 children
Ibrahim Said Mkiwa Mkiwa 1916 Bara 14 18 Muungano koranschool fishman, teacher 5th wife, 2 children
Masoud Hassan Ali Kijumbe 1920's Shamba +7 Kwahaiitumbo koranschool fishman, farmer 5th wife, ? children
Khamis Amir Khamis Zerkani 1933 Stone Town +9 20's Mkamasini grade 7 + koran civil servant 3rd wife, 3 children
Nasoro Othman Ali Nasoro 1935 Bara 7 18 Boraimani grade 3 + koran municipal works 1x divorced
Mbaya Othman Juma Mbaya 1935 Maternwe 18 +56 Matemwe grade 5 + koran , farmer/fisherman 2 wives, 7 children
Shaame Kondo Khamis Nahodha 1938 Tumbatu ±20 Kwahajitumbo koran+ adult educ. customs official 1x divorced
Ameir Shabaan Kumba Kasanga 1942 Bara 13 23 Tandika grade 2 + adult ed. business, farming 1x divorced, 1 child
Turnbo
Majaliwa Juma Seif Majaliwa 1949 Shamba 12 15 Mikunguni form 1 + prof. dip!. 1 medical assistant 3rd wife, 5 children
Mgeni Abdallah Omar DrMgeni 1950 Pemba 10 24 Kwahajitumbo form 4 + prof. dip!. dentist 1st wife, 5 children
Shamte Mussa Shamte Shamte 1951 Stone Town 13 28 Mikunguni form 6 + prof.dipl. English teacher single
Juma Ali Njowine Njowine 1956 Bara 7 18 Tandika grade 4 farmer 1st wife, 4 children
Mwinjuma Haji Mabruki Mwinyi 1957 Stone Town 12 25 Kwahajitumbo form 4 + prof.dipl. , medical assistant single
Abdul Hussein Moha=ed Abdi 1959 Stone Town ±13 20 Kwahaiitumbo form6 customs official single
Masoud Khamis Masoud Masudi 1960 Stone Town 12 24 Kwahajitumbo grade 7 , businessman single
Rajab Omar Rajab R.Mtoto 1963 Pemba 12 13/14 Mikunguni form 6 + univ.BA accountant 1st wife, 1 child
Ali Maulid Hussein Maulidi 1968 Stone Town 15 26 Kikwajuni form 3 + koran ass. businessman single
Abdulrahim Muhiddin Foum Abdu 1971 Stone Town 16 18 Boraimani grade 8 + koran mason 3rd degree single
Other Players:
Ali Ramadhan Mrangi 1939 Bara 25 - Mikunguni koran mason 1st wife, 6 children
Ali Juma Ali Kipara 1951 Stone Town 10 18 Ulaya Jarnhuri grade 8 soldier , 3 wives, 6 children
Othman Omar Othman Othman 1953 Donge 15 - Mwembe grade 7 fisherman ' 2x divorced,
Makumbi 2 children
Ali Abdallah Hassan Abdallah 1954 Makunduchi 15 - Muungano form 3 +prof. dip!. welder 1st wife, 3 children
Omar Moha=ed Ali Omar 1958 Pemba 7 - Kikwajuni koran + adult ed. shopkeeper ! 2nd wife, 3 children
* Bara refers to the mainland of Tanzania. Sbamba refers to the interior of Zanzibar.
Table lb: Backgrounds to Zanzibar (grand)masters

III: CLASSIFICATION OF BAO
The following Chapter introduces a systematic hierarchical definition of board

games. Two separate hierarchies are distinguished. The first is a hierarchical
classification of Bao. Bao is defined as a board game (liLA), and is part of the
manqala games (III.B), but is also defined by its rules and variations (III.C). The top
of this hierarchy is defined in general terms, while at the bottom we find the more
specific terminology. The classification provides structure to the large number of
games found in the literature. Their relationship is analysed in terms of how the
games are played and predicts a certain structure of rules.
The second hierarchy is found in the structure of the Bao rules and is covered in
Chapter IV. This time the components of the hierarchy do not signify the relative
sizes of classes. The rules are hierarchical in their dependency, i.e. the strongest rule
is at the top of the hierarchy, and the application of any other rule depends on the
rules above them. Contrary to a classification, this hierarchy does not show classes
of familiar rules, or sub-classes with almost identical rules. Dependency shows a
different relationship, which is, in this case, the strength or the power of a rule.
The hierarchy of games presented in this Chapter cannot be considered as a
classification of power. One class is not better than another and, although tendencies
might be discovered, championship games cannot be defined in terms of their
classification. However, in the hierarchy of rules this dominance element is essential.
The precise definition of a rule in this context provides us with an analytical
understanding of the structure and development of Bao. The question of the nature
and origin of superior games, however, remains unanswered.
An essential element of board games is that they are played only by humans. It is
possible to invent games that are either too difficult or too simple to be enjoyed by
players. The existence of a championship game like Bao assumes a certain thinking
space in which humans can compete. It is maintained that such a thinking space is
defined by the rules of the game (IV.H). This gives us a better understanding of the
area in which the limits of the mind matter, in which humans measure each other's
skills by way of competition.
In computer science, attempts have been made to quantify these limitations in
terms of complexity (IV.J). Bao is a championship game, but its superiority is not
defined by the complexities identified in computer science.
A A classification of board games
I. Board games and classification

Board games have been defined as follows: "Games, which resemble Chess,
draughts, and backgammon in being played on a specifically arranged surface with
pieces or 'men', whose powers of move and capture are defined by the rules of each
game, are designated as 'board-games', GermanBrettspiele (Murray, 1952:1)." By
'specifically arranged surface' we mean, strictly speaking, a surface which has
boundaries within which the playing pieces are played. Therefore, dice, card, and
domino games are not considered board games. Roulette does have a board, but the
pieces do not have powers of move and/or capture.
A board game differs from other games in that the board should play a crucial
role. It is possible to design a board for dominoes that puts pieces on fields instead
of randomly on the table. However, in this case the board does not necessarily limit
the possibilities in the game. If a game has borders, like a football-field, with a
limited number of positions within these borders, like the suggested domino board,
which reduces the number of possible positions of the limited number of playing
pieces, then we would speak of a board game. The board might be in the shape of a
table, or made with street tiles, or as large as a football-field, but it should have a
'specifically arranged surface', i.e. discreet positions, that defines the game.
Previous ideas
Board games can be classified in different ways (Murray, 1952; Bell, 1960). The
principles on which such a classification is based determine the outcome. However,
the classes distinguished by Murray (1952) and Bell (1960) seem poorly defined.
Hunt games in Murray are considered to be war games by Bell. They both have a
separate class of 'mancala' games, which I refer to as 'manqala', which remains
unexplained. Murray (1952:4) based his classification on the view that games are
typical of the early activities and occupations of man. Although Murray's
classification has been widely accepted, there seems to be no theoretical base for the
classification of board games. The reasons for distinguishing games of skill or pure
reflexion (Reysset, 1995) from games of chance, or addressing manqala games as
games of strategy continue to be arbitrary.
Formal classification
Race and war games imply a certain purpose to the game, while hunt and positional
games imply certain techniques. Classes of board games should be distinguished
according to well-defined theoretical principles. Only in this way can we progress in
determining which game belongs to which class. There are five principles for
classification that need to be recognised:
1. All games should be classifiable.

2. A game of one class should not belong to another class as well.
3. All known games should have a classification.
4. Classification at the same level should be based on only one principle.
5. Classification should give insight into the true nature of a game and its relation to
others .
The five principles above determine my choice of classes. The fifth principle
deserves special attention. In the classification of board games many interests of
scholars have converged. Historians, art historians, anthropologists, etc. have all
expressed their views. However, the nature of a game is not well explained by its
shape or by the age or gender of its players. These elements explain the relation of
the game towards the society or towards the historical developments of variants with
a similar shape. Historical data cannot explain, for example, why certain manqala
games are played in championships and others are dismissed as children's games, or
why war and race games can be played on the same board.
2. War and race games

Two classes identified in both Bell (1960) and Murray (1952) seem largely
undisputed: race games and war games. Each of these games has a distinct type of
CLASSIFICATION OF BAO 25
victory, and a certain purpose for the player. The race game is won by reaching a
position sooner than the opponent, the war game is won by destroying the opponent.
The major difference is that the war game tries to disable the opponent, while the
race game just tries to slow him down. Such differences I will call characteristics of
the game.
Board games
War games Race games
Destruction Implied destruction
Capturing Enclosement Diagram 4.
Many arguments can be made to distinguish other classes of hunt, positional or

alinement games. However, I maintain that all these games are derived from either a
war or a race game. The purpose of the game, together with its main characteristic,
will serve as an adequate indication to classify games.
A number of war games, including Chess, do not force players to destroy their
opponent completely. The destruction of the enemy can be implied, as in checkmate
where the king is not actually captured, or a certain aspect of war may prevail, as in
hunt games where an escape or an enclosement can suffice for a win. I will,
therefore, distinguish the following sub-classes of war games:
1. war games of pure destruction: Draughts (and perhaps Awari).

2. war games of implied destruction: Bao, Chess, and 'hunt' games.
'Implied' means that reaching a certain situation in the game is equivalent to

achieving the total destruction of the enemy, e.g. taking a king, taking (more than)
half of the board, or making all moves by the opponent impossible (enclosement).
The above classes refer to the purpose of the game and are, therefore, the most
basic. These classes do not overlap.
Each of these classes can be further divided by distinguishing the means of
reaching a victory. There is a certain theoretical advantage in doing so: the way in
which a game is played is most important in determining the strategies that are
26 LIMITS OF TIIE MIND
involved. Hunting games (and games of alinement - referring to the lines that are
formed when playing such games) are usually games where positioning in itself can
lead to victory. In most other war games capturing is the only means of reaching a
victory. These distinctions can also be made in the division of race games.
In the above classification, we differentiate between two classes that identify the
nature of a game; war games and race games. The nature of a game implies a certain
purpose that these games have in common. The purpose of war games is defined as
destruction. In the subclass of war games we then find two purposes of this kind:
war games of pure destruction and those of implied destruction. These members
find their distinction confirmed in a further division. This division is based on the
different means that can be used for victory. The nature of the game should agree
with the purpose and the means by which a victory is achieved. Consider the
following two examples:
1. In a war game where pure destruction is the purpose, we expect that only
capturing leads to victory, since capturing is a direct form of destruction.
Subsequently, implied destruction can lead to victory through positioning, but only if
this positioning implies destruction, such as in the game of Go. 'Enclosement' is the
only victory that adheres to this requirement. Escape is the necessary counterpart in
games where there is only one 'encloser'.
2. In a race game one expects that only positioning leads to victory, in which case
capturing is used for obstruction of a position but cannot lead to a victory in itself.
All race, war, positional, alinement, manqala and other board games can be
classified in this way. There seems, however, a certain prestige involved if a game is
grouped with Chess rather than with noughts and crosses. This prestige, that is
usually communicated with the words skill or strategy, is best exemplified by
championship games.
3. Championship games
Games with dice or other randomizing devices can be played in championships,
where the structure of the championship eliminates part of the element of chance.
By averaging over a significant number of results, games such as backgammon can
earn their reputation as championship games. Most games, however, change when
they are played in championships. The time limit in play and special impasses in the
game need to be determined and solved. Most importantly, the game needs to have a
substantial unknown element, that cannot be analysed beforehand. All war
presupposes human weakness and seeks to exploit it (Von Clausewitz, 1817:304).
The human element makes war war, and a war game a war game. It is only for this
reason that some games are considered as games of skill and others are not.
However, if the unknown element is too large, then the game turns into a children's
game, since the moves are played at random too often. This leads to the following
conclusion: A game cannot become a championship game if the choice between
moves cannot be determined by the human mind, being either imposed too much or
beyond human comprehension. If a player cannot calculate further ahead, then the
player's move will be a random one as soon as deeper calculations are required for a
choice. Therefore, as long as a game has an unknown element beyond the scope of
the human mind it also has an element of chance. This element of chance has also
been identified in war but as in war games it has often been neglected.
Bell (1960:199) presented a list of strong contenders for the title of the best
game: Backgammon, Wari, Wei-ch'i (Go), Pachisi, Nine Men's Morris, Continental
Draughts, International Chess, and others. Apart from Backgammon and Pachisi,
which are race games, these games are all war games (including Nine Men's
Morris), and, with the exception of Draughts, are war games with implied
destruction. This is perhaps based upon coincidence and, indeed, interesting race
games have already been mentioned that do not fit this classification. However, there
is only a limited number of games in the world in which major championships are
held. Most games mentioned by Bell are championship games in that respect. The
games proposed by Allis et al. (1991) are also problematic, as is shown in Chapter
IV. Complexity for computers does not define complexity for humans.
Not all games of implied destruction should be considered as possible
championship games; on the contrary, most hunt games are considered very simple
in their nature. It is already argued that championship games depend on an exact
degree of uncertainty that must be attained in order to challenge the human mind just
enough. War games with implied destruction seem to have more ways of controlling
this uncertainty than other classes.
It should be noted that championship games still do not form a separate class. In
theory, each individual game can become a championship game, however, some
games have intrinsically greater likelihood of reaching such a status.
4. M anqala games
Manqala games have long been considered a separate class within the classfication
of board games (Bell, 1960; Murray, 1952). Not only are there so many kinds of
manqala games, but they also have a distinctive look. The outlook of board games
does not allow for a separate class of games, as was pointed out before. The name
'manqala' is, therefore, useless from a theoretical perspective. However, from a
historical perspective this might be quite different, since manqala games underwent a
separate historical development. For this reason, it might be useful to discuss
manqala games separately and discuss the classes of games that can be found among
its variants.
All manqala games appear to be war games. Their primary purpose is capturing
which leads to destruction. The only feature that distinguishes manqala games from
other board games is at a much lower level, namely the ways of moving. The ways
of capturing in manqala games can be found in other race or war games as well. But
the way of moving by spreading seeds (or similarly shaped pieces) is unique to
manqala. Therefore, from a theoretical point of view, manqala games should be
defined as games with a particular move, that of spreading pieces. Manqala games
should not have the status of a separate class.
5. The classification
In the above classification, hunt games are a type of war game with implied
destruction in which positioning leads to victory. Manqala games seem to be war
games but have games of pure and of implied destruction. Certain games of
alinement (three-in-a-row) are considered race games, since they do not destroy the
opponent in play. They do not capture pieces of the opponent and are, therefore,
purely positional. Others (nine-men's-morris) do destroy and are classified under
war games. The following picture shows the level of each group of board games as
defined by Murray (1952) and Bell (1960) in the classification proposed in this
study. This picture shows, for instance, that some alinement games are war games,
in the above classifcation and some alinement games are race games.
28 LIMITS OF TilE MIND
Board games
Hunt games Alinement
Manqala Manqala Diagram 5
Race games are different from war games in that there divisions are based on the
concept of getting ahead of rather than destroying the opponent. They can be divided
in the same way as war games.
Murray (1952:9-11) suggested a subdivision into ways of capturing and ways of
moving. Beyond this subdivision I do not think it is necessary to classify any further
since most games will already have a separate classification attached to them.
6. War versus race games

Although the above arguments for distinguishing war and race games should be
sufficient in themselves, we can gain considerable insight through the comparison of
the two classes of war and race games. The two classes are distinguished by their
implied purposes. Each purpose predicts a certain pattern in its divisions. In general,
war games should be won by capturing which implies destruction. Race games,
however, should have a minor element of capturing, since their object is to reach a
certain position ahead of the opponent but not to destroy the opponent.
There seem to be no examples of race games where capturing alone can lead to
victory. However, Three-in-a-Row games and Halma, for instance, are examples of
race games where positioning is the exclusive possibility. In the case of war games,
those with implied destruction have examples of enclosement without the possibility
of capture, but these examples are very rare. All other war games have the
possibility of capturing.
If race games are observed in depth then it appears that capturing leads to
obstruction instead of destruction. The opponent is slowed down by captures. The
nature of capturing becomes different in war games, where captured pieces almost
always change owners. They either go to the opponent or they are taken out of the
game.
7. Conclusion
Most classes of games that were proposed by either Murray (1952) or Bell (1960)
can be defined individually with the classification below. This classification not only
shows the relationships between the games, but also the level on which such games
should be distinguished.
In summary, the traditional groups of games can be classified as follows:
1. War games: class of board games
2. Race games: class of board games
3. Hunt games: class of war games of implied destruction where
positioning in itself can lead to victory.
4. Alinement games: class of race games where only positioning can lead
to victory (Three-in-a-Row)
class of war games of implied destruction (Nine
Men's Morris)
5. Manqala games: class of war games of implied or pure destruction
where capturing in itself will lead to victory, with a
particular move of spreading pieces
For reasons of convenience one can still refer to the traditional names for these
groups of games as long as it is understood which theoretical relevance they have in
the overall classification of board games.
Board games
Capturing Enclosement Diagram 6.

Classes based on the nature of the game:

1. war games
2. race games
Subclasses based on the purpose of the game:
1. destruction
2. implied destruction (enclosement)
Divisions based on the means of reaching victory:
1. capturing
2. positioning (moving)
Subdivisions based on ways of moving and capturing:
1. various ways of capturing pieces (see Murray, 1952)
2. various ways of moving pieces (see Murray, 1952)
B. Classification of manqala
In the classification of manqala games, it is possible to maintain the same line of

reasoning as when classifying board games. Again we should argue the nature, the
purpose, and the means. However, in this case, we speak of the nature etc. of the
move instead of the nature of the game.
1. The nature of the move

A first observation in manqala games was the move that spreads seeds. Only
manqala has this type of move, and all manqala moves are of this type. This type of
move, the nature of the move, unites all manqala games in one class. The most
general observation of a move is its direction. Spreading, in particular linear
spreading, assumes a direction. All manqala moves have a circular or (anti)clockwise
direction over the board. However, we have to make a first distinction in the nature
of this direction. Four-row (Murray) manqala moves in two separate circles, three-
row manqala and two-row manqala move in one circle only (Eagle, 1995). This
two-way distinction is well supported in the literature.
A two-way distinction of manqala implies that, for instance, three-and two-row
manqala games are in nature different from four-row manqala.
2. The purpose of the move

Analogous to the classification of board games we have to consider the purpose of
moves in manqala in order to distinguish subclasses. In play, the purpose of a move
is a purely strategic question, therefore, we have to rephrase this question in order to
avoid strategic analysis which is too game specific. Instead of asking the purpose of
a move or why a move is made, we should ask 'what is the move and how is it
made', a question that is followed by the later question 'by means of what is this
move made?'.
For example, there are moves where two holes from two rows are captured at
once and there are moves where one and where one or more holes in one row are
captured at once. This threefold distinction is, in my opinion, the most basic for the
purposes of classification, not only because they specifically refer to manqala moves
(a too obvious reason applied too many times in literature), but also because it refers
to the purpose of all war games; the destruction of the opponent, capturing. The
differences in capturing do not directly change the nature of the game, since it
continues to be a war game, but it does change the nature of the manqala game, since
the objective of the capturing move is different.
3. The means ofplay

The means of a move are very diverse. All moves are spread, but the restrictions on
spreading are many. Also the types of restrictions are different. Manqala games
move by way of spreading seeds, if it is not allowed to spread seeds then we directly
restrict the means of play. Exceptions to certain moves allow and disallow moves,
provide and restrict options. Without entering into too much detail where we reach
the border between variants (see below) instead of games, we can distinguish the
following options as important in the distinction between means of play (see also
Diagram 7 below):
Diagram 7. Manqala
one circle two circles

I
capture one two in a line capture one two in a line
AAA~AA
one direction direction options
~
continuing not continuing
~
continuing not continuing
/\/\/\(\
re-enter not re-enter not re-enter not re-enter not
8 7 6 5 etc. holes per row
2 3 4 5 Bao 7 etc. seeds per hole

1. directional option: some games have one direction of play only (usually anti-
clockwise), some games have two directions to play to.
2. continuing option: some games always end a move after the first spread, other
games continue a certain spreading with a consecutive spreading.
3. re-entering option: some games re-enter the seeds that are captured in the same
move, other games take them out of the game.
These divisions overlap, however, within the tier of the means of the move we can
make consecutive distinctions (see Diagram 7).
We can only include all these options because they are uniform in their effect on
the means of moving. In the course of a move, contrary to the beginning of a move,
a direction can change, the move may continue or the seeds can be re-entered, all
these options are ways of continuing a move. The start of the move and the direct
effect of reaching a certain hole, is dealt with in the discussion of 'purpose'. Each
time we continue a move we continue with the same purpose of capturing. The
options of continuing, therefore, can distinguish the manqala games only in the tier
of means. After the nature of the move, spreading follows the purpose of the move,
which is capturing, and both evolve by means of continuing the move. Spreading
(and capturing) continues:
1. in another or the same direction
2. with or without another spreading
3. with or without the captured seeds
If we take the Bao game, we should speak of a four-row manqala game, where
only one hole at a time can be captured, where the move can continue in various
directions, with a consecutive spreading, and with captured seeds. A Bao expert
might add that direction is not always optional, that continued spreading allows for
more captures and also has exceptions and that capturing is sometimes possible but
not allowed. All these comments should, nevertheless, not matter for the initial
classification of the game.
4. Position in manqala
In order to complete our classification we should distinguish position. Position
distinguishes games in a strategic way. Some positions allow for interesting opening
play, some positions have to be constructed with different rules, other positions
require more seeds. The distinctions imply that the game has certain strategic
limitations added.
The positions should in general be distinguished by the number of holes and
seeds. This allows for unlimited distinctions, however, 5, 6, 7, and 8 holes are most
dominant, as are 2, 3, and 4 seeds per hole. Since the numbers are interdependent, it
is possible to combine them as one distinction. Also, some games have holes empty
and seeds outside the game, and these same games often have specific numbers of
seeds in specific holes. These variations determine the opening strategies of play.
During the game, most games return to the more general features of their fellow
games without the exceptions of the position making much of a difference. These
positions are most important for distinguishing strategies and determining the rules
of strategy. The variations of position should, therefore, be applied conservatively
in the classification.
5. Conclusion
Manqala can be successfully classified following the same principles of
classification as board games in general (see III.A). However, we have to apply these
principles using nature, purpose, and means of board games to the moves of play.
The literature (Murray, 1952; Bell, 1960) has classified manqala using many similar
distinctions, but has not created a hierarchical order, nor did it construe an unified
approach towards classification. Most importantly, the definitions of the classes
should give insight into the classification and the role of games in this classification.
It is only for this reason that a new classification is presented here, in order to
structure the lists of games and give a point of departure for further discussion on
classification.
C. Variants
In order to distinguish between two variations of the same game and two instances of
different games we need a set of definitions that help us determine the boundaries of
a single game. Such a set of definitions also depends on the approach that is taken.
From a historical perspective, it is perfectly legitimate to include predecessors of a
game in the definition of a modern game. It is also possible to limit a game to a
certain social setting or geographical area. However, all these definitions either
include too many games or exclude too many games from a general theoretical
perspective. It seems also, that, intuitively, players have a general idea of what
constitutes a variant and what a different game. For example, in the time of Ruy
Lopez, approximately 1560, Spain, France, and Italy had differences in their way of
playing Chess (Murray, 1913:812). These differences did not make them different
games, considering the interchange of players and theories.
As soon as the nature of a game is changed by a change in rules we speak of
different games. This is not only a logical conclusion after our classification but is
also understandable in that different strategies apply to games where the object of the
game is essentially different.
The above provision still includes too many games as variants of the same game.
Classification in itself does not suffice.
In the history of modern Chess we can identify variations in rules that posed few
problems in 1560. These rules concerned, for instance, castling and the en passant
move. It not only concerned changes in the circumstances where castling was
allowed but it also referred to how this should be executed and which pieces were
involved (Murray, 1912:830-833). This eventually led to the first internationally
accepted set- The London Rules. Later this was complicated with time restrictions,
the 50-move rule, then with exceptions to 75 moves for certain end games, etc.,
without a perfect solution for all situations (Hooper & Whyld, 1992:134). A similar
set of variations can be made for Bao, for instance, takasia, and opening moves
(toboa), and also what to do if the nyumba has only 5 pieces left. The moves have
the following characteristics with which we can define all other rules of variation.
The moves are all 'circumstantial' in the game, which can be defined with the
following three characteristics
1. They occur a very limited number of times in a game:

- Castling: maximum 2
-En passant: rare (maximum 8, and only theoretically)
- Takasia: rare (many restrictions)
- Nyumba 5 pieces left: maximum 2
- Toboa: maximum 2
2. They interact with other rules, therefore, restrictions apply, for example:
- Castling is not allowed when in check.
- Takasia only applies if opponent has other options.
3. They do not necessarily occur in a game and it is, therefore, possible to play
without the rules that define these moves.
Variants of a game can now be defined as games with the same nature where the
variation only applies to unnecessary, rare, and restricted rules. The variants should
not be classified in the formal way applied before, but should be seen as in a family
relationship (Wittgenstein, 1953:§66).
IV: ZANZIBAR BAO RULES
A. Zanzibar Bao
1. Previous research
Four-row manqala games are only found on the East coast of Africa (and in China,
see Eagle, 1995). They can become extremely complicated, Bao being the ultimate
example. Flacourt (1658) was the first writer to describe a move of Bao (Townshend,
1986). This French text of the modes of play of Fifangha is, unfortunately, rather
obscure to the layman who is unfamiliar with the game. In 1913, no other earlier
accounts have been discovered, a much better attempt was made to describe bau (=
Bao) as it was introduced to the Yao people in Nyasaland (Sanderson, 1913). A well
structured description, and an example of a game, explained in a reasonably
adequate manner the characteristics of the game.
Ingrams (1931) was probably the first to describe the game in Zanzibar. His
scanty description captured a few interesting rules, although some moves were
described incorrectly. Murray (1952), a collector of many manqala rules, combined
Sanderson and Ingrams into a new description which is a poor representation of both
of their works.
It is said that in the 1970s the Tanzania Bao Society started collecting material
about their game and also wrote their rules as they were to be used in championships
(especially those between DarEs Salaam and Zanzibar). A copy of these rules shows
that all intricate rules are mentioned, but not explained, and therefore, need an expert
(bingwa) to teach a layman. In this same period the National Museums of Tanzania
published a pamphlet containing the rules of East Africa. Their source is still
unknown. However, their description is one of the most accurate and useful to date
and widely used in tourist shops to accompany tourist boards.
In addition, Townshend's work (1986) concentrates on the Lamu players (Lamu
is part of an archipelago off the coast of Kenya). His account is lengthy but very
accurate and mentions many of the complex rules in detail.
Surprisingly, none of the above descriptions is complete or without question as to
certain situations in the game. After years of playing, it has taken me much effort to
find the key to the problem of describing Bao rules. This problem appeared to be the
hierarchy of Bao rules. Only a presentation that shows the hierarchy of rules in a
structured way is likely to be complete and insightful as to all Bao game situations.
The hierarchy is problematic in all other descriptions and never fully explained. My
analysis is meant to clarify and solve these problems. The structure of the rules has
gained more importance than the listing of the rules. All further amendments to the
rules I describe should fit the basic structure I have create_d.
Because of the complete and detailed explanation of the Bao rules, my
presentation of rules cannot teach the game effectively. If a player is taught the
game, he should first master the most frequent rules before looking at exceptions.
Reading the earlier researchers might well give better insights into the most frequent
rules and which rules should be the first in the learning stage of the game.
2. The analysis
In the analysis of the Zanzibar Bao rules, I will concentrate on the question of how
the rules of a championship game work. The deeper the understanding of playing,
36· LIMITS OF TIIE MIND
the closer we come to the understanding of the reasons why the Bao game has
developed with this structure of rules at its core. Rules are not decided upon by
commissions. Groups of players decide upon rules and championship referees
mediate when groups of players meet. This interactive process gives us the only
reason for suspecting an underlying psychology of the Zanzibar Bao rules.
Since all players in Zanzibar are male, although the women sometimes play an
easier variant, I will refer to a player as 'he'. The rules specifically refer to the
Zanzibar variety. While there are few variations between mainland players and
Zanzibari, specific rules do vary, so a choice for 'Zanzibar only' was made.
Various scholars have tried to capture all the rules in one document. Even the
Tanzania Bao Society has made an attempt in this direction. The Swahili document
that contains this description is, however, written for a players' audience and
requires considerable prior knowledge of Bao terminology and play. It is the only
document that lists most of the very specialised rules. Therefore, with the help of this
document and my own fieldwork, the following analysis will present a more
complete description of the Bao game together with a display of the dynamics of the
rules. The analysis of Bao will determine the hierarchy within the rules and will help
us define more accurately the basic concepts of the game.
B. The board
In order to understand the rules we have first to define certain physical elements of
the board. The definitions of these aspects are, sometimes, more specific than this
first physical characterisation suggests.
The board
The Bao board consists of 4 rows of 8 holes. Each player owns two rows.
The seeds
Each player has six seeds in the house (see nyumba) and two seeds each in two holes
directly right of the house. Both players have a remaining i:mmber of 22 seeds in
stock.
Nyumba
There are two bigger, usually square, holes in the middle. These holes are called
nyumba (house) or kubwa ya mpango (big one of the plan, i.e. the big hole which
was planned as a big hole from the start).
Kichwa
The far end holes on each side of the inner rows are called kichwa (head).
(Sometimes also used for the far end holes of the outer rows, but not in the following
account.)
Kimbi
The penultimate holes on each side of the inner rows are called kimbi.
ZANZIBAR BAO RULES 37
~
Kkhwa
•Kimbi
Diagram 8.
The inner or front rows

I define the inner or front rows as the rows which contain the head, kimbi and the
house. (In the remainder of this manuscript inner rows are often referred to as Na
rows and outer rows as B/b rows.)
Reverse holes
I define kimbi and kichwa, the two far end holes at each side of the front row, as the
reverse holes.
Singleton
I define a singleton as a hole containing only one seed. Although it also refers to a
single seed, it is sometimes more convenient if 'singleton' refers to a hole with one
seed as well.
The above terms are the basic terms of the Bao game, it is impossible to explain any
of the following rules without referring to the above definitions.
Such definitions are necessary for any board game. I defined a board game as a
game in which the board and the pieces are well-defined and limit the number of
positions in the game. This characteristic of a board game is shown by the limited
number of playing fields and the restricted number of seeds in Bao. The definition of
rules limit these -positions even more and are shown in the following sections.
C. The basic move or spreading
The basic move, spreading, is the most characteristic element of the manqala games.
The move distinguishes manqala games from all other board games. A basic move in
Bao is a consecutive spreading of seeds (or other pieces), i.e. placing seeds in holes
one by one, in adjacent holes of the board in a (anti-)clockwise direction. In Bao, this
spreading of seeds also occurs when capturing or emptying holes in general.
Moving occurs in a certain direction, in Bao this is either clockwise or anti-
clockwise within the rows of one player.
1. Lala
If holes are not allowed to be emptied the move stops. This is called !ala (to sleep)
in Swahili. The end of a move only occurs when the last adjacent hole in a
consecutive spreading of seeds is an empty hole, i.e. when the last seed of a move
falls into an empty hole.
It is, therefore, impossible to end a move by simply placing one seed in a hole, since
a hole has to be emptied before that move can stop. Only spreading, which is the
characteristic feature of all manqala games, is considered a move of the game.
2. Endelea
When you continue (endelea), the last seed falls in an already occupied hole. You
continue by taking up all and you continue spreading these seeds in the same
direction.
It is possible to design a move which continues forever, i.e. never reaches an empty
hole. Such moves rarely occur and, surprisingly, have no rules that decide on the
problem. Masters usually do not play a move of which they do not know the
outcome. Their opinions differed widely when they were asked what the best
solution to a never-ending move would be.
D. Moves with capture
1. Namua
In namua, the stage of the game where there are still seeds in stock, the definition of
the house becomes more complicated, since its existence is also bound by rules:
The house is the square hole in the middle of the board:

a. unless it contains, at any moment, less than 6 seeds
b. unless the game of namua has been left(= there is no stock left)
In namua, capturing is placing one seed from your stock:

1. into your front row and
2. into an occupied hole which must have
3. an occupied hole of the opponent next to it
4. see section D.3.
2. Mtaji
Mtaji is making a capture by taking up all seeds of one hole when the stock is
already finished:
1. from the front or the back row and
2. from a hole with more than one seed and less than 16
and spreading them in a direction where the last seed falls:

1. into the front row and
2. into an occupied hole which must have
3. an occupied hole of the opponent next to it
4. see section D.3.
A player plays:
1. namua and captures
2. namua and takasa (see below)
a. unless he can play namua and capture
3. mtaji (see below)
a. unless he can play namua (=unless there is still stock)
4. takasa (see below)

a. unless he can capture
3. Kula
Kula is capturing the adjacent occupied hole of the opponent. The circumstances, as
described above, vary between mtaji and namua. Kula itself proceeds as follows:
After taking up all seeds from the opponent's hole, the captured seeds from the
opponent are spread into one's own front row:
1. from the far end nearest to the reverse hole they were captured from
2. from the far end in the direction where the capturing seeds were spreading to.
a. unless they were captured from a reverse hole
3. from any far end the capturing player chooses.
a. unless they were captured from a reverse hole
b. unless the capturing seeds came spreading from a certain direction
After the captured seeds have been spread the player:

1. Continues with another capture
a. if the last seed fell in the front row and
b. if the last seed fell into an occupied hole and
c. if the last seed fell next to an occupied hole of the opponent
2. Chooses to sleep (lala) or to continue (endelea)
a. if the last seed fell in the house
i. unless he can capture
3. Continues (endelea)
a. unless he can choose
4. Sleeps (lala)
a. unless he can continue (endelea)
When capturing seeds, situations occur where players can choose. In one case, one
can choose the side from which to enter the captured seeds. In another case, there is
a choice between continuing with the house after a capture or stopping at the house
(lala). Continuing with seeds after a capture is not takasa, but is usually called
endelea (continuing). Takasa refers specifically to spreading seeds without capturing
(see below).
In the above description, there are two hierarchies. The first shows that mtaji is a
less complicated version of capturing. There is always a direction of play, and
therefore, the ability to choose the direction is lost. In the second hierarchy, the
choice is with the house, which also disappears when playing mtaji.
The rules of spreading after the first capture are not hierarchical. However, they
show a certain order. Capturing always needs an adjacent occupied hole, a front row
and an occupied hole. The house is a special case when there is no adjacent occupied
hole. Takasa is independent of the front row, while sleeping does not even need an
occupied hole. These rules can be presented in various ways; however, the order
shows their relative complexity most clearly.
As long as there are seeds in stock, the players are obliged to make a namua
move. Therefore, namua is higher in the hierarchy than mtaji.
40 LIMITS OF TilE MIND .
E. Moves without capture
1. Takasa (also takata)

Takasa or emptying is a basic move without capture. Takasa only occurs in one
direction at a time and within the rows of one player.
Takasa is a move that is inferior to any move which captures. This explains the
variation between the rules of takasa in namua and takasa in mtaji situations. These
two varieties of capturing pose different problems in takasa and are solved
separately. The players speak of takasa in both instances.
In namua takasa, one seed from the player's stock is placed in his row with the
following restrictions:
1. Only occupied holes in the front row can be played
This rule defines a lost game if the front row is empty.
1 '. A kichwa cannot be emptied towards the back row if it is
the only occupied hole in the front row.
This rule defines a lost game if the front row is temporarily empty.
2. The house cannot be emptied
a. unless it is the only occupied hole in the front row when it will be
emptied as if it was a singleton.
3. Singletons cannot be emptied
a. unless it is the only occupied hole in the front row
b. unless the house is still present
The house cannot be emptied. However, various moves that do not directly empty
the house may indirectly reach the house. Instead of emptying the house or
disallowing the move, a solution is found by making the move stop at the house if it
reaches the house with its last seed. This is analogous to the optional departure of the
house in namua rules (and the takasia moves discussed below).
If the move does not reach but only passes over the house, there is no change of
rules necessary, the seeds of the house are simply added to.
Takas a shows a strong hierarchy of rules and exceptions. In namua situations the
front row is at the top of the hierarchy. No move starts outside a front row. The
object of the game is to empty all the holes of the opponent's front row. Even a
temporarily empty front row is, therefore, a lost game.
The house is the focus of all play in the namua stage, but it cannot overrule the
front row rule. Therefore, if the players want to prevent the house from being
emptied, rules have to be constructed that bypass the front row rule. In order to
understand 2.a., rule 3 has to be understood first. A singleton cannot be emptied but
must obey the front row rule and the rule of the house. Therefore, singletons are
lower in the hierarchy. Although singletons are lower in hierarchy than the house, to
play a singleton remains an exception. This exception is used to solve the problem
of the house in 2.a. Instead of playing the house, the house is played as if there was
only a singleton, i.e. only one seed is taken from the house. This causes minimal
changes in the number of seeds in the house and adheres to the hierarchy.
Furthermore, it refers to the other exception to singletons that had already been
installed.
The rule of the kichwa is part of the front row rule, since it only further
determines a lost game. The rule is not linked to the house or to singletons and is,
therefore, only a subrule to rule 1.
In the mtaji stage (more precisely: when there is no stock), takasa means that all
the seeds from one hole are spread in a certain direction with the following
restrictions:
1. Singletons cannot be played (be emptied to takasa or make captures).
This rule defines a lost game if there are only singletons in both rows of a
player.
2. Only occupied holes in the front row are emptied.
a. unless they are singletons and the back row can be emptied instead.
This rule defines a lost game if the front row is empty.
2'. A kichwa cannot be emptied towards the back row if it is the only
occupied hole in the front row.
This rule defines a lost game if the front row is temporarily empty.
In mtaji situations the back row can be played as mtaji as well. Therefore, the
high ranking of the front row rule is lost. This confirms my earlier statement that the
capturing moves determine the hierarchy of the takasa rules. The rules for the house
,, disappear once we reach the mtaji stage. Therefore, singletons automatically become
1 the top of the hierarchy.
Before we continue with the discussion of takasia rules, it should be noted that
the hierarchy shown in the above paragraphs assumes a certain history of the game.
Rules high up in the hierarchy are likely to have been there first. It is also likely that
the first stage of entering seeds in the game is a later invention, since many manqala
games are known without this first stage, but no game is known without the second
stage, i.e. capturing without entering seeds. Similarly, one can argue that other rules
are of later or earlier origin in a similar way. This is certainly the case with the rules
of takasia, which, in my opinion, are an invention postdating the rise of mastership in
Bao.
2. Takasia
The lowest in the hierarchy of rules are the rules for takasia (not to be confused with
takasa).
A player who takatas in such a way as to directly menace only one of his
adversary's occupied holes without exposing any of his own seeds cannot be
deprived of the capture he has set up. It must be reserved for him in the next
move.
Townshend (1986:118)
The takasia move is the lowest in the hierarchy, it rarely occurs and only when
the namua stage has ended.
When a player empties in such a way that the opponent cannot capture and that
he himself will be able to capture in his following move, then the takasia rule obliges
the opponent to leave his takasia-ed hole to be captured in the next move. The
opponent cannot empty his takasia-ed hole:
a. unless he can capture any hole

b. unless it is the house
c. unless it is the only occupied hole in the front row
d. unless it is the only hole in the front row which is not a singleton
There is no further hierarchy within these exceptions, except that the takasia rule
is below any other rule in the game. It also confirms that takasa is below capturing in '
the hierarchy. This is not very surprising because capturing is obligatory throughout J
the game.
3. Endelea and !ala

1
After the mtaji takasa move the player:
1. Sleeps when the last seed falls in an empty or takasia-ed hole
II
see paragraph C.
2. Continues
a. unless it falls in a takasia-ed hole
If a hole is indeed takasia-ed it may not be emptied directly, however, as with the
house in the takasa rules, it may be reached indirectly. Without disallowing such
moves, the move will end at the takasia-ed hole if the last seed of the move ends
there. This is analogous with the moves for the house in namua capture and takasa
rules. If the move does not reach, but only passes over the hole in question, there is
again no change of rules necessary, the seeds of the hole are simply added to.
4. Thehouse
The house does only exist if it has not, at any time, been emptied. In that case, the
house would become an ordinary hole. If the house has only 5 seeds the front row is
higher in hierarchy than the house and, therefore, the house should be takasa-ed if
necessary, unless it reaches 6 seeds again. (In DarEs Salaam the house is takasa-ed
if it has only 5 seeds, even if there are singletons left to play.)
The house still exists when the namua stage is over, circumstances providing, and
when there has. been no mtaji yet. In this period, all the namua rules for the house do
not apply. Moreover, all the takasia rules that may occur in the mtaji stage do not
apply in any way to the house either. Therefore, the house can be takasa-ed, but not
takasia-ed.
When considering both the takasa rules for namua and for mtaji, it becomes clear
that the rules for namua are a more complicated version of those of mtaji. The
introduction of the house at the beginning of the game complicates the hierarchy of
rules. Only the takasia rules which, by definition, cannot occur in a namua situation
(the opponent can always capture when he is takasia-ed in the stage of namua), adds
some complexity to the mtaji situation. The house continues to be a special case in
both situations, as long as it is there.
At the time of this study, another rule appeared, which said that a hole that was
takasia-ed could be emptied in the move that takasa-ed the house. The house never
sleeps, stated the rule. However, in a discussion about the rules Kijumbe strongly
opposed this rule, he stated that such a rule would become a swindle, since it was
unlikely to be calculated beforehand by the takasia-ed party. The group present at
that time, Shamte, Abdu, Rajab, Kijumbe, and myself eventually agreed that it was a
bad rule. Later, Mkiwa also denied this rule as being correct. Since the situation in
which the rule occurs is very rare, the opposition of Kijumbe had no serious effect
on the Tournament. It is likely, however, that the consensus will be for having the
rule changed (back), which means that even the house will respect a takasia-ed hole,
when the house is takasa-ed.
F. Irregularities in the game
1. Rejesha mistakes
If a player makes a mistake during the play of a move, the opponent is allowed to
object. The move is returned (rejesha) after which the play continues. If a player,
usually the one who made the mistake, returns a move and fails to reconstruct the
situation he will have lost the game.
2. Touch and move

1. It is not allowed to take one's move back (rejesha) and play another.
a. unless it was an illegal move
2. A player is not allowed to count seeds in his opponent's or in his own rows
a. unless he has the move
And in the namua stage he is not allowed to touch or count a hole while holding a
seed from his stock (kinamuzi):
b. unless he plays that hole (i.e. if he does touch he is obliged to play that hole)
i. unless it would make an illegal move (then he is only reprimanded)
And in the mtaji stage, a player is not allowed to count seeds that make a mtaji
c. unless he plays this mtaji.
3. Correcting the stock

If a player appears to have an incorrect number of seeds in stock, usually discovered
when they approach the mtaji stage (the beginner of the game also starts the mtaji
stage) the following rules apply. The rules assume that there is an error of only one
seed:
1. If the number of seeds in play is incorrect, seeds are added to the game and the
player who misses seeds adds them to his stock. In championships, the seeds are
counted before each match, and lost seeds are usually just fumbled between clothes
or otherwise. · ·
2. However, if the number of seeds is correct and the seeds appear wrongly divided
between the two players, one player usually misses a last seed he can take from his
stock. In that case:
a. the player who is missing one seed receives a seed from the opponent's stock
i. unless this stock has been played
The player is not allowed to ask the number of seeds the opponent has, instead he is
forced to remember who started the game. Therefore, if the number of seeds are
wrongly divided between the two players, they usually do not discover this until they
reach the mtaji stage and one of the players already finished his stock.
Therefore, the player who misses a seed:
b. receives a singleton from (the middle of) the back row of the opponent
i. unless there is a stock
c. receives a seed from another hole in the back row
i. unless there is a singleton in the back row
d. receives a singleton from the front row
i. unless there are seeds in the back row
!.
e. receives another seed from the front row

i. unless there is a singleton in the front row
These rules attempt to disturb the course of play as little as possible.
l
!
G. Conclusion
1
I have demonstrated various hierarchies in the rules of Zanzibar Bao. The structure
of the rules is so refined that most, if not all, situations in the game are provided for. f
The structure of the rules shows how a Bao player conceives the rules of the
game, what elements have prime importance and which options can be used to solve
problems in play. The complexity of the structure of the rules shows that the players'
ideas are extremely well defined. The accuracy of the rules implies a certain status in
l
understanding. In fact, only bingwa (expert players) have mastered and comprehend
all the rules of Bao. Part of the complexity of Bao for beginners also lies in the large
number of rules within one move.
The hierarchy demonstrated in the previous paragraphs confirms that there is a
strong logic to the complex rules of the Zanzibar Bao game. The explanation of
rules is dependent on the place of the rules in the hierarchy, which also shows their
function in the dynamics of the game. The earlier descriptions of the game
(Townshend, 1986; National Museums, 1971) were very specific concerning some
rules; however, there always remained certain ambiguities or unclear situations. I
maintain that only a hierarchy of rules can offer an adequate reference structure for
the application of Bao rules. Moreover, I suspect that masters have a similar
organisation, or frame of reference, in their minds once they have fully mastered the
rules. If there was no grammar to the rules, rules could easily be misinterpreted by
various players, posing more difficulties when they occur in exceptional situations,
and obstructing the possibility of interactive development. Moreover, ad hoc
imposition of rules would have become common and would have required a ruling
body and more interference from referees. If this were the case, Bao would have
become an artificial game that slowly lost its potential to develop or to balance out as
a championship game. Instead, Bao is a highly structured game that continues to
evolve.
Other publications have already demonstrated the complexity of Bao
(Townshend, 1986; National Museums, 1971), however, they never provided
insights into the structure of the rules. A list of rules is now replaced by a structure
of rules. This structure is more comprehensive, more accurate and more likely to
illuminate the student when he finds himself confused in play.
H. The constriction of excellence
In my opinion, each championship game has rules necessary for the advanced
players to increase competitiveness in championships. These rules facilitate a chance
of recovery in play without completely eliminating the advantage of the winning
party. I will call this counteractive process: the increase of skill, i.e., the rules
demand more skill from a player in order to win.
These rules can give us insight into the definition of skill in general, by studying
and analysing the influence of the rules on play. It should "be noted that the process
mainly involves rules that we consider variations in a game. We consider only the
championship variant, assuming that, in a championship, excellence in the playing of

a game is most obviously accumulated.
1. Recovery
In championship Bao there are a number of rules that increase the chance of
recovery. For instance:
1. takasia, increases the chance for a mtaji
2. the restrictions to the movements of the house facilitates the defence against a
powerful house
3. the move of a house with less than 6 kete gives an advantage in a weakened
position, where the house could be easily lost
4. the rules for the house in the takasa stage facilitate the spreading of the house at
the point where it already failed to be dangerous
The counteractive process mentioned above also constricts the extent to which the
chances of the defence are increased. Takasia is the most dramatically amended rule
with more than five subtle exceptions. The rules for the house are also highly
complicated and delay the point of capture and/or departure in many ways. This
confirms that in order to balance chances most evenly, rules in Bao tend to become
more complicated.
2. Delay ofvictory
Takasia involves three moves at once. One player cannot capture, and plays in such
a way that the opponent cannot capture either, and that he himself does capture in the
next move. If the amendments to the takasia rule were not enforced then the move
would gain too much importance. The move could make important gains for both
players without increasing, in any particular way, the chances of the losing party.
The considerations I put forward concerning the takasia rule appear to be rather
marginal. In fact, the adjustment that this rule makes is of such minor importance to
lesser players that this rule is hardly mastered by this group. The specifics of this
rule are only known to championship players. For these players the rule can make an
important difference. The rule is at the bottom of the hierarchy of rules in Bao.
Therefore, the rule changes very little but offers a chance for a player to recover.
This subtlety identifies our first border of master's excellence. The definition of this
border is in the definition of this rule, a variation at the bottom of the hierarchy of
rules.
The takasia rule can increase the possibilities a player has in an almost lost
position. It delays the opponent's success. The fact that this rule has so many
exceptions implies that the losing party needs very little in order to gain enough for
recovery and also that the rule itself might, without such restrictions, tip the balance
too much in one particular or in other similar situations. The takasia rule defines a
border in the Bao master's excellence in the following way: A game is not decided
until a forcing move cannot hurt the winning party in any significant way. A forcing
move can indeed complicate matters so much that there is delay of victory.
Kijumbe translated the rules of takasia as a reward for a good takasa move. It is
not necessary to be in a losing position. Kijumbe and others agreed, however, that
the rule made it more difficult to win a game. It remains an important weapon if you
have a lack of capture moves.
3. Delay of climax
We can consider the rules for the house in Bao in a way similar to the rules for
takasia. The house has many restrictions and privileges. The house is often described
as the bomb or the treasure that is defended and captured. Indeed, the departure of a
large house can result in a deciding blow to the opponent, as can its capture. In Dar
Es Salaam, I watched a form of handicap-play, where the lesser player is allowed to
capture the house in his second move (he starts with A6L, his opponent playing a6,
thereby leaving his house undefended). They add to the seeds in the house if they
want to increase the handicap. In Bao, both the departure and the capture of the
house are complicated by rules. In championships, these rules are applied with the
following complications:
1. a house cannot be takasia-ed
2. a house of five (alone in its row) has to depart
3. takasa with one seed from the house is pennitted
4. singletons can be takasa-ed when the house has not departed ·
5. except for a house of five, the house is never obliged to depart
These specific rules have little meaning for a layman, the description of the rules
might even confuse regular players. However, these rules illustrate an aspect of the
Bao game which is grasped only by masters. Although the exceptions are less
complicated, the rules are still low in the hierarchy of rules and should be called
variations. As with the rules for takasia, they significantly constrict the playing
possibilities: In this case the departure possibilities of a house for Bao masters (the
capture of a house is unusual in their games and usually coincides with the departure
of a house).
If a house has not departed before reaching the game of mtaji then this house is in
an unfortunate situation, since it is more and more likely to be captured. The only
chance of saving it is to takas a the house favourably. It is essential that it cannot be
takasia-ed (see 1) since that would force the player to give up his house. There is
another reason for such an exception. Since takasia can only occur in a mtaji
situation, the house will have lost most of its defending privileges it had in namua
and is, therefore, more vulnerable.
Another defence rule can keep the house from being captured when it reaches
five (see 2). There is a forte play possible that slowly empties the house:
This is when all holes of the opponent are filled, except for a4, while end holes al
and a8 have only one seed. The other player has only the house left in his front row.
He takasa-s to the right or to the left, in each case all his singletons can be captured
by playing a2 or a5R, respectively. This would empty the biggest house without a
chance for defence. The house of five can, however, be departed and sometimes
gains a small advantage because of often increasing attacking possibilities.
For a Bao champion the above rules increase the chances of retaining the house
and also increase its danger: the bigger the house the bigger the danger. If a house is
not departed then it has to be takasa-ed in the mtaji game, where another rule
protects it. Again, the many rules that involve the house also define a boundary to a
master's excellence. The continuous presence of a house might complicate matters
so much that the victory of a player when a house is still in play is beyond the
powers of calculation of the players.
4. Boundaries of excellence
The two discussions above refer to rules that complicate matters for the master and,
therefore, define a boundary to his excellence if he cannot calculate further. It is as
ZANZillAR BAO RULES 47
if not all the cards are played and the master has to wait until all information is
present. In a similar way we can consider castling in Chess, which as long as it is
possible can change a situation with two pieces at the same time and might,
therefore, change the situation. A Chess master often intends to keep the possibility
of castling. Castling rules have indeed become more detailed in Chess in order to
define the exact circumstances in which castling may proceed.
A game which offers both regular players and masters certain borders within
which the game is played most competitively is, in my opinion, a championship
game.
Even in comparison with other manqala games, Bao has striking characteristics
because of its special rules. Townshend (1986) concluded that Bao, in comparison
with other manqala games, features by far the lowest quantity of captured seeds per
take and the lowest turn-over per move of seeds between players. In addition, Bao
achieves by far the highest number of takes per move, the greatest preponderance of
seeds in the inner row, and the most seeds per hole in the inner row (see also IV.J).
5. Increase of boundaries
I stated that the rules described as characteristic for championship games are
necessary to increase competitiveness. This development can be described in the
following way:
There is a competitive board game and there are two reasons for changing it:
1. The organisation of competitors seeks to delay victory in the game in order to
make it more exciting for the public. Therefore, the game has to become more
competitive; the decisive blow or the climax of the game has to be delayed. The
decision is delayed if the chances of recovery are greater. Subsequently, the climax
is amended by new rules that increase and regulate the odds in the game more
accurately.
2. The organisation only wishes to make the game more competitive for the players
themselves. Again, the same procedure applies.
The system implies that an official organ constructs a championship game. This is
only partly true. It is often a group of people who decide which variant is preferred
and this group may also suggest new time limits and other constraints. However, the
masters themselves develop the game by playing. The process of developing a game
is what has given the modem championship games their reputation. The hierarchy of
rules usually evolves in time This hierarchy decides which rules prevail and come
first and also allow for interpretation. The newest rules, therefore, undergo much
more scrutiny than the earlier rules. As soon as a consensus about a certain rule has
been reached the rule has actually entered the game. The masters who play across
variant boundaries eventually decide which variant, and, therefore, which
development they prefer to play in championships. The development in itself will
always refer to the situation in which the boundaries of a master's excellence serve
to level the fairness of the game and to eliminate random outcomes or a
(dis)advantage of starting the game. Finally, championships ask for maximal
competitiveness since masters play masters. Important situations that dictate the
course of the game are amended and become as subtle as the rules of the games
described.
6. Championship games
At this point, we should briefly return to the discussion of championship games. It
appears that each game can be played at a low level of skill if players choose their
moves randomly. The extent to which a player can influence a game by his choice
of moves determines the general status of a game. An expert plays with skill to a
limited extent, i.e. the number of significant moves he can think ahead. If all moves
can be envisaged by a regular player, as in noughts and crosses, we do not have any
competition and we cannot speak of a championship game.
I maintain that a random choice of a move is an unavoidable element in each
board game. The randomness is reduced according to the abilities of the individual's
mind, most especially when that individual is a master. Reduction is partially
imposed by rules. In a championship game the higher the abilities of the players the
greater the reduction of random moves has been or should be taking place.
Therefore, a game needs a strong competition in order to prove that this ability really
makes a difference. The element of randomness is still present, but reduced by the
existence of rules, and most importantly, can be reduced still further by a player's
abilities.
Such a concept of championship game is different from 'perfect' or 'imperfect
information' games as used in computer science. All information to calculate the
outcome of the next move is available. There is no imposed element of chance, like
dice, that influences the outcome. However, random choices or imperfect
calculations also count as elements that influence the outcome. Expert skill reduces
random choices to a minimum.
Note that the definition of a game does not necessarily include all its rules. Often
we speak of variants of one game when specialized rules are introduced at a later
stage of a game's evolution.
7. Conclusion
The specialised rules in Bao define the thinking space within which Bao masters can
compete. They determine the setting in which the limits of their minds matter.
J. A quantative characterisation of Bao
Bao is the most complicated manqala game. In order to substantiate this claim, we
should provide some numerical data that prove such complexity. The numerical data
presented here cannot, however, distinguish between complexities for humans and
for machines. For instance, Go is currently impossible for machines to conquer
because of the pattern recognition that is involved, while Awari is almost cracked by
computers, because of its calculability and the relatively few possibilities of play
(Allis, van den Herik & Herschberg, 1991).
It was explained that the rules of Bao are complex. Direction changes and
numerous laps to the move all complicate calculation for the human mind. For the
machine, these computational difficulties seem less problematic. This section
presents a brief quantitative characterisation of Bao in relation to other (manqala)
games.
1. State-space complexity
At the present state of computer science, games can be cracked if their total number
of possible positions does not exceed 1012 • Such a number represents a so-called
--. •,--,
state-space complexity, defined as the number of legal positions reachable from the
initial position of the game. (Allis 1994: 158-159)
Awari (also Warri, Wari, Awele, see Murray, 1952) has 48 seeds and 12 holes
and is also played in championships. If we calculate the number of possible positions
of 48 seeds on a Awari board, we should have a fairly accurate idea of the state-
space complexity of Awari. In the same way we can calculate Bao and other
manqala games. Certain impossible positions on the board are too few to make a
significant difference on the total number.
We can apply the following formula (Tijdeman, personal communication):
(h-1+s)!
(h-1)! · s!
h =number of holes
s = number of seeds
~ 'I
!i
I Awari: 'I
1!
(12-1+48)! or ____22_L amounts to 2.8 x 1011
(12-1)! . 48! 11!. 48!
i
I
l
~
Bao:
(32-1+64)! or ___2iL amounts to 1.0 x 1025
(32-1)! . 64! 31!. 64!
f
{
Songka:
(14-1+98)! or ___l.1ll amounts to 3.0 X 1016
(14-1)! . 98! 13!. 98!
These are three examples which show that Bao has significantly more possibilities
than Awari, and less but still significantly more possibilities than Songka. Songka is
a manqala gameJrom the Philippines. It is only played by women and children and
has no status as a championship game. This example shows the limited importance
of the above calculations. Awari will be cracked by computers in the near future,
while Bao and Songka are unlikely to undergo the same fate. However, Bao and
Awari seem much more intricate for humans than Songka. This can only be
explained by the fact that outcomes are too random to calculate; the game becomes
'silly'.
The data prove that Bao is much more complicated than other manqala games,
and is very likely the most complicated manqala game.
Manqala is played with identical seeds, each of which represent exactly the same
value (with the possible exception of some Chinese variants, see Eagle, 1995).
Therefore, there is a wide gap between the numbers for Chess and for Bao. In Chess
the pieces have different values, although less numerous and only one per field.
Also, the board has twice as many positions. Chess has, therefore, a much higher
numerical complexity of 1050 (Allis, van den Herik & van der Meulen, 1991).
2. Game-tree complexity
We can give a reasonable estimate for the branching factor of Bao by calculating the
number of possible moves in each turn of a Bao match. If we average a number of
these calculations we should reach a fair estimate by which we can continue to

calculate the game-tree complexity.
In the game Alex - Abdu with Abdu playing blind, the average number of choices
that could be made in each move was approximately 4.2. The highest number was 9
and the lowest 1. In the game Rajab - Kijumbe (see Appendix Ill), the average
number of choices was approximately 4.5 in the first stage, lowered to 2.7 in the
mtaji stage. The highest number was 8 and the lowest 1. The players had significant
individual differences, since Kijumbe in the mtaji stage had approximately 2.2
choices per move, while Rajab had 3.1 choices.
Chess has an extremely high branching factor compared to Bao. Usually, there
are more than twenty moves possible in each turn (de Groot, 1946). An obvious
explanation for the complexity of Bao is the number of changes per move. In Chess
this complexity is two changes per move, three changes per move if something is
captured or castled. In Bao the minimum change is three, while there is only a
maximum for the number of holes changed and not for the number of changes itself.
In the same game Alex- Abdu (see Chapter VII.A), the average number of holes
changed within a move was appr. 6.3. The highest number was 18, seven times
above 10, and fifteen times exactly 3 holes were changed.
With the average branching factor in Bao and the average number of moves (see
Chapter VIII), we can also calculate the size of a search tree. Such a search tree is
used in computer science to calculate the solution to a game, in order to crack a
game. The game-tree complexity indicates the size of such a tree if the game was to
be searched entirely (see also Allis, 1994:160-161).
Bao has a game-tree complexity of approximately 457 ( = 2,0 x 10 34): 4
representing its average branching factor and 57 the average number of moves in a
game (see Chapter VIII). In comparison, Awari has a relatively high game-tree
complexity of 1032 (Allis, 1994:166), while its state-space complexity is considerably
less than that of Bao. In the Olympic List of Allis (1994), Bao would rank between
Checkers and Othello. This is the ninth rank out of twelve games.
3. Mutational complexity
Mutational compJexity is not a recognized quantitative criterium for measuring
complexity in board games. However, the number of mutations, not to be confused
with the possible number of mutations, in each game contributes most importantly to
Bao complexity.
In the blind Bao match (Chapter VILA), there are on average 6 positions that
have changed after one move. This excludes the double changes of one position in a
particular move. This mutational complexity is the most crucial part of Bao
calculations. In Chess, such complexity only arises when several moves are thought
ahead. The eventual position has then to be calculated. The complexity of such a
calculation is significantly inferior to the calculations needed in Bao.
The mutational complexity within one move has formed the center of this
investigation into Bao thinking. This type of complexity is completely unknown in
Chess. Draughts and Checkers occasionally have combination captures where a
certain mutational complexity is present. However, in my view, no other board game
matches Bao in this respect.
4. Capture modes
Townshend (1986:134) provides us a table with 'comparative results of simulated
moves for various capture modes'. This list shows percentages and averages of
manqala games with various capture modes. Townshend concluded that Bao features
by far the lowest quantity of captured seeds per take and the lowest turn-over per
move of seeds between players. In addition, Bao achieves by far the highest number
of captures per move, the greatest preponderance of seeds on the inner row, and the
most seeds per hole on the inner row.
Table 2: Capture modes

A B c D E F
1. seeds on player's side
after trial move(%) 72 71 69 65 64 59
2. side total on inner
row after trial move (%) 58 60 50 51 64 61
3. average number of
captures per move 3.5 3.0 2.4 2.5 4.7 3.8
4. average number of
seeds captured per take 3.9 4.2 4.3 2.3 2.2 2.4
5. average highest multiple
on inner row after move 7.1 5.7 5.8 5.0 7.3 6.8
Key:
A Sambi, resowing from behind
B Sambi, resowing forward
c Sambi, resowing captures plus the contents of one's own last hole forward
D as C, but capturing from inner row only
E Swahili Bao, using kimbi (reverse holes)
F as E, experimentally ignoring kimbi
Further discussion of this table can be found in Townshend (1986:133-134). For our
discussion only the rounded figures of the table are presented without paying much
attention to the statistical details.
The rounded figures of the table illustrate conclusively that the capture mode of
Bao is more 'extreme' and much more dynamic, i.e. more seeds are involved, more
changes are made, and more possibilities are created for the opponent. This
discussion largely supports the argument that was made in a previous Chapter on the
constriction of excellence (IV.H).
5. Conclusion
With the average state-space and game-tree complexity in Bao it is possible to
compare Bao to other board games. Its complexity appears not much greater than
that of Checkers (Allis, 1994:161). However, such a comparison is based on criteria
taken from computer science. Mutational complexity, the essence of the difficulty of
Bao for humans, is not 'complex' for a computer. On the contrary, a computer can
deal with considerable mutational complexity without any serious memory problems
while human beings are severely limited. In later Chapters, it is exactly this
maximum which is investigated in experiments with Bao masters.
V: ILLUSTRATIONS OFBAO PLAY
This Chapter shows the various levels of calculating Bao. With the help of elaborate
examples the different stages in a move, a capture, a combination of captures in one
move, and a combination of moves, are shown. The purpose of this Chapter is
threefold:
Firstly, the elements of a move are illustrated for the beginning player and give
an indication of the workings of the game (examples 1 to 8). Secondly, the
complicated move illustrates the difficulty of calculating Bao and often shows a
limitation of the layman's mind (examples 9 and 10). It is not uncommon for a
player to be unable to calculate his own move. Examples of this sort can also be
found in the tests of duro and complex duru in the following Chapters (VI & VII).
Thirdly, the combination of various moves illustrates the traps and tactical moves
that are involved in Bao (section C). More importantly, when these combinations go
far beyond three or four moves deep, they exemplify a first limitation to the human
mind (Table 2). Even the greatest of masters is not able to calculate beyond six or
seven moves deep. Such a limitation is immediately bypassed by memorising
specific combinations. It is obvious that a combination of considerable length can
surprise many opponents and is, therefore, useful in play. The combination is a tool
for gaining advantage in the game. The player then makes use of the limited
knowledge of the opponent.
Different types of move combinations are shown. Forced moves are common
and, as the expression implies, impossible to escape. Short examples of only two or
three ply deep are standard knowledge for a Bao player (examples 9 and 10). The
very long example which is shown in a two page table is not easily recognised as a
forced move situation. However, despite the wide range of possibilities the player
remains trapped. Finally, some combinations lead to early victory (examples 11 and
12). Such combinations are usually part of opening knowledge (Chapter VIII), and,
therefore, part of long opening combinations.
Only new, but complicated examples of forced move situations can surprise a
master. If the combination is beyond his calculation ability then only memorising
will bypass his mental limitations.
A Rules of play
In order to understand the following illustrations in Bao, I present a partial summary

of Bao rules for quick reference.
Rules ofplay
Each player has two rows of eight holes with a square house (nyumba). The opening
set-up: there are six seeds in each house, and two times two seeds in the holes
adjacent to the houses. Each player, therefore, starts with ten seeds, and twenty-two
seeds in stock. The player whose inner (or front) row is empty, has lost the game.
Part I
Each turn a player throws one kete (seed) from his stock in an occupied hole with at
least one seed. If this hole borders on an occupied hole on the opponent's side then
the kete of the opponent are taken (see below).
ILLUSTRATIONS OF BAO PLAY 53
Spreading:
In case there are no seeds on the opposite side, the player empties his own hole and
spreads the seeds, i.e. leaving one seed at a time, in his own row in one or the other
direction. If the last seed drops into an empty hole the player's turn is over. If this
seed drops into a hole with (at least) one seed then this hole is emptied in an identical
way by speading all its seeds until eventually a last seed drops into an empty hole.
Spreading of the house is not obligatory and not even possible if a seed from the
stock is thrown into it. If the house (via another hole) is emptied and spread (or
captures the opposite hole), all rules for the square hole are lost for the rest of the
game.
Capturing:
Capturing is obligatory if possible. When capturing all seeds from the opponent's
hole these seeds are spread one by one over the player's own front (inner) row,
starting from the far left or the far right. If the last spread seed drops into an empty
hole, the turn is over. If it reaches an occupied hole and the opponent has seeds in
his adjacent hole then another capture is made. If not, the player continues spreading
his seeds in his own row.
Those seeds that are captured from the outer two holes are brought into the own
(front) row from the side where the capture was made. If the middle four holes are
captured, the player is allowed to choose from which far end he wishes to enter the
opponent's seeds into his own row. If a capture is made for the second (or more)
time in one turn, then the direction is set: the player plays into the same direction as
in his last capture, or if he captures one of the outer holes, he plays the direction
from the side of the outer holes.
Part II
When all twenty-two seeds have entered the game, each hole with more than one
seed (even from the back row) can be spread in such a way that it reaches an
occupied hole in the front row where it can capture. If this is not possible directly,
then a hole from the front row is spread in a random direction without capturing.
Ones (singletons) cannot be played in this manner. If the front row contains only
singletons, then the player has to play his back row. If the back row also contains
only singletons, the game is lost.
B. Tactical combinations
There are three kinds of tactical movements illustrated in the following paragraphs:
1. Tactical combinations: these moves illustrate the important situations in the
game that have to be recognized. I will limit this discussion to forced moves.
Forced moves are situations where the player is forced to accept the course of
play, i.e. the opponent is able to reach his strategic objective without possible
counterplay.
2. General tactical moves: generalisations about useful tactical moves.
3. Short wins: series of moves that end the game very quickly and need to be
recognized, since they are easily overlooked.
Diagram 9. is a quick reference to understanding the notational system used for

representing Bao moves:
87654321
b 00000000 b
right a 02260000 a left
left A 00006220 A right
B 00000000 B
12345678
Diagram 9: The notational system
The system of indicating moves has certain redundancies that are sometimes
eliminated for reasons of brevity. For example:
1. When capturing the holes A1, A2, A7, and A8 (similar for the a-row) they do not
need the addition left and right, since the direction is already determined by the
rules.
2. The letters a/A do not have to be mentioned in the first 22 moves, since there is
no option of playing from the back row.
3. A forced move, i.e. a move where there is only one obligatory capture possible
(from only one direction) is not necessary to mention at all (or just the direction),
however, eliminating this redundancy adds little to the clarity or brevity of the
notation.
4. In the transcription of the Tournament games, there is a redundancy added,
namely takasa and takasia moves are indicated with (tak) and (takasia),
respectively. This helps the interested reader to re-play the game, and double-
check the correctness of the moves.
Example 1: notation Notational system:

1.
b 87654321 The holes of the board are numbered as
a 87654321 follows. The back rows of each
A 12345678 opponent are called b or B. The inner
B 12345678 rows a or A The holes are numbered
from left to right in such a way that the
A5R Seeds of the house (AS) are houses of each player are numbered aS
played in a clockwise and AS.
direction/or seeds are captured The direction of the moves are
opposite AS and entered from indicated by letters. The most
the right. systematic approach would indicate
B5R Seeds of the back row (hole clockwise and anti-clockwise direction.
B5) are played in an anti- For reasons of convenience, especially
clockwise direction, i.e. to the for the local players, I opted for 'left'
right from the player's point of and 'right'. Confusion has been very
view. limited.
n. The diagram on the previous page,
b 21231201 shows the location of a numbered hole
a 21020146 and its playing direction. The opening
A 0502x000 position is used a~ an
B 13121221
Each number indicates the number of example in the diagram. Na5 has 6
seeds in a hole. An x indicates that seeds and Na6 and Na7 have 2 seeds
the number of seeds is unspecified, each.
but more than 6 and will often be
used for the house. 1. Combinations to the house:
short flank
Only the relevant rows are shown:
Example 2: 'A' moves A8 The house is central in the first part of
i. the Bao game. Most combinations
a 000x0001 seek to develop and empty the house
A 0000x001 most profitably. In order to acquire
skill in the defence and development of
ii. He enters a seed: the house one is required to know the
a 000x0001 various combinations that empty a
A 0000x002 house, since it cannot be emptied
without a preceding capture.
iii He captures: The short flank is the right side of
a OOOxOOOO the house (three holes), the long flank
A 0000x003 is on its left (four holes).
The examples shown in the
iv He continues: combinations to the house (examples 1
a OOOxOOOO and 2) consist of one move only. The
A 0000x110 separate steps of the move are
illustrated (i, ii, iii, etc.) for greater
v He reaches the house: clarity.
a OOOxOOOO
A 000011110 Example 2.i to 2.vi
v1 He continues again: In example 2i, 'A' plays A8 (ii),

a OOOxOOOO captures al (iii), continues with A8
A 11121221 (iv), reaches AS and has the option of
B 11111111 emptying the house. If x becomes 17
(v), for instance, the game can be won:
x would reach A4 (vi) after one
round, and capture a5, after which no
Example 3: 'A' moves A5R seeds will be left in a's row.
I. Example 3.i to 3.v

a 000xl001
A 0000u001 In example three, the same situation on
the short flank is presented, but this
II. time the house is attacked by one seed
a 000x1001 on his opposite side (i). If 'A' captures
A 0000t6001 this seed (ii) and enters the seeds from
the right side into his own row (iii), the
same situation occurs as in example 2.
'A' is able to empty his house.
iii. Note that in this situation two seeds are

a 000x0001 added to house before it is emptied. In
A 000016002 order to capture the opponent's house
there should be 15 seeds in the house at
iv. first (i), adding up to 17 in the final
a OOOxOOOO stage (v). All steps taken in this move
A 000016003 are obligatory except for the direction
of entering the first captured seed and
v. the departure of the house which
a OOOxOOOO should both be chosen before playing.
A 000017110
Example 4.i to 4.iv
Example 4: 'A' moves A5R
i. In example four, A8 already has two
a 000x1000 seeds (i). The seed that attacks AS is
A 00001s002 now captured (ii) and entered from the
right side into A8, which adds up to
ii. three seeds (iii). A8 is spread in anti-
a 000x1000 clockwise direction and reaches AS
A 000016002 which can be emptied to reach A4 and
capture aS. Again, all steps taken in
iii. this move are obligatory except for the
a OOOxOOOO side of entering the first captured seed
A 000016003 and the departure of the house.
We can continue the combinations
iv. of this kind on the right flank,
a OOOxOOOO however, the most frequent
A 000017110 combinations have been shown and the
principle has already been explained.
Example 5: 'A' moves A1 or A2
I. 2. Combinations to the-house:
a 210x0000 long flank
A 1100x000
Example S.i to S.vi
11. A1 orA2
a 210x0000 210x0000 In example five, there are two
A 2100x000 1200x000 possibilities for reaching the house.
In one case, we start with playing
iii. A1 and, therefore, capture a8, reaching
a 010x0000 200x0000 A2, capturing a7, and reaching A1,
A 2100x000 1200x000 which has added up to 4 seeds now:
the playing seed plus one seed from a8
iv. and one from a7 plus the seed that was
a 010x0000 200x0000 already in there make four seeds in
A 3200x000 2200x000 total which continue clockwise and
reach the house.
v. In the other case, we start with
a. OOOxOOOO OOOxOOOO playing A2, capturing a7, reaching A1,
A 3200x000 2200x000 capturing the opposite hole a8, starting
vi. from the left again and reaching A2.

a. OOOxOOOO OOOxOOOO Now, A2 has added up to three seeds
A 4200x000 3300x000 and its seeds will reach the house.
vii.
a. OOOxOOOO OOOxOOOO
A 031lx000 301lx000
Example 6: 'A' moves A5L Example 6.i to 6.v
i. In example six, an analogous situation

a lOOxlOOO to those in examples 2, 3, and 4 is
A 2000u000 created for the left (long) flank. In this
case the seeds in Al have to add up to
ii. 4 in order to reach the house. The
a lOOxlOOO house needs only 15 to reach A4 and
A 2000t4000 capture the opponent's house when it
travels clockwise.
iii. The house is played (ii) and the
a lOOxOOOO captured seed entered into the left flank
A 3000t4000 (iii). Now the seed in a8 is also
captured (iv) and added to Al, which
iv. can now reach the house (v). Note that
a OOOxOOOO the house has received two more seeds,
A 4000t4000 therefore, the initial number of seeds in
the house has to be 13 (i) in order to
v. reach A4.
a OOOxOOOO
A OllltsOOO
Example 7: 'A' moves A2L Example 7.i to 7.iv I

I
i. A more frequent combination is found

a 020x0000 in example seven. I will call this
A 0100t4000 movement a bridge (see general tactics
in paragraph D). The house is reached
ii. from A2 instead of Al. The seeds
a OOOxOOOO opposite A2 are captured (ii) entered,
A 0200t4000 and since they reach A2 (iii), A2 is
now continued to reach the house (iv).
iii. Note that two seeds are added to A2,
a OOOxOOOO one to take away the opposite seeds,
A 1300t4000 and one that enabled it to spread
further. All parts of this move are
iv. obligatory except for the spreading of
a OOOxOOOO the house.
A lOlltsOOO
Example 8: 'A' moves A2 Example 8.i to 8.vii
1. Example eight shows how the capture

a 131x0000 of three holes finally leads to four
A 1110x000 seeds in A1 that will reach the house.
In (ii) there is one seed placed in A2,
ii. that will capture a7 in (iii). The three
a 131x0000 seeds from a7 have to be entered from
A 1210x000 the left and reach A3 in (iv). The seed
opposite to A3 is then captured and
iii. again entered from the left to reach Al.
a 101x0000 Then a8 has to be captured and also
A 1210x000 entered into A1 that has four seeds now
(vi). These four seeds have to continue
iv. and reach the house.
a 101x0000
A 2320x000
3. Forced move to the house:
v. short flank
a 100x0000
A 3320x000 Example 9.a and 9.b.
vi. Example nine shows two moves (a and

a OOOxOOOO b), of which the individual steps are
A 4320x000 shown as well (i, ii, iii, etc.). The
situation in 9a shows a situation where
Vll 'a' is obliged to capture (ii) and enter
a OOOxOOOO the seed into his left (long) flank (iii).
A 0431x000 The situation in 9b is almost
identical to that in exainple two. 'A'
Example 9: captures (i), enters the seed into his
short flank (obligatory) and continues
a) 'a' moves a2L towards the house (iii).
i. In example two, there were 17
a 000x0010 seeds in the house when it was
A 0000t4011 emptied. In the following example,
there are only 15 seeds. When we
ii. spread the house, we arrive at A6 (iv).
a 000x0020 However, A6 contains a seed and
A 0000t4001 therefore the move has to continue. A6
reaches A4 and now captures aS (v).
iii. This situation is very common. Note
a 000x0021 that 17 and 15 seeds are successful in
A 0000t4001 capturing the opponent's house, if the
houses are played from the short flank,
b) 'A' moves A8L and the latter only when A6 contains
i. no seeds at first.
a 000x0020
A . 0000t4002
ILLUSTRATIONS OFBAOPLAY 59
ii. Since forced moves involve, per

a 000x0020 definition, more than one move,
A 0000t4003 explanations will be shortened in the
more complicated situations, i.e. only
iii. the result of the moves will be shown.
a 000x0020 The number of the hole and the playing
A OOOOtsllO direction will give sufficient
information about the course of the
iv. move, only the choice of spreading the
a 000x0020 house will be indicated separately.
A 11110221
B 11111111 4. Forced moves to the house:
long flank
v. There are various forced moves

a 000x0020 imaginable on the short and the long
A 11121021 flank. In this paragraph more elaborate
B 11111111 forced moves will be discussed. The
situations shown are more difficult to
recognize and to master in actual play.
Example lO.a to 10.f

Example 10:
Example ten shows five moves which
a) 'A' has the move force 'a' to allow 'A' spread his house.
a 011x0000 The situation at first looks simple. 'A'
A 0110t4000 captures a6 and leaves only a7 to play
(b). 'a' can only play a7 and the
b) 'A' moves A3L captured seed taken from A2 can. only
a 010x0000 be brought into his long flank (c). 'A'
A 1120t4000 is also forced to play, i.e. A1, but his
move attacks both a7 and a5 (d). 'a'
c) 'a' moves a7R has to defend his house (at least at first
a 120x0000 sight). Wherever 'a' enters his
A 1020t4000 captured seed, 'A' will capture a7.
Situation (e) is very similar to example
d) 'A' moves A1R five. 'A' can reach his house and
a 020x0000 spread the seeds that will reach A4 and
A 013lt4000 capture a5. In this case, 'a' should have
opted to abandon his house (in d), but
e) 'a' moves a5R this will also cause severe damage to
a 120x0000 his strategic position. His house cannot
A 0130t4000 be built up once it is gone. Therefore,
the situation depicted in (a) has great
f) 'A' moves A2L importance for players. Note that
a 100x0000 whoever plays first has the advantage,
A 104lts000 and an example of zugzwang (Hooper
and Whyld, 1992:458) in Bao.
Table 3: Forced moves to the house
The opponent (a), who plays the top row in this example, has 21 different choices, however,
player (A) will always be able to force the departure of his house (X).
Back rows are only shown when getting into play.
A begins move 1 move2 move3 move 4 move5 move6

choice 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
012X0410 012X0411 010X0411 010X1530 010X0530 100X0530 OOOX0530 100X0530 100X0530 011X0530 011X0031
0011XOOO 0010XOOO 0020X011 0020XOOO 1020XOOO 1020XOOO 0131XOOO 0130XOOO 0101X110 0100X110 12110321
choice2 1 1 1 1 1
012X0410 012X0411 010X0411 010X1530 010X0530 100X0530 OOOX0530 100X0530 100X0530 100X0531 100X0031
0011XOOO 0010XOOO 0020X011 0020XOOO 1020XOOO 1020XOOO 0131XOOO 0130XOOO 0101X110 0101Xl10 12120321
choice 3 1 1 1 1 21
012X0410 012X0411 010X0411 010X1530 010X0530 100X0530 OOOX0530 OOOX0531 OOOX0531 11100000
OOllXOOO 0010XOOO 0020X011 0020XOOO 1020XOOO 1020XOOO 0131XOOO 0130XOOO 0101X110 1213X030
choice 4 1 1 1 1 1 1
012X0410 012X0411 010X0411 010X1530 010X0530 100X0530 OOOX0530 OOOX0531 OOOX0531 IOOX0530 100X0030
OOllXOOO 0010XOOO 0020X011 0020XOOO 1020XOOO 1020XOOO 0131XOOO 0130XOOO 0101X110 0100X110 12110321
choice 5 1 1 1 1 1 1
012X0410 012X0411 010X0411 010X1530 010X0530 100X0530 OOOX0530 OOOX0531 OOOX0531 OOOX0641 OOOX0601
OOllXOOO 0010XOOO 0020X011 0020XOOO 1020XOOO 1020XOOO 0131XOOO 0130XOOO 0101X110 OlOOXOlO 12110031
choice 6 012X0410 012X0411 010X0411 010X1530 010X0530 001X0530 OOOX0530 100X0530 IOOX0030
OOllXOOO 0010XOOO 0020X011 0020XOOO 1020XOOO 1020XOOO 0101X100 OlOOXlOO 12110311
choice 7 012X0410 012X0411 010X0411 010X1530 010X0530 001X0530 OOOX0530 OOOX0531 OOOX0031
OOllXOOO OOlOXOOO 0020X011 0020XOOO 1020XOOO 1020XOOO 0101X100 0100X100 12110311
choic~ 8 012X0410 012X0411 010X0411 010X1530 010X0530 011X1600 010X0600 120X0600 020X0600 120X0600 100X0600
0011XOOO 0010XOOO 0020X011 0020XOOO 1020XOOO 1020XOOO 1130XOOO 1030XOOO 1041X600 0141XOOO 10520111
choice 9 012X0410 012X0411 010X0411 010X1530 010X0530 011X1600 010X0600 120X0600 020X0600 020X0601 OOOX0601
0011XOOO 0010XOOO 0020X011 0020XOOO 1020XOOO 1020XOOO 1130XOOO 1030XOOO 1041X600 0141XOOO 10520111
choice 10 012X0410 012X0411 010X0411 010X1530 010X0530 121X1030 021X0030 121X0030 101X0030
OOllXOOO 0010XOOO 0020X011 0020XOOO 1020XOOO 1020XOOO 0131XOOO 0130XOOO 10410111
choice 11 012X0410 012X0411 010X0411 010X1530 010X0530. 121X1030 021X0030 021X0031 001X0031
OOllXOOO 0010XOOO 0020X011 0020XOOO 1020XOOO 1020XOOO 0131XOOO 0130XOOO 10410111 I
choice 12 012X0410 112X0410 110X0410 110X0421 110X0421 I
oonxooo 0010XOOO 0020X011 0020X001 11310110 -------- -- - ----
I
·~;:..;;J.~~:,;~,:J:.~r-·~·~~~~~-~~~~~~;~~;'ll:~~~f.l.:-~tt61Mf&:.W~"··i~"ii!'oJi=tiHh"+'-Qit.sil#f1 f1tt!±W11 u -..i""·w.···.:.·tcw~~~hl;hi-."'«Tf'"~"~·~·:-.,."WJ~.,;.,,~,-"'-~ :,.,... ~w-~.i;.,~,,(j.,
!!!l'l!Z1kS:~--~
<C.. -~;.,:;,. .,,,,_.;:, '-. ~'~·Mr•"'"'\'1:fl~~_i~·:r.'ljl\"-'fi.~.A (•~;;.,:';,·.~~-~'.;\tlt!t..:...,._~:,~,. ....,~~o<#i,.,.;~-.,,..,._~/C:.~.i*~~~~.~-0 '();''~",':..1'•':'.'-"••',.--'""·'J!;,.,.'i-'J'"<""·""···~·~-: • ' •"r-to'-4;~ . .,,,_......, •·-
................ u ................ ........ ~ .................. ...,w .......

A begins move2 move3 move4 moveS move6 move 7
choice 13 Ill 111 111 111
012X0410 012X0411 010X0411 010X1S30 010XOS30 010X0041 010X004I 120X0041 020X0041
OOllXOOO 0010XOOO 0020X011 0020XOOO 1020XOOO 1020XOOO 2100XOOO 2000XOOO OI110111
1 1 1
choice I4 11 11 11 11
012X0410 012X0411 010X0411 010X1S30 010XOS30 010XOS01 010XOS01 120XOS01 020XOS01
0011XOOO 0010XOOO 0020X011 0020XOOO 1020XOOO I020XOOO 2IOOXOOO 2000XOOO 01110111
choice 1S 1 1 1
1
1
I
21
1
21 2I
I 21
I
OIOX0411 010X1S30 010XOS30 100XOS30 OOOXOS30 OOOXOS31 OOOXOS31 11IX1040 111X0040 I11X004I lmX0001
0020X011 0020XOOO 1020XOOO 1020XOOO 0131XOOO 0130XOOO OIOIX110 OI01X010 0101X011 0100X011 12110I22
choice 16 1 1 1 1 I 21 21 2I 21
010X0411 010X1S30 010XOS30 100XOS30 OOOXOS30 OOOXOS31 OOOXOS31 111X1040 I11X0040 111X0041 111X0040
0020X011 0020XOOO 1020XOOO 1020XOOO 0131XOOO 0130XOOO 0101X110 0101XOIO 0101X011 0100X011 12110120
choice 17 1 1 1 1 21 21 21 21
010X0411 010X1S30 010XOS30 100XOS30 OOOXOS30 OOOXOS31 OOOXOS31 111X1040 111X0040 020X1040 i 020XOOOO
0020X011 0020XOOO 1020XOOO 1020XOOO 0131XOOO 0130XOOO 0101X110 0101X010 0101X011 0100X011 i 12110230
choice 18 1 1 1 1 21 2I 21 21
OIOX0411 010X1S30 OIOXOS30 100XOS30 OOOXOS30 OOOXOS31 OOOXOS31 111X1040 I11X0040 020X1040 OOOX0040
0020X011 0020XOOO 1020XOOO 1020XOOO OI31XOOO 0130XOOO 0101X110 0101X010 OIOIX011 0100X011 OI020122
choice 19 1 1 1 I 2I 21 2I 21
010X0411 010X1S30 010XOS30 100XOS30 OOOXOS30 OOOXOS31 OOOXOS31 111X1040 111X0040 030XI040 030XOOOO
0020X011 0020XOOO 1020XOOO 1020XOOO 0131XOOO 0130XOOO 0101X110 0101X010 0101X011 OOOIX011 11120230
choice 20 010X0411 010X1S20 010XOS20 010XOS31 010XOS30
0020X011 0020X010 0020X011 0020X001 11310110
move2 move3 move4 moveS move6 move 7
choice 21 010X0411 010X1S30 010XOS30 121X1030 021X0030 130Xl130 130X0130 041X0130 001X0130 101X0130 OOOX0130
0020X011 0020XOOO 1020XOOO 1020XOOO 0131XOOO 0101XOOO 0101X001 0100X001 1311X001 1310X001 0431XOOI
moveS move9
100X0130 100X0130 011X0130 OllXOOOO
0430X001 040lX111~ ~00)~111 1Sl10340 ---- ----- -- ----- ----- ---- -
~·"'
5. A first limitation on calculation: Table 3

There are combination moves that go far beyond the calculation capacity of one
player. The following series of moves was pointed out to me by Abdu and illustrate
very long (more than 9 moves deep) forced moves that empty the house. Whatever
the opponent chooses to play in his 21 choices that are written down in the table,
each time the player will find a forced move that leads to emptying his house. In
real play, the opponent can only determine the number of seeds in the house that are
going to be spread, in order to avoid disaster.
Such a move is a first illustration of a master's limitation to calculate. The
situation is known and identified, but not calculable. Thinking ahead, or khatima (see
Chapter VIII), usually does not exceed three, sometimes four, moves. Only Mkiwa,
in his early years of mastership, is known to have calculated six moves ahead
regularly.
C. General principles of tactics
The following general principles of tactics are limited to decision making on a

superficial level, i.e. the player anticipates only one or two turns. However, they are
useful for identifying immediate mistakes and analysing the results of certains series
of play.
1. The bridge
The bridge is a choice of capture, where a captured seed is entered into the front row
in such a way that it reaches the initial hole of capture again. This hole I will call the
capturing hole. This procedure enables the capturing hole to continue while at least
two seeds have been added from the start of the move.
The bridge in Bao is an useful tool for reaching the other side of the board, in
order to launch an attack, continue an attack, empty the house, and/or develop the
back row.
The bridge has already been seen, in the previous examples' on the combinations
to the house. The capturing hole was the house, the captured seeds are entered in
such a way that they reach the house again and enable it to be emptied.
In a situation where many capturing possibilities exist, the bridge may function as
a tool with which both sides (flanks) of the front row can be captured. As soon as the
outer two holes are reached, the playing direction changes and continues the attack.
Since it is rare to capture seven seeds from one hole, which would enable the player
to reach the outer holes on the other side of the board at once, it is wise to look for a
bridge that continues your move and lengthens the attack.
2. The singletons attack: utitiri

In situations where many seeds from a front row have been captured, it is often wise
to launch a singletons attack. I consider as a singletons attack every move which fills
the player's row with one seed per hole while the opponent's row is occupied with
(many) more seeds. It is practically impossible to capture eight singletons from the
front row in one move. The difficult defense makes an easy attack in the next turn,
since various occupied holes will be exposed to capture.
The defense against a singletons attack consists of ne~tralizing the singletons
position. A player should destroy bridges that enable the opponent to travel up and
down the front row. Large holes of one's own should only be defended if they allow
ILLUS1RATIONS OFBAOPLAY 63
long combinations. Many times the holes with many seeds end somewhere in the
back row and cause only limited damage compared with other combinations.
3. The fork attack: piga tanji

To piga tanji is to attack (usually) two holes, both with many seeds, in one move.
This, often forces the opponent to abandon one of them. This is comparable to a
fork attack in Chess. If one of the holes is a kimbi hole, players usually abandon the
kimbi hole to avoid kitakimbi (see Chapter VIII).
D. Tactical series: short wins
A short win is a game with less than 22 moves (44 turns). In that case, not all the
seeds have entered the game and a player is beaten mkononi which means 'in the
hand' (which refers to the seeds still held in the hand). I show the following wins
not only to illustrate other parts of tactics but also to make the reader recognize these
particular mistakes at the beginning of the game that lead to immediate defeat.
A Baa player needs a certain basic knowledge of openings in order to avoid short
wins. These traps (mtego) are considered general knowledge and can be compared
to the fool's mate or the scholar's mate in Chess play. They illustrate little tactical or
strategical knowledge and usually consist of one or more blunders, often on both
sides.
Opening moves in a strategic sense are illustrated in a later Chapter. The
following examples should be considered short term opening knowledge, or basic
knowledge for the average player. There are many examples known in Bao. There
are two examples given here. The first is the shortest game possible in Baa. The
second is also very short and ends with a short series of forced moves. Both
examples are instructive for the purposes of tactics. Each move is illustrated with
the situation after the move drawn in numbers. The reader who is interested in
learning how to play Baa will find these useful examples to understand the
notational system and the working of the moves.
Example 11
Short Baa 1 is extremely instructive. Many general principles are violated in only
six turns. Player 'a' abandons the house (c), a questionable move, usually not very
profitable. However, player 'A' allows an attack of only singletons by way of a
bridge. Player 'A' also develops his back row in a stage where he should neutralize
the attack. 'Greed' seems to be the human factor with which 'A' was lured and
tricked. 'A' captured the house of the opponent and wanted to secure his own house
by playing it into the back row. He also entered the captured seeds from the 'wrong'
end (d). Although fewer holes are attacked with this last move, it results in a
convenient bridge (a6) from which the opponent can launch the attack. 'A' captured
an almost maximum number of seeds in each move, this principle was, however,
completely invalid in his situation.
Short Baa 1:
a) 'A' has the move b) 'A' playsA6L
a 02260000 a 02260000
A 00006220 A 00117020
c) 'a' plays a6R d) 'A' plays A4R

a 12360000 a 12300000
A 00017020 A 00138131
e) 'a' plays a6R f) 'A' plays ASR>

a 03011111 a 03010110
A 00038131 A 11140240
B 11111100
g) 'a' plays aSR and wins

a 06402611
A 00000000
B 11111100
Example 12
The second example of a short win in Bao concerns a series of moves, where 'A'
follows a common opening until he falls into a trap.
Move (h) looks like a trap (mtego) by 'A', since it introduces a forced move.
This move leads, however, to a counter-trap (tegua) by 'a' in (i). From move (j)
onward, the series of moves are forced, i.e. only if 'A' does not want 'a' to empty his
house, and very similar to the examples given in the section on tactical
combinations.
Eventually, the opponent 'a' is allowed to empty his house, which, if he does,
leads to victory immediately. Instead of a short win, we should perhaps speak of a
extended opening analysis, with a note that a mistake leads to disaster in this
particular case. Note that 'a' has played aSR five times in only seven moves.
Only the end result is shown in (o) which complicates the deduction of the course
of the move. The move, in this case, ends in b8 just after the house of AS was taken.
ShortBao 2:
a) 'A' has the move b) 'A' plays A6L
a 02260000 a 02260000
A 00006220 A 00117020
c) 'a' plays aSR d) 'A' plays A3R

a 12270000 a 12070000
A 00107020 A 00218101
e) 'a' plays aSR f) 'A' plays A3R

a 03180000 a 03080000
A 00208101 A 00319010
g) 'a' plays aSR h) 'A' plays A7R

a 13090000 b 00000000
A 00309010 a 13090000
A 00309001
B 00000001
i) 'a' plays a8R j) 'A' plays A3L

b 11000000 b 11000000
a 03090000 a 03090000
A 00309001 A 11009001
B 00000001 B 11000001
k) 'a' plays a7 I) 'A' plays A1

b 11000000 b 11000000
a 14090000 a 04090000
A 10009001 A 01119001
B 11000001 B 11000001
m) 'a' plays a5R n) 'A' plays A2

b 11000000 b 11000000
a 14090000 a 10090000
A 01109001 A 13219001
B 11000001 B 11000001
o) 'a' plays a5R>

b 12111111
a 41424241
A 00000000
B 11000011
I
.I
I
. '
VI: MASTERSHIP IN BAO IN TERMS OF EXPERIMENTS
It is my assertion that the specific rules in Bao refer to constraints of human

memory. One of these constraints is illustrated with the duru experiment. Duru is a
necessary skill to calculate moves in Bao. In the previous sections, it was argued
that boundaries of excellence refer to positions beyond the calculation abilities of the
masters. With a simple duru experiment, it is demonstrated that such positions exist
and that a dynamic constraint limitation is universal in this kind of memory task.
Subsequently, a problem-solving model is designed to describe the expert procedures
for calculating duru.
A Experiments of memory and their relevance to Bao
De Groot (1946) designed a test that distinguished experts from novices in Chess.
Players were shown a genuine Chess position on a Chess board for about five
seconds. They then had to reconstruct the Chess position on another board
sometimes giving their opinion on the best possible move. On this five second test
grandmasters performed flawlessly, while masters made small mistakes, and lesser
players more serious mistakes, giving an accurate rating of the players.
When this test was performed with a random positioning of the Chess pieces,
creating an unreal Chess position, both expert and novice performed equally badly.
This showed that Chess experts have a specific memory for Chess, one that does not
necessarily transfer well to other situations.
This experiment was translated for Bao. Bao players were presented with a Bao
board and asked to remember the position and, if possible, think of a good move. ·{
They did not perform as well as expected. Even after exposing the Bao position for
about 30 seconds, the grandmaster reconstructed the position poorly; in fact, slightly
worse than my own performance on this test.
Bao consists of four rows of eight holes with various numbers of seeds in each
hole. This is similar to a four by eight matrix represented by.numbers. Such a
matrix was shown to two famous mnemonic experts (Luria, 1968; Hunt & Love,
1972). Hunt & Love (1972) showed their informant VP matrices consisting of eight
rows of six numbers. VP's study time was 246 seconds, however his recall was
perfect, even when rows were asked diagonally or backwards. Luria's (1968:17)
matrix-test was more complex and Hunt & Love repeated this experiment with VP.
Both Luria's subject and VP studied the matrix of digits (4 rows of 13 digits) for 3.0
and 6.5 minutes, respectively. Again, both mnemonic experts had perfect recall.
Apparently, it is perfectly possible to perform well on a matrix task. It is not known
how mnemonic experts would perform on a Bao matrix; however, it is very likely
that they will perform better than Bao experts. This gives reason to believe that
memory for matrices has very little to do with Bao expertise.
Since exposure to Bao positions provides little insight into expertise in Bao, a
duru experiment was designed. Before describing the exact nature of the duru
experiment, we should consider the various related experiments in the literature.
If we consider duru as a test where various holes are remembered in succession,
then Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968) should suggest the possible result. Their
experiment, slightly modified, was repeated for the mnemonic expert VP. In this
case, pairs of nonsense CVC syllables and two digit numbers· were presented. On a
test trial the CVC syllable was presented and VP was required to indicate the last
MASTERSHIP IN BAO IN TERMS OF EXPERIMENTS 67
number paired with this eve syllable. The number of pairs intervening between the
test trial and the CVC syllable in question was defined as lag. Hunt & Love also
studied the response time and found that VP was superior to the subjects of Atkinson
and Shiffrin, both in response time and in number of lags. When the pairs were
presented for no longer than 3 seconds, VP had a maximum lag of 18.
Atkinson and Shiffrin's subjects, who were much more practised than VP or
our own control subjects, were responding at chance level at this lag.
Hunt & Love (1972:242)
Other experiments have an even closer resemblance with the test of durn, especially
the various digit span experiments, that also use numbers instead of syllables.
According to Miller (1956), people have a limited short-term memory space for
random data. This constraint on memory is better known as the magical number
seven plus or minus two. For example, we remember about eight random digits if
these digits are presented at a rate of about one digit per second. However, this digit
span for people can be improved. Hunt and Love (1972) made some progress with
their subject, and Chase & Ericsson (1981) then shattered this constraint with a two-
year training of an average college student, who subsequently recalled 80 random
digits presented at a rapid rate.
The answer to this contradiction in the literature is chunking. Digits are grouped
or recoded and, therefore, chunks are created, the number of which does not exceed
the magical number seven that still constrains short-term memory. Newell & Simon
(1972) presented this argument convincingly for the memory of Chess positions as
well:
Finally, the number of chunks retained in short-term memory after brief
exposure to chess positions is about of the magnitude we would predict from
!
J
immediate recall of common words (Miller, 1956) and copying of visual
patterns (Ein-Dor, 1971).
Newell & Simon (1972:402)
This memory space for random data is an important constraint in the tasks described
t above, however, it can be by-passed by various chunking techniques.
I
Rehearsal is seen as an important way of keeping information in (short-term)
memory. When rehearsal is made impossible by interference tasks (Peterson &
Peterson, 1959), correct recall drops significantly to about 55% after an interval of
15 seconds. The interference from previous items in the test is said to be the main
cause for this rapid decline in recall. Again, Hunt & Love (1972) show that their
mnemonic expert is able to minimise this interferem;e by chunking the 3-consonant
trigrams that were used in the experiment.
Rehearsal seems to be important, but mainly to eliminate possible interference
with other items. This interference can then be by-passed with chunking-techniques
in the case of experts (see Simon, 1979). 'i
I I
In sum, in all the experiments described above, subjects store increasing amounts I
of information in their memory, by-passing the short-term memory constraint

through regrouping or chunking information. Interference with other information can
then also be minimized by expert chunking.
The literature does not end with Simon (1979), Hunt & Loye (1979), or Chase &
Ericsson (1981), since important works have followed in the field of Artificial
Intelligence. This field still dominates the literature when board games and their
II
masters are concerned (Allis et al., 1990). Modern psychological works on expertise
have not focussed on master memory skills, with the possible exception of Chi,
Glaser & Farr (1988). Rather, research has followed more traditional paths with
works on genius in general (Simonton, 1984; Ochse, 1990) - a topic which dates
back to Galton (1892) - and works with a focus on clinical (Howe, 1989) or
developmental (Retschitzki, 1990) aspects of mastership, as was outlined before in
reference to Reysset (1995). Their issues are less relevant to the argument made in
this Chapter.
Here, the question of what a master or genius actually is, is largely by-passed by
describing mastership in terms of mental limitations. This contrasts with common
views that mastership shows extraordinary capabilities by extraordinary people.
Instead, masters show the area in which the limitations of the human mind matter.
Masters are only extraordinary in reaching that area first. Philidor's mastership in
Chess is now inferior to that of a modern 'regular' master. The limitations of the
mind are not likely to have changed since Philidor. Problem solving techniques and
ready knowledge have changed dramatically, however. Since Philidor (Hooper &
Whyld, 1992) the amount of literature on modern Chess has increased rapidly.
Studying Chess literature has become obligatory in the development of Chess
masters. Apparently, some of the limitations of the mind can be overcome by
studying books or learning by heart, i.e. ready knowledge held in long-term memory
which is not subject to the constraints exercised by the limitations from short-term
memory (Kennedy, 1975; Eysenck & Keane, 1990).
Experiments on Chess and findings in computer science studies in general have
focussed on the body of data available to players. Literature on memory has focussed
on data storage. Even the more recent theoretical developments in the study of
human memory, i.e. the introduction (McClelland & Rumelhart and the PDP
research group, 1986) and subsequent developments of the theory of parallel
distributed processing are significantly concerned with data storage. Since there are
no books on Bao games apart from this study, the Bao master will be less concerned
about his data storage. .
In the following. experiments the allocation of information in the memory system
appears essential. When describing the problem solving model in the duru
experiment another limitation of the mind presented itself: the dynamic constraint.
B. Outline of the duru experiment
1. Premises of the experiment and hypothesis

The duru experiment is designed to measure the maximum number of rounds (duru)
that each player can calculate. Furthermore, it should give insight in the different
factors that limit this performance. In the duru experiment it is possible to
distinguish three factors that might influence the performance: length (= number of
holes passed, similar to 'rounds'), number of stations(= number of holes emptied),
and length of time (needed for each round, or station).
Considering the literature on related experiments, we expect chunking to be a
technique that differentiates Bao expert and novice in the duru experiment.
2. Duru
Duru is a Swahili term meaning round(s). In a Bao game, a.move may consist of
many rounds, i.e. the seeds may spread through a player's own rows making several
laps. A player who has duru is a player who can calculate many rounds.
MASTIRSHIP IN BAO IN TIRMS OF EXPERIMENTS 69
There are different ways of knowing duru. Moves with many captures are
complicated to calculate and are referred to as complex duru in this study. A simple
move to calculate is one that goes round within one's own rows without capturing
(takasa). A master may calculate four or five duru in this way, a minor player two or
three. Still, if a player reaches only three duru in such a move, but can calculate this
in his own rows and subsequently in the rows of the opponent, i.e. calculating two
long duru in a row, then his minor ability to calculate duru may prove sufficient
against many opponents.
3. Takasa
For our experiment we chose the move of takasa, where fewer factors influence the
performance of the informants.
Takasa is a move where one picks up the seeds from a front-row hole and spreads
them one by one into consecutive holes in an (anti)clockwise direction. If the last
seed falls into an empty hole the move stops, but if it falls into an occupied hole all
the seeds in that hole are picked up again and spread in each consecutive hole in the
same direction until the last seed finally falls into an empty hole. It is possible that
such a move does not end at all. For example:
a. 01010131
10101010
Move the hole of three seeds in (anti)clockwise direction and continue spreading.
The last seed will never fall into an empty hole.
b. 01010151
10101010
Move the hole of five seeds in (anti)clockwise direction, etc.
c. 23232323
32323232
Move any hole in (anti)clockwise direction, etc.
The variable length of takasa moves forms the basis of the duru experiment.
4. Experimental design
The duru experiment consists of a calculation of a takasa move, i.e. a move without
capturing and played in one's own row(s). The position was set up in such a way that
the move ended beyond the calculation ability of the players. In a pilot test, it
appeared that players reached no more than four or five duru and rarely seven duru.
Therefore, the conditions provided them with moves continuing for eight or nine
rounds.
Apart from measuring the number of duru we also wanted insight in the kind of
duru. It is possible to design a condition where many holes are emptied (stations) in
relatively few duru, as in examples (a) and (b) above. In a similar way it is possible
to design moves that have few holes that are emptied but involve making many
rounds. This often happens when big holes (like the house) are emptied together with
other big holes. The conditions designed for this purpose have a significant
difference between the number of holes that were emptied, called 'stations', and the
number of holes that were passed, called 'length'.
In order to keep other variables from interfering,- the conditions were
standardised. The number of seeds involved in the move was set around 40. The hole
from which the move was to be calculated was always AS (the house). And the
direction was always a clockwise direction. Also there were no patterns that repeated
themselves in a predictable way, as in examples (a) and (b) above.
It was not possible to have informants think out loud; the participants refused or
said it was impossible, there was neither a language nor a notational system to which
they could refer. Instead, the informants were asked to put their index finger at each
hole they reached in their calculations. This request was less problematic and also
reasonably accurate when a video camera recorded their finger movements. A few
informants said that they initially became confused when using their finger, but they
quickly adapted.
Using a video camera had several advantages. The length and the number of
stations could be recorded and also the exact place where informants made mistakes.
Most importantly, the factor time could be measured, i.e. the thinking time for each
hole, for each round, and for each complete condition.
5. Experimental situation
Each informant was invited to a relatively quiet place with no spectators (often
problematic in Zanzibar). Many times we started with a short interview recorded on
video in order to get some background information on their personal life, and to
make them accustomed to the presence of a camera.
The informant was presented with a Bao board and both my helper, Abdu, and I
would explain the experiments in the local language, Swahili. The question was to
tell us, by calculating and not by actually playing, the hole where the seeds would
end when leaving from AS, all the while indicating his progress with his index
finger.
We started with a neutral condition to help him get used to the obligatory finger
movements. This first condition was seven duru long (and was completed by one of
my talented informants in his first effort). Subsequently, he was presented with three
more conditions and, later, asked if he found them more or less difficult. The video
camera recorded the finger movements for each condition. After four conditions, the
informants usually stopped, before getting tired and confused by the intensive
calculations. Therefore, I limited the duru conditions to four only. Two informants
got tired after only two co~ditions, but they were too dissatisfied with their
performance. They also complained about having to use their finger during the
calculations. This supposedly influenced their results. All other informants claimed
this to be a insignificant adjustment.
After each condition the informants were allowed to play the move, i.e. spreading
the seeds on the board, and to explain where their mistakes were made. Surprisingly,
they did not always identify their mistakes at the right place, even after playing the
seeds.
6. Duru experiment: characteristics

The following conditions were used since they showed significant variation in
number of holes, and number of stations. Condition A was used first to provide some
practise. Sometimes, condition B served the same purpose. After these conditions,
they calculated C and D, in order to obtain a clear contrast in the results.
MASTERSIITP IN BAO IN TERMS OF EXPERIMENI'S 71
Condition A:
87654321
b 00000000 b
B 22081433 B
12345678
Characteristics of condition A:
Task: calculate A5R
Set up: 41 seeds in two rows
Length of move: 89 holes
Number of stations: 18
Average number of holes between stations or holes per station: 5-6
Condition B:

B 31:230121 B
12345678
Characteristics of condition B:
Task: calculate A5R
Number of stations: 28 Holes per station: 4-5
Condition C:

B 512012003 B
12345678
Characteristics of condition C: i
Task: calculate A5R I·
Set up: 48 seeds in two rows i,
Length of move: 125 holes '!I
It<'
'I,
Condition D: 'i' '
i '

B 34212222 B
12345678
Characteristics of condition D:
Task: calculate ASR
C. The data of the simple duru experiment
1. Time tables
The performance of the informants on the simple duru experiment, as opposed to
complex duru discussed in a later Chapter, are presented in four tables (fables 4, 5,
6, and 7). They are followed by a number of graphs that show the exponential
increase in thinking-time per station. In the following section, these data will be
discussed systematically together with the presentation of additional conditions that
strengthen the arguments presented.
Table 4: Time table of condition A
Exp.A ISM ROR AMF MJS MKhM NOA SMS Rounds

Holes Total time needed to calculate stations.
per Best attempt:
station SECONDS
4 1 2 1 1 1 * 3 1
4 3 6 2 2 3 * 7 1
9 6 10 3 3 5 2 13 '1-2
4 8 18 4 5 7 6 16 2
5 11 21 6 6 8 11 23 2
4 15 22 9 7 10 21 29 2
6 21 25 11 8,5 14 28 38 2-3
2 23 29 12 10 16 34 50 3
7 27 34 16 19 20 - 58 3
5 34 39 24 22 26 47 66 3-4
5 41 71X 29 41 35X 59 75 4
5 45X 39 52 77 87 4
7 44 93 110X 112- 4-5
6 51 107 5
5 77 138 5
3 92X 165 6
4 201 6
4 287 6
X : this symbol indicates that the informant made a mistake in his calculation. If this mistake is not
corrected then 1he time at which the mistake was made, is taken as the end result of his performance.
- : this symbol indicates that the informant gave up. Usually, the informant becomes tired or 'mixed
up' with numbers and states that he cannot proceed any further.
• The test of duro can easily be rewritten, as was done in the case of NOA. The results are comparable as
for the number of stations and the relative time increase. This was done if too much explaining had been
necessary and the performance on the original condition was not reliable anymore. In order to have a
comparable result, the test was simply rewritten with the same pattern, starting one or two stations later.
Rounds: the rounds column is a rough indication of the number of rounds that were made on the board.
Names: the names of the informants are the first letters of their three names, presented in Table lb.
MASTERSIDP IN BAO IN TERMS OF EXPERIMENTS 73
Table 5: Time table of condition B
Cnd.B ISM ROR JAMF MJS IMKhM NOA SMS Rounds

per Best attempt:
station SECONDS
2 1 2 1 2 1 N/A 1 1
6 3 4 2 5 2 3 1
4 6 16 3 10 3 6 1
5 8 17 7 12 4 10 1-2
8 10 18 12 23 10 12 2
4 12 43 16 31 12 13 2
10 14 50 18 63 14 14 2-3
3 15 62 19 70 16 20 3
4 - 71 20 76 17 22 3
6 24 79 39 121 21 32 3-4
5 32 87- 61 150 45 43 4
2 36 67 163 48 62- 4
7 62 76 183 53 4-5
4 63- 90 214 - 5
6 104 388 65- 5
4 118 389 6
5 183 437 6
8 229 463X 6
4 285 6-7
5 335 7
2 443X 7
6 7
4 7-8
3 8
2 8
5 8
3 8
8 8-9
corrected then the time at which the mistake was made, is taken as the end result of his performance.
: this symbol indicates that the informant skipped this station with his finger and immediately
proceeded to the next station. Therefore, the time for this station could not be recorded.
Note the differences in thinking time between AMF and MJS in the fifth round.
MJS forgot his finger at time 388s, when he found the next station after only 1
second. This resulted in a less fluent graph of his data.
ISM had the habit of giving up after one minute of thinking. Despite his old age,
his calculation was very fast, but his stamina did not exceed one minute. It appears
that one minute is a reasonable thinking time in Bao matches (see Appendix II &
III). Seven minutes of calculating appeared to be the limit for both AMF and MJS.
If a player uses more than one minute for calculating a move, he will be in trouble if
he wants to calculate subsequent moves within, for instance, a three-minute time
limit in championships.
Table 6: Time table of condition C
Cnd.C ISM ROR AMF MJS MKhM NOA SMS Rounds

per Best attempt:
station SECONDS
13 1 7 1 1 1 * 1 1
2 - 8 2 2 2 * 3 1
4 6 14 3 4 4 * 5 1-2
4 8 20 4 5 5 9 9 2
4 10 37 5 6 6 13 15 2
7 14 40 8 9 12 15 19 2-3
8 15 47 9 10 18 18 21 3
15 17 97 16 20 39 23 24 3-4
4 21 105 30 23 46 - 27 4
3 26 120 58 47 56 48 30 5
4 34 132X 83 57 62X 88 36 5
8 46X 106 94 107 46 5
5 160 126 162X 55 X 5-6
_]__ 190 151 6
7 231 178 6
5 293 406 6-7
2 345 418 7
7 ·418X 464 7
3 535 7-8
3 594 8
6 770X 8
4 8
corrected then the time at which the mistake was made, is taken as the end result of his performance.
- : this symbol indicates that the informant skipped this station with his finger and immediately
proceeded to the next station. Therefore, the time for this station could not be recorded.
• See also condition A for comments on NOA.
-'
t:
Table 7: Time table of condition D
Cnd.D ISM I ROR I AMF I MJS I MKM I NOA SMS JAN Rnds.
Holes Total time needed to calCulate stations.
per Best attempt:
station SECONDS
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 3 1.5 2 2 2 2 1.5 1
3 3 6 2 3 3 6 3 2 1
3 5 8 2.5 7 4 10 5 2.5 1
5 7 13 3 32 4.5 13 7 3 1
2 9 21 3.5 36 5 17 8 4 1-2
2 11 25 4 46 6 20 10 5 2
2 13 40 4.5 51 7 24 11 6 2
4 17 48 5 61 8 - 12 7 2
4 19 64 5.5 70 11 56 14 8 2
3 34 74 6 75 12 70 16 8.5 3
2 44 85 7 83 16 79 18 9 3
2 49 108 8 87 17 85 24 10 3
2 55 123 9 110 19 114 26 11 3
5 58X 139 14 115 22 125 36 12 3
6 160- 16 153 45X 162 40 13 3-4
2 17 202 176 50 14 4
2 18 218 193 56 15 4
2 21 255 204 66 16 4
3 22 290 236 71X 17 4
3 23 384 256 19 4
2 35 477 290X 20 4
3 41 534 21 4-5
2 57 666-- 22 5
2 61 23 5
2 83 100 5
6 110- 139 5
9 205- 5-6
2 6
4 6
2 6
2 -- f--- 6-7 --
3 7
2 7
2 7
2 7
3 7
Table 7 shows the limitations of the experiment's set-up. Finger-movement can be

very accurate, but if the informant wants to calculate without using his finger there
will be a certain distortion in the data. MJS needed 25 seconds in his first round to
calculate one hole. Only when he enters the fourth round is he really using this time
for calculating one hole, apparently he forgot or did not want to move his finger until
he had a general idea of how the rounds would proceed. This does not influence the
accuracy of the calculation, it only influences the time increase per station.
2. Exponential increase of time

The thinking time of masters increased rapidly with each consecutive observation. If
we assume this relationship to be exponential, then we should be able to explain this
increase in our thinking model.
We use the time tables of the conditions and represent them in graphs. The
increase is shown in the graphs. Calculation takes more time with each consecutive
station. The X-axis has stations instead of rounds in order to have a significant
number of co-ordinate points. I chose 15 points as a minimum. TheY-axis is simply
a time axis. The time was chosen for theY-axis to illustrate the increase in time with
each station by way of an ascending line.
The increase in time is not linear and the graph appeared to follow an exponential
function. If we plot an exponential function next to the individual graphs of the
condition then we should observe a fairly accurate match. Therefore, the 10Jog of the
data on the time axis was taken and a linear graph was plotted through the graph as
accurately as possible. The R 2 then indicates the approximation of such a line
relative to the co-ordinates of the condition's graph. It is important to note, however,
that the R 2 will always have a positive value because of the nature of the experiment.
With this restriction in mind, the R 2 can still give us some indication.
The following table shows that the calculations confirm that the time increases in
an exponential way with each station.
Table 8: Exponential increase of time
Informant Condition result R-square Standard error

Abdu A, 15 stations 0.978 0.090
Abdu B, 21 stations 0.923 0.208
Abdu C, 18 stations 0.976 0.131
Abdu D, 27 stations 0.983 0.072
Majaliwa A, 18 stations 0.988 0.082
·Majaliwa B, 18 stations 0.749 0.354
Majaliwa C 21 stations 0.978 0.133
Majaliwa D, 24 stations 0.678 0.401
Masoud D 16 stations 0.932 0.110
Mkiwa D 15 stations 0.951 0.121
Nasoro D, 22 stations 0.787 0.322
Njowine D 28 stations 0.880 0.169
Rajab D, 16 stations 0.852 0.250
Shamte D, 20 stations 0.887 0.173
Majaliwa A predicted Y Majaliwa B predicted Y
3 T I 3,5 T
2,5 + _111 I 3
I
~
g
ij"'
2,5 (/)
~
• 3 2
•
j 1~21 ,.,.,
predicted Y predicted Y
I ---o- 101og (t)
I>C
0
s 1,5 -o--- lOiog (t)
ztx1
_,.,. >
0
0.5 j
1
,.- I( z
g
0,5
0 0
• ~
(/)
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0
":d
stations stations 1:!:1
~
1:!:1
Majaliwa C predicted Y I Majaliwa D predicted Y I ~

3,5 3,5 I ~
3 3
2,5 2,5
~
.._,
;o
2 I • predicted Y .._,
0
I>C
2 ----predicted Y
0
§ 1,5 - - - D - lOJog (t) 8 1,5 ---o- 10log (t)
1 1
0,5 0,5
0 0
I -..,J
-..,J
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
stations I stations
l ' ~
Abdu A predicted Y Abdu B predicted Y
s~~
-...l
00
/
.__ predicted Y t1- predicted Y

- - o - lO!og (t)
ll,5
..... ---o- lOlog (t)
0,5
0+---+----t----+---t--~
4 8 12 0 5 10 15 20 25
stations stations
Abdu C predicted Y Abdu D predicted Y

3 2.5
2,5
2
s
2
tl- predicted Y 3 1,5 t1- predicted Y
~
~ 1,5 ~ ~
8 \ - - o - 10log (t) ~ - - o - lOlog (t) 0
":!
1
0,5
~
@
0+------r------~----~
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 10 20 30
stations stations
I I
I
MASTERSHIP IN BAO IN 1ERMS OF EXPERIMENTS 79
The predicted Y and the 10log of the condition's time axis are plotted together (see
graphs). Only Abdu and Majaliwa are shown since they performed well and
provided accurate data for all four conditions. Condition D, where Majaliwa rested
his finger for 25 seconds at a hole in the first round, shows clearly that the influence
of such a discrepancy in the analysis of the graph is considerable and easily detected
as an error. The same experiment was repeated a few months later, and then this
discrepancy did not occur. I have included the data from his first session only. I
included the results of all the other informants on condition D for further
comparison. This condition presents a significant number of measurement points,
i.e. more than 15 stations, which I used as a minimum for the R2 calculations. The
R2 values are sometimes better when the 1°log of the time axis is not taken, as in the
case of Nasoro and Njowine. In the case of Nasoro, however, the standard error
would be 38.01, destroying the statistical significance of the number. In the case of
0
Njowine, the values without taking the 10log are near perfect, since only the last three
M time measurements in the experiment showed some exponential increase. Since, the
R 2 of Njowine's data is still 0.880, it is safe to conclude that there is a relationship
between the time increase with each station and an exponential increase. We should,
0
therefore, explain this element of the experiments when designing a thinking model.
01
~~
U>
c 3. Results
0
'.;:J
.'9 Only one master solved condition A. None of the masters was able to produce
'"
-
0 perfect results on all conditions. Apparently it is not possible, even after several
attempts, to calculate an unlimited number of rounds.
There is a difference between expert and novice in Bao, and there is a difference
between expert and novice in duro. An expert in Bao is usually able to calculate 4 or
0 5 rounds (between 65-80 holes), a novice can hardly calculate 3. An expert in Bao,
specialised in duru, is able to continue for 6 or 7 rounds.
There are three ways of measuring the performance on the experiment. One way
is used by the Bao players themselves and measures the number of rounds. There is
usually a margin of one or two rounds in different conditions. Another way consists
of calculating the number of stations or measuring points. However, this also varies
with each condition. A third way would be calculating the number of holes that
were passed, which is simply the number of rounds multiplied by 16.
There is no simple constant that indicates a master's performance on a test. Too
many conditions would be needed, and all on the same day, since a performance
varies slightly each day, in order to extract a constant. The indication used by players
seems most convenient and reasonably accurate.
D. The allocation model

0
N
1. Chunking duru: towards a model of expert duru calculation

~ In the light of the previous experiment on expert memory and general theories of
problem solving, Bao experts are likely to chunk information in the process of
Sl "'c calculating duru. There is a limitation to this process that was best described by
0
•.;:J Miller (1956) and Newell & Simon (1972). They argued that the number of chunks
.'9
00
"' held in human short-term memory is limited to 7±2.
There are 16 holes in the rows used for this experiment, therefore, chunking is
'<t necessary, since not all 16 holes can be memoris~d quickly. The following
description of chunking is an illustration of the chunking process. It should be noted
0 that this procedure only works for simple duru, i.e. rounds without the complication
i
I I
of captures. A chunk in the durn experiment is a a single piece of information, such

as "this place was emptied" or "5 extra" or the location of a station. In all these cases
the extra information used to compute durn, such as "next hole is 4 holes further", is
not retained in short-term memory. This process of selective retention of the
information is what is meant here by chunking.
Experience of the researcher

Calculating durn appears a matter of procedure and practice. If you do not
understand the tricks (procedures) there is no benefit from training (practice). A
master's memory is not a simple extrapolation of a layman's memory. A player who
practices in order to calculate many durn does not necessarily succeed. For example,
remembering all the holes you have passed takes a great effort from your memory
but delays success. Similarly, slow calculation of each consecutive hole will fail as a
practice effort. Knowledge that is needed in order to proceed in the various stages of
becoming a master is called 'procedural knowledge'. This knowledge tells you the
exact procedure that is to be practised at a certain stage of your development. Such
knowledge takes time to acquire, but it may also be taught, or simply picked up
while practising. In the case of duru, I progressed from 2 duru to 5 durn with the help
of the following procedural knowledge:
1. Practice speed, especially fast calculation of the first round.
2. Practice remembering the number of rounds and the location of the emptied
holes.
3. Practice to add and subtract rounds when a hole was emptied in a later round or
emptied more than once.
This procedural knowledge is personal. The order, the content, and the formulae may
differ for each person and in each particular stage. Also, this particular knowledge
only worked for simple rounds without the complication of capturing and without
having to calculate the opponent's move afterwards.
Calculating duru appears to be a matter of memory allocation. Those masters
who answer the question 'What to remember?' are more likely to succeed than those
who simply memorise. The complexity of the procedural knowledge, or the memory
'tricks', should not be underestimated. They will become more complicated and
more subtle the mo!e duru are calculated. Also there is more practice needed each
time before any new trick can be of help. For example, in my own case it was no use
remembering the location of the emptied holes as a first goal of practice, because I
could not calculate fast enough.
c
A model of chunking duru: an instance of expert memory allocation

It is possible to design a model for the duru experiment in which the number of
chunks remains within the limits set by Miller (1956), i.e. seven plus or minus two.
The following description, henceforth referred to as the 'allocation model', takes the
reader step by step through the (possible) thinking process of a duru informant. It
appears that memory allocation is a better description of the process than chunking,
since different pieces of information receive attention and not necessarily larger
pieces.
If we take condition A, we chunk the following holes:

32414211
22081433
MASTERSIITP IN BAO IN TERMS OF EXPERIMENTS 81
This model would be similar to giving a person sixteen numbers, one per second,
and chunking them all. If we know the allocation model procedure, we can start from
hole number one and proceed as follows:
Station 1: (we see) 4 seeds >next hole 4 holes further
remember: this place was emptied > one chunk
Station 2: (we see) 3 seeds, add one,
remember: this place was emptied > second chunk
Station 3: (we see) 8 seeds, add one,
remember: this place was emptied > third chunk
If the rounds did not overlap, it would not be necessary to
remember the place that was emptied and we would be able to
continue calculating for ever.
l Station 4: We enter the second round > add 1 extra to each following station
f > fourth chunk
(we see) 2 seeds, add one, add one extra, and remember this place
> fifth chunk
Station 5: 3 seeds, add one, one extra, and remember this place
> sixth chunk :f
> seventh chunk
> eighth chunk I.
This would be an average performance for a novice. ·I
'1.1
,I
1-,.
Station 8: We enter the third round > add 2 extra to each following
,j'!I
station 1:1
3 seeds, emptied once

> replace the fourth chunk
> recalculate in which round this :,,~'
s station was emptied. I!
e This appears to be in the first round where it had one seed: add one,
v add two extra, and substract the seed from round one, remember
j this station: > ninth chunk
11 We have no more chunks left for immediate recall. In order to
e calculate the next station, we repeat the process. We only chunk
I station 8, because it was emptied before. All other chunks are now
used differently.
Station 9: 4 seeds, add one, two extra > chunk station 9

f We re-calculate each station and compare it to station 9. If it is the
I. same place we chunk the station, if it is not we do not chunk this
e station. We have to chunk each round to be able to calculate the
[t stations. We connect a particular round with a station if we find
,,r that station 9 has been emptied before. During this process we used
:r five chunks:
1. station 9
2. round one
3. round two
4. round three
5. station 8, which was emptied twice in the process
r
l
Station 9 has not been emptied before, we do not need station 9 as a

chunk any more. We reach station 10.
Station 10: 2 seeds, add one, two extra > chunk station 10
We calculate each station again and compare it to station 10.
Station 10 has not been emptied before, and since we are still in the
third round we again used only five chunks. We do not need the
station 10 chunk, but we continue to remember the round we are in.
Station 11: 1 seed, add one, we passed the marked hole from which we started
so we know we entered another round. We chunked round three,
we add one, so we reached round four, add three extra:
> first chunk
station 11 > second chunk
station 8 > third chunk
We re-calculate each station again and compare it to station 11.
We chunked round one, two, and three in the process. Station 11
has not been emptied. We used six chunks in total.
Station 12: 1 seed, add one, three extra. The same round as station 11, and
station 12 also has not been emptied. We used six chunks again.
Station 13: 3 seeds, add one, three extra. Station 13 also has not been emptied.
Station 14: We entered a new round. 1 seed, add one, add four extra: chunk
four extra instead of three > first chunk
station 14 >second chunk
station 8 > third chunk
We chunk round, one, two, three, and four in the process. Station
14 has not been emptied. We used seven chunks.
This would be an average performance of a master.
Station 15: no seeds, add one, four extra. Station 15 has not been emptied.
We used seven chunks.
Station 16: 4 seeds, add one, four extra > first chunk: fourth round
> second chunk: station 16
> third chunk: station 8
We chunk round one, two, three, and four in the process. Station 16
has been emptied before in round 2 as station 7. We have to
subtract 6 seeds, since there were 6 seeds in this station in the
second round. We keep station 16 chunked. We used seven chunks,
if we disregard the chunks needed for some simple mental
calculation 4 +1 + 4- 6 =3.
I Station 17: We enter a new round. 2 seeds, add one, add five,
'I: five extra > first chunk
iI station 8 > second chunk
I station 16 > third chunk
station 17 > fourth chuilk
We chunk round one, two, three, four, and five in the process.
Station 17 has been emptied in round 2. We have to subtract 4,
since there were 4 seeds in this station in the second round. We
keep station 17 also chunked.
We used nine chunks. .
:! Station 18: We will need more than nine chunks to calculate station 18. Only
two duru experts were able to calculate station 18.
The model presented above raises a number of questions. Firstly, the chunking
process appears relatively simple. Apart from a limited number of chunks that is
needed, it also appears unnecessary to have a large body of knowledge about Baa
positions. In experiments on Chess masters and other experiments chunking consists
of creating larger pieces of information with the help of experience.
Secondly, it appears that chunking into larger pieces of information is not a
known procedure in calculating duru. There is the following evidence for this
assumption:
1. Informants never recognised a pattern, even if exactly the same pattern was
presented to them a little while later. Certain tests were rewritten, using the same
pattern without the first step. For example:
a. 31412010
34212222
b. 41012022
13342122
The above examples differ in only three holes, it is as if the first part of the move
ASR in (a) has already been played in (b) (the holes being moved three holes in anti-
clockwise direction). None of the masters recognised or performed better when the
test was presented again in this slightly different form, although the pattern was
exactly the same.
2. Informants repeated calculations, i.e. they started the condition from the
beginning, but they also started the calculation from the beginning. The calculation
as a whole would go faster, but each station still took more and more time when
proceeding. In condition D, Abdu's graph represents his last attempt after starting
over and over about five times. If the pattern were to be remembered we would
expect a more linear graph, since there would be no reason to calculate.
3. Patterns are unpredictable in Bao. A pattern may follow another pattern for many
moves and after several laps it may suddenly change its course. If players play an
opening, they do not remember the pattern of a certain move, but the changes after
the move, which is, of course, more useful information.
Thirdly, relating to the simplicity of the process, there seems no particular reason
why a novice should perform so badly on this test. Even the performance of a master
hardly seems impressive. The model only showed some complexity when entering
the sixth round. I will argue that there is an extra constraint that limits the
performances of the masters on this condition.
E. The short duru experiment
If we assume that only Miller's constraint is active in determining the performances

of Baa masters then the following experiment should provide a conclusive argument
to the contrary.
The most co-operative and interested informants were exposed to another set of
conditions. Since the experimental situation itself does not occur in the Bao game, it
Y was necessary to work with committed informants. Also, the experiment would be
more challenging for duru experts, since it involved a spe~ial kind of duru.
84 UMITS OF Tiffi MIND
The situation, the set-up, and design of the experiment is similar to that of simple
duru. This time two rows of 4 holes were used, where short rounds were to be
calculated as in a takasa move.
The crucial element in this experiment is that the number of holes is reduced to
eight, now within the limits of Miller's constraint. So, we should find an almost
perfect performance on the short duru test. The allocation model introduced to
explain the results of the previous experiment predicts a worse performance, because
of the increasing number of changed stations. The short duru experiment should
distinguish these contradictory predictions.
1. Characteristics of the short duru experiment

In short duru conditions, the number of rounds increases rapidly, at least more
rapidly than in the simple duru experiment. The more seeds are used the fewer
stations are needed to make another lap.
Condition P: ConditionS:
4012 2321
0116 0232
Characteristics of condition P: Characteristics of conditionS:
Task: calculate A1R Task: calculate A1R
Set up: 15 seeds in 2 rows of 4 holes Set up: 15 seeds in 2 rows of 4 holes
Length of move: 87 holes Length of move: 71 holes
Number of stations: 25 Number of stations: 21
Condition Q: Condition T:
2123 2213
3310 0214
Characteristics of condition Q: Characteristics of condition T:
Task: calculate A1R Task: calculate A1R
Set up: 15 seeds in 2 rows of 4 holes Set up: 15 seeds in 2 rows of 4 holes
Length of move: 72 holes Length of move: 71 holes
Number of stations: 22 Number of stations: 22
Condition R:
4020
4014
Characteristics of condition R:
Task: calculate A1R
Set up: 15 seeds in 2 rows of 4 holes
Number of stations: 19
F. Results of the short duru experiment
The results of this experiment are shown in the tables below (see also Appendix I).
Again, duru experts, those who claim to specialize in calculating duru, performed
better than regular masters with a more basic knowledge. It appeared very difficult
to calculate short rounds. Not only were fewer stations_calculated, but there was also
a shorter length calculated. Only the number of rounds seemed to remain constant.
MJS and AMF, duru experts, reached 6-7 rounds. The others reached 4-5 rounds. I
) MASTERSHIP IN BAO IN TERMS OF EXPERIMENTS 85
e included some tests with early mistakes by NOA and SMS to illustrate the
e fluctuating performances of the informants. Therefore, as will be shown later, it is
difficult to collect comparable results.
a The results of this experiment were preceded by a simple duru test in order to
:t assess their form of the day. This made sure that their average performances make a
J reasonable comparison to their earlier simple duru performances, despite the
e ...'1· different days on which the conditions were conducted.
,-
j All masters agreed that this test was more difficult and that masters, especially
~-f
:::j,
duru experts, should perform better on this test than novices in Bao. One test, which
J· was briefly tried, appeared practically impossible for both master and duru expert:
e
J
'i Condition V:
i
r 27104
i 6453
Task: calculate A1R
I:
: i,
.,J
~[
,:fi,,
~·
I
Set-up: 41 seeds in 2 rows of 4 holes
This test was tried by Majaliwa who had to give up after only a few stations. Others
did not even consider a serious attempt. The unanimous commentary was that the
tr
:~j rapid changes in the pattern make condition V a much more difficult round to
calculate.
:i
,, Below the results of condition P are shown in Table 9, indicating the number of
'~ holes, the number of rounds, and the number of stations, that the informants
! jj{
rn
fi.
calculated in the condition. The tables of conditions Q, R, S, and T are presented in
Appendix I.
Table 9: Condition P
m~~
tf Cnd.P Round Station ROR MJS SMS NOA Exp.P* Round AMF
'.~ 4 1 1 7 1
1
~~
7 1-2 2 4 1-2
-1
\ 4 2 3 2 2
:·~ 2 2-3 4 3 3
');
,, 3 3 5 2 3
·f 2 3 6 4 3
' ~l 4 3-4 7 X 5 3-4
'.{ 4 4
I~ 5 8 2
j
'f 2 4-5 9 X 2 4
It 2 5 10 3 4-5
'if.
l 3
2
5
6
11
12
X 2
5
5
5-6 X
·J
-~
5 6 13 X 7 7
7 6-7 14 4 7
). ,<
:d ~ 4 8 15
.It ~
:o ll' • This condition was rewritten with comparable results. The pattern is identical apart from the first station
that was omitted.
tt. ;, '
_,.
I
'' i!
ll,-
·~
•l
tt
·~:f
86 LIMITS OF THE M1ND
1. Chunking short duru

There are two possible chunking methods for the short duru experiment. One model,
the allocation model, was presented in the previous section and could also explain
the performance on the short duru test. In the. short duru test, the number of rounds
increases more rapidly. Moreover, the number of holes that are emptied more than
once also increases more rapidly, since only eight holes change instead of sixteen.
These two complications explain why the masters are able to calculate fewer stations
and a smaller number of holes (length).
There is a possible second model, henceforth referred to as the ideal model,
which also adheres to the restriction of seven plus or minus two chunks. This time
we chunk each hole on the board, which adds up to eight chunks. In the process of
calculation we replace each chunk. Consider the following example.
Chunking eight holes

If we take condition P, we chunk the following holes:
4012
0116
Such a model would be similar to giving a person eight numbers, one per second,
and chunking them all. If we know the procedure of takasa, we can start from hole
number one and proceed as follows:
We change, and we use one chunk to remember where we are:
chunk 1: from 4 >zero and we chunk '4'
chunk 2: from 0 > 1 and chunk '3' instead of '4'
chunk 3: from 1 > 2 and chunk '2' instead of '3'
chunk 4: from 2 > 3 chunk '1' instead of '2'
chunk 5: from 6 >zero chunk '6' instead of '1'
chunk 7: from 1 > 2 chunk '4' instead of ~5'
It is possible to continue this sequence endlessly and without using more than about
nine chunks at a single time. This procedure would work perfectly for a computer,
that is restricted to use only a limited number of chunks.
Durn experts, masters, novices, and people in general, are not able to use this
procedure nor do they produce perfect results on the short dum test. They perform
worse on short dum tests, and better on simple durn experiments.
The models are simplified. However, they show conclusively that the magical
number seven plus or minus two does not provide a sufficient explanation for the
difficulty of the short dum experiment.
2. Changing chunks: the dynamic constraint

It appears that the allocation model introduced for the simple durn experiment could
predict the results on the short duru experiment. There is a particular part of the
procedure that poses problems for human memory, not recognized by Miller, nor by
those who have followed him. People cannot instantly and simply replace, in short-
term memory, one piece of information with another. Instead both pieces are
remembered and the first is slowly forgotten, causing interference with the former.
Interference tasks were used in experiments to prevent informants to use
rehearsal techniques (Peterson & Peterson, 1959). These tasks were not supposed to
interfere with the information to be remembered. In the end, it appeared that earlier
conditions influenced later conditions by confusing the information, this confusion is
\ .·''
_,, '
. ', _,l,-
D MASTERSJITP IN BAO IN TERMS OF EXPERIMENTS 87
also referred to as interference. In order to prevent confusion with the term

I, 'interference task', I will speak of memory change caused by a dynamic constraint
n on human memory.
Is The duru experiment is an example of changing information that has to be
n processed in order to solve a move. Human memory cannot instantaneously change
1. its information. We cannot forget on command. If changes occur rapidly, we cannot
tS
simply replace the chunks, especially if the changes do not follow known patterns.
The duru experiment presents the informant with a situation where information
1, cannot be chunked in larger chunks. A perfect results would occur if chunks could be
e changed (or replaced) indefinitely, therefore, slower chunk changes have to be
If introduced in order to tackle the task.
3. Exponential time increase

The allocation model should explain the exponential time increase with each station
presented in paragraph D. Considering the data, it is likely that the time increase is
linear for approximately 10 stations. After these stations, according to the allocation
model, time for longer and longer recalculations is added. These recalculations then
I, produce the exponential increase in time. The time increase, therefore, supports the
e allocation model, since the ideal model would predict a linear time increase
throughout the experiment.
During the simple duru experiment, Njowine went very rapidly, then stopped,
thought, and started over again at the same speed. Only at the very end did he rest his
finger to recalculate, all the other times he did not. I maintain that Njowine only
showed us his recalculations, presenting them individually. His time graph is
perfectly linear, showing a regular tempo of his finger movements. If they are
recalculations they should show a linear time increase. However, since recalculations
take longer with each station, the graph of the complete experiment for all the other
informants is exponential. Unfortunately; the recalculations could not simply be
added up in the case of Njowine, because of too much outside interference, but also
lt because he did some recalculations without using his index finger. Other informants
r, who chose to start over only did so because of early mistakes that confused them.
Njowine is included, because his ability in calculating duru is famous, and the
[s
exceptional linearity needed an explanation. He only performed on conditions A and
n D, therefore, his data were not used for further comparison.
11
.e
d
te
'Y
t-
·e
:e
:o
!I
is
i
b
~
~
Ir
~';
~~
VII : THE BLIND PLAY EXPERIMENT
The blind play experiment shows that considerable changes in memory information
take place over a longer period of time without the influence of the dynamic
constraint. The changes in the position of such a blind game are so manifold that
they easily exceed the changes in a duru experiment. It is argued by our informant
and in previous research (Newell & Simon, 1972) that series of moves are chunked
into large pieces of information. The changes are, therefore, related to stored
information and reduce the dynamic constraint to such an extent that a perfect
memory performance is possible in both blind Chess and Bao games.
However, within one move the informant is still not able to calculate more than 5
duru. If very long takasa moves take place in a game, it is possible to beat any master
of Bao when they play blind.
A. Playing blind
1. Blind play in Chess

Chess master Georges Koltanowski played 56 opponents blind simultaneously and
won 50 games, drew 6, not losing a single game. He played Chess for 9 3/ 4 hours in
San Francisco on the 13th of December 1960 and set what is still the world record
(Koltanowski, 1931; McWhirter, 1982; Hooper & Whyld, 1992).
Since early times, masters of Chess have played blind (Murray, 1913; Mieses,
1938). There are various ways of playing blind; blindfold but feeling the pieces on
the board, with an empty board in front of you, or with your back to the board telling
which move you wish to play. The first record of Chess play with the player's back
to the board, the most difficult variant, is fro_m the 7th century. The player was a
black African by the name of Said bin Jubair (Murray, 1912). It is said that he started
to play Chess in order to avoid an appointment as qadi (judge). Muslim law
considered Chess playing incompatable with the work of a qadi. Muslim law in
Zanzibar does not forbid Bao, but prohibits idling. If the game trains the mind it is
not considered idling. Remarks on becoming qadi as a Bao player are unknown.
In 1992, I told Abdu, one of the masters of Bao, about the possibility .of playing
blind in other games than Bao. It appeared that playing without seeds or playing in
the head only, as it is known for Chess and Draughts, is unknown in Zanzibar or
even in East Africa. However, the idea was so tempting to this master that he made
an effort to progress in this particular skill.
In June 1994, a serious effort was made to practise playing without seeds. The
results of this experiment are useful for comparison with other experiments. The
limits of this skill are not known, only the present results of Abdu's efforts. Any
further practice may be expected to increase his performance considerably.
In the following paragraphs, I will give a description of the playing
circumstances and also a detailed account of the progress that was made with
surprisingly little effort. It appears that again a black African is becoming the first
player on record to play a game with his back to the board.
2. Experimental situation
Abdu practiced blind Bao in three stages. The first attempt was played in July 1992.
Only one short game was played but not written down. In this first stage, there was
THE BLIND PLAY EXPERIMENT 89
no practice on the part of Abdu and a limited number of moves, less than twenty,
were played.
Two years later, on the 12th of June 1994, he made three consecutive attempts,
ation followed by another three times on the 24th, and one on the 25th, which was the
amic most successful game of them all. These games of blind Baa were played in a similar
I that manner to the game in 1992. There are three differences with blind chess that should
mant be noted here:
mked Firstly, the moves were communicated in a different way. The informant was
tared presented with a board without seeds. This board was necessary to point out the
:rfect different moves. I was his opponent and in the possession of a board with seeds that
he was not able to see. A move was pointed out by indicating the hole to be played
h.an5 and the direction to play in. All procedures afterwards are determined by the rules of
taster the game. If the house was emptied this was mentioned too. With this information a
game was played until the informant made a serious mistake or gave up. Sometimes
a small mistake was made, but if the informant quickly recapitulated and corrected
his error, the game was continued. The places where these mistakes occurred were
written down as well.
Secondly, the communication was difficult and slow. Since the moves and the
y and mistakes were written down -there would have been very little to see on a camera -
urs in it took some time for each move to be played. Also, some moves had to be indicated
~cord twice in order to avoid mistakes or confusion. The game was, therefore, much
slower than a regular game of Baa, both players taking extra time.
ieses, Thirdly, since the games were not completed very often and since the position in
es on the game changes rapidly, his mistakes and errors had to be analysed thoroughly.
:.:lling After a serious mistake, he was asked what he remembered of the board in order to
back determine the extent of his confusion. Sometimes, the informant's certainty in the
;vas a middle of the experiment was verified by asking the content of certain holes or the
tarted ending of complicated moves.
1 law The game was begun alternately by the informant and by myself. I tried to play
1w in his least favourite openings, which, coincidentally, gave the best results so far.
j it is In 1995, the third stage, various public performances have been held in Europe.
l.
Abdu did not have an empty board at his disposal and, after some further training,
aying only communicated by voice. None of these performances were written down.
ingin These performa'nces equalled the performance of June 25th, 1994. However, the
mr or quality of the games increased and the use of a board for pointing out moves was no
made longer necessary.
.. The
. The 3. Example of a blind Bao game
. Any The number of position changes in Abdu's blind game of Baa exceeds the number of
position changes he was able to calculate in the duru experiment: 112 (7 rounds =
aying 7 x 16 position changes) versus 277 changes in blind Bao.
with In my opinion, Abdu used his knowledge about Bao in order to calculate these
e first moves. His extensive knowledge about combination moves can explain his
performance. Such information is not useful in the duru experiment. Simple duru in
a blind game could not be calculated beyond five rounds. Apparently, calculating
duru is a separate skill in the game of Bao.
1992.
e was
Tf' '
·I I 90 LIMITS OF THE MIND

I
I
Alex (A) - Abdu (a) 87654321
b 00000000 b
B 00000000 B
12345678
1. A7L; 8. a7; 15. A5R>;

00000000 01102020 01102020
02260000 13011222 14130400
00017300 10009000 11210111
·':~ 00000000 4 changes 00000000 16 11111111 18
I
I
:i,,' 2. a5R; 9. A5L; 16. a7;
I 00000000 01102020 01102020
:1·"' 12270000 03010222 16240400
I!·' 00007300 0111to000 00200111
'i
•l11: 00000000 3 00000000 7 11111111 6

ijH<
:qill 3. A6L; 10. a7; 17. A3L;
1 00000000 01102020 01102020

12270000 14010222 16040400
01118000 0011to000 11300111
00000000 5 00000000 3 11111111 4
4. a5R; 11. A4R; 18. a7;

00000000 01102020 01102021
13380000 14000222 08101511
01008000 001210001 00300111
00000000 5 00000000 3 11111111 10
5. A2· 12. a1; 19. A3L;

00000000' 01102020 01102021
10380000 14011330 08001511
13108000 001210000 10400111
00000000 4 00000000 6 11111111 3
6. a6R>; 13. A5R; 20. a3R;

00011111 01102020 01102021
01501111 14010330 18001611
03008000 0012u001 10400011
00000000 15 00000000 3 11111111 3
7. A5L; 14. a5L; 21. A7;

00011111 01102020 01102021
01500111 14131401 . 18001600
13009000 0010n001 10401130
00000000 3 00000000 7 11111111 6
D THE BLIND PLAY EXPERIMENT 91
1:~
Blind Bao game Alex -Abdu continued:
,·c 22. a3R; 30. a1; 38. a3L;

<
,...;_ 01102021 01102021 01102021
~·
09111700 1to111u40 lu030t401
--t
,, 00401030 11130001 11312031
!~~
:-'ll
11111111 7 changes 20202020 6 20202020 3
:1a:; 23. A3L; 31. A4R; 39. A4R;
~' 01102021 01102021 01102021
·~~
·:- 09011700 1to101u40 1u000t401
•
10501030 11140001 11322142
,,
II
11111111 3 20202020 3 20202020 5
' '
24. a4L; 32. a7; 40. a3L;

., 01102021 01102021 01102021
09012701 012211u40 1u000ts13
10500030 00140001 11322040
11111111 3 20202020 6 20202020 5
·r
:!' 25. A3R; 33. A3L; 41. A7;
',I I!
01102021
09012701
01102021
012011u40
01102021
1u000ts03
i
I
il·
i
01111141 11240001 11322051 J
20202020 16 20202020 4 20202020 3 lj
26. a3L; 34. a5L; 42. a1;

f 01102021 01102021 01102021
I':!
1'1
,I:
I 09013911
01110040
0,2130,2251
11200001
h11h10
11322050
I~
;I
f
'jl· 20202020 7 20202020 7 20202020 7 I'
.fl i'J
i 27. A4L; 35. A3R; 43. A2· il'
·~ 01102021 01102021 '

01102021
1
I
09003911 012030t250 1011h10 I
11120040 11301110 23433161

~~! 20202020 3 20202020 3 21310131 16
IY
'i
t 28. a2L; 36. a3R; 44. a2;
I 01102021 01102021 11102021
I lto110to32 lu030u50 210342o60
i
l,..,
11120000
20202020 9
11301010
20202020 3
23030000
21310131 15
i
29. A4R; 37. A7; Abdu could not continue
J 1 01102021 01102021 beyond this point:
i 1to100to32 h030u00 44 turns
t
~;
11130001 11312131 277 changes
20202020 6 20202020 6 (± 6 changes per turn)
~
{
"",!)'
"~
l
. " . ~~ ~. [ ~' ,_ ., •'
T I
'I
,,,,
::,,
4. Summary and conclusion

The dynamic memory constraint introduced in Chapter VI reduces in slow change
procedures, like games of blind Chess, or blind Bao. In the latter case the number of
changes exceeds the number of changes in the best performances on duru tests.
Within the skill of blind Bao, the player is again limited when he calculates duru of
one move. However, the master is perfectly able to use pattern recognition of the
sequences of moves in blind play, which appears impossible in the duru experiment.
There remain two questions. Firstly, what memory information can be used in
blind play which cannot be used in the duru experiment? This question is partly
answered by a discussion of general strategic skills in Chapter VIII. Secondly, can
the presented problem-solving model be further substantiated? It is possible to get
some further insight into the allocation model by way of a slightly modified version
of the duru experiments?
'I
I
·'I
B. The blind duru experiment
1. Blind duru
In the previous Chapter, I proposed the allocation model as an accurate description
of duru problem solving procedures. At the same time, I introduced the dynamic
constraint as a necessary factor in the description of human memory limitations.
Only this factor can explain the ineffectiveness of the ideal model for duru problem
solving. In order to substantiate the claim that the allocation model is accurate,
another set of experiments was conducted with Bao masters that should give insight
in expert procedures for duru.
The more an experimental condition differs from a real Bao situation the less
likely a Bao expert is to co-operate or to produce results different from a Bao novice.
For this reason certain experiments were impossible to conduct in the Zanzibar
context. The short duru experiment was only conducted with masters who had
become good friends and who were interested in the experiments. Financial
compensation appeared an irrelevant factor at this stage. The experiments described
have, therefore, problematic aspects. The most important aspect is the increasing
number of 'bad' performances. Almost all informants would occasionally make
mistakes very early in the experiment. They were not familiar with the experiment
and were easily confused. The mistakes were usually corrected, and in the blind
experiments below, another experiment had to be set up in order to get reliable data.
The chances of getting comparable experiments became very slim, that is why some
tests were simply presented again in a slightly modified way which would still make
comparison possible. In the end, only the best performances were presented here,
since the object of the experiment was to assess the limits of the mind. The 'bad'
performances were not an object of study in this case.
2. The experimental design

The blind duru experiment shows the informant a board where all the holes are
covered with individual pieces of cardboard. The player is requested to lift a certain
piece, examine the contents of the hole, and calculate a takasa move as in the duru
experiment presented above. The number of seeds tells him the location of the next
station where he will open another hole, after covering the first one. This continues,
each time only one hole uncovered, until the informant is lost or makes mistakes.
Holes which were uncovered once were not allowed to be uncovered unless they
were reached again in the course of the calculations. As is stated above, the
experiment has a certain disadvantage. If the informant makes a small mistake and
wants to start over, he cannot do so, since the experiment is intended to eliminate the
factor of repeating calculations. Therefore, if a small mistake was made, another
experiment had to be set up, usually a slightly modified condition, in order to
continue.
If we assume our allocation model to be true, then we should be able to predict
the results of the following experiment. The experiment makes it impossible for the
informant to recalculate duru without remembering every hole he emptied. This
recalculation is essential in the allocation model of solving duru problems. We
therefore expect problems to arise around station nine. If the player produces better
results than predicted - this was the reason for introducing the allocation model in
the regular duru experiments - then we should reconsider the allocation model for
experts in Bao.
3. Example of the results of the blind simple duru experiment
The following table shows the results of condition A in the blind simple duru
experiment. The remaining results can be found in Appendix I.
Table 10: Condition A, blind (see Table 11 for interpretation)
Cnd.A Rounds Stations AMF MJS ROR

4 1 1
4 1 2
9 1-2 3
4 2 4
5 2 5
4 2 6
6 2-3 7
2 3 8
7 3 9
5 3-4 10 blind blind
5 4 11 blind X
5 4 12
7 4-5 13
6 5 14
5 5 15
3 6 16 X
4 6 17
4 6 18 X
4. Example of the results of the blind 'short' duru experiment

The blind short duru experiment should give a similar result. This time the rounds
increase rapidly and more holes will be emptied more than once. The ideal model
can replace these chunks and should show a slightly better performance. The
allocation model still cannot recalculate and should produce as many stations as in
the blind simple duru experiment. Observe Table 11 (for more examples see
Appendix I).
• .-. ,.. r -•••• .._ ~oJ-- ..--~·

Table 11: Condition P, blind nu

wl
Cnd.P Round Station ROR SMS Ex .P* Round AMF
4 1 1 7
7 1-2 2 4 1-2 Ta
4 2 3 2 2
2 2-3 4 3 3 Thi
3 3 s 2 3 du1
2 3 6 4 3 Ot
4 3-4 7 X s 3-4
5 4 8 blind 2 4
2 4-S 9 X blind 2 4
2 5 10 3 4-5
3 5 11 2 5
2 6 12 s 5-6 blindX
5 6 13 7 7
7 6-7 14 4 7
4 8 15
• This experiment was rewritten with comparable results. The pattern is
identical apart from the first station that was omitted.
X: This symbol indicates the result from the simple duru experiment.
blind: This indicates the result from the blind simple dum experiment.
5. Summary and conclusions

The outcome of the experiments was as predicted (see Table 12). In the blind short
duru conditions the performances were near the performances on regular short duru
tests. In the blind simple duru conditions this also seemed to be the case. However,
condition D showed clearly that the blind performance is limited by the number of
stations, while the performance on the regular experiment is limited by the number
of rounds.
Each informant appears to have a fairly constant number of stations he can
calculate blind, this ranges from 9 to 12 in simple duru, or from 8 to 10 in the case of
short duru. Since the performances are a little bit out of the range of Miller's
constraint, it is assumed that the procedure of memory allocation can also be applied
to the blind duru- experiments, but perhaps to a very limited extent. This should be
more problematic in blind short duru, which explains the difference. These
assumptions need further investigation in order to make more definite statements.
There are not many data on the blind short duru experiment for comparison
between experts. The task appeared extremely difficult and informants did not enjoy
giving a bad performance, a fear that could end of an experimental session
prematurely. Their concentration span for this experiment was, therefore, severely
restricted. After becoming more familiar with the experiment, the experts usually
produced one or two satisfying results on this test.
After determining the role of stations in the experiment, it is necessary to return
to the results of the regular duru experiments. The data presented in the table below ski
show clearly that masters in both short and simple duru experiments can be classified dy
by the number of rounds they can calculate. Experts travel only half the length (or cal
number of holes) in short duru but the same number of rounds. Th
If the expert is not allowed to use his allocation technique, his performance is ex!
limited by the number of stations instead of the number of rounds. It should be
concluded that rounds best describe the performances of the expert as long as he uses c.
his expert skills. The solving skill can be partly eliminated by eliminating
recalculation, such an elimination shows the importance of recalculation after the It·
9-12th station. The experiments can be made more difficult by increasing the Ba
number of changes per round, for instance condition C compared to condition D,

which shows the role of changes in the solving technique.
Table 12: Summary table

This overview shows some consistency in rounds for regular durn and consistency in stations for blind
durn. The number of stations in regular D conditions are also interesting.
Oindicates that the data are suspicious, i.e. probably not the best performance.
Duru regular regular blind blind
Cnd: Station Round Station Round
AMF-A 16 6 11 4
AMF-B 21 7 14 5
AMF-C 18 7
AMF-D 28 5
AMF-P 12 5-6 12 5-6
AMF-Q 14 6
AMF-S 12 5-6 9 4-5
MJS-A 18 6 10 3-4
MJS-B 18 5
MJS-C 21 8
MJS-D 24 5 10 2
MJS-P 11 5
MJS-Q 15 6-7
MJS-T 10 4-5
NOA-A 11 4
NOA-C 10 4-5
NOA-D 22 4 8 2
NOA-P 13 6
NOA-R 9 4-5
NOA-T 10 4-5
ROR-A 11 4 10 3-4
ROR-B 11 4
ROR-C 11 5 10 5
ROR-D 16 3-4 14 3
ROR-P 9 4-5 8 4
ROR-Q 11 4-5 9 3-4
ROR-S 11 5 (5) (2-3)
SMS-A 13 4-5
SMS-B 12 4 11 4
SMS-C 13 5-6 10 5
SMS-D 20 4 12 3
SMS-P (7) (3-4) 9 4-5 ;;
SMS-Q 11 4-5
SMS-R 10 5
The allocation model is, therefore, a reasonably accurate description of expert

'II
skill in duru. The failure of the ideal model is explained with the introduction of the
dynamic constraint, which is also the rationale for having experts in durn. Duru I!
I','
calculations require techniques and not a special inborn or genetic memory capacity.
They are, however, special skills belonging to masters, and whether they are
exhibited to a greater or lesser extent depends on the individual. I',
C. Complex duru I'

'i1
It was difficult to find an accurate means of measuring the complex durn skills of
:II
! !
I I
Bao masters. All masters have some expertise in this field, as with simple duru, their
skills only differ in degree. The experiment that was conducted on complex duru
illustrates the problems with de Groot's experiments on Chess. Therefore, de Groot's
experiments will be discussed first, followed by a description of the complex duru
experiment.
1. De Groot's experiments
De Groot (1946) studied 22 Chess players, of whom 10 were Chess (grand)masters.
His research involved psychological experiments performed in 1939 and 1943 on
different locations, whenever the opportunity of meeting Chess masters occurred.
De Groot designed two experiments for his informants. One experiment involved
a Chess board with a particular Chess configuration, taken from well-played but
rather obscure matches, which was to be memorised within 5 seconds. Then the
configuration was to be reproduced, sometimes after a short conversation about the
particulars of the Chess position. (Grand)masters and (almost) novices produced
different results in that masters performed almost flawlessly and novices produced
serious errors. In experiments with a random or impossible Chess configuration both
groups performed equally poorly.
Apart from the lack of material to design experiments, there also appeared a
strong cultural problem when performing such experiments as designed by de Groot.
It appeared fruitless, in the context in Zanzibar, to attempt an experiment with which
masters were not already familiar in the game itself. It became necessary to create
experiments with tasks almost identical to tasks found in a game of Bao. This is most
dramatically exemplified in the tasks of thinking out-loud, which informants simply
refused to do. They have no specific language in which they think, since they have
neither a writing system for the game nor literature on its strategy. Some
spontaneous utterances in the game mention numbers, but they can refer to many
different positions on the board in various stages of the moves. Tests that do not
relate to their experience will give unnecessarily poor results.
The complex duru experiment comes closest to de Groot's experiment in that a
certain Bao position has to be remembered in order to perform well. However, the
set-up is identical to a real game situation. The player is asked to undo (rejesha) a
very complicated move that empties the row of the opponent. It is impossible to
undo the move without knowing the starting position. It is also necessary to know
the system of undoing moves and the order of capture. The experiment is, therefore,
certainly more complicated than de Groot's, but it produces similar results. The task
of undoing a complicated move is often asked in play both for educational purposes
and analysis but also in championships when a player is thought to have made an
error. The skill of undoing moves is not essential for a good player, as such, but all
the masters seemed able to perform at a level well above average.
2. The experiment of rejesha Bao
Premises of the experiment

Rejesha Bao means, among other meanings, 'to return Bao', i.e., to undo a move
played in the Bao game. Bao is one of the few games in the world where undoing a
move can become problematical for a master. The different ways of multiple
captures that can be made in one move are used as a basis for the rejesha Bao
experiment. In Chess undoing a move is trivial, in Draughts it sometimes requires
thought but in Bao it can prove very complicated. -
l In the game of Bao there can be many direction changes within one move. We
s assumed that the length of a move and the number of stations, but also the number of
ll direction changes, would influence the player's performance. The rejesha Bao
experiment can be designed in such a way that there is a standard length and a
standard number of stations, but with variable numbers of direction changes.
Rejesha example
11 Consider the following example where playing the move A6R (bold face) leads to
victory in the following way:
j
.t 87654321
e
e b 00000000 b
d right a 12323231 a left
d left A 01100210 A right
h. B 00000000 B
a 12345678
t.
h. One seed is added to A6, the two seeds from a3 opposite A6 are then captured and
e spread from the right into row A reaching A7, then three seeds from a2 opposite A7
;t
are captured and also spread from the right into row A reaching A6. There are no
y seeds opposite A6, so the fou! seeds of A6 continue to A2 and capturing the two
e seeds opposite A2, but this time (obligatorily) spreading into row A from the left
e side, reaching A2 again and since it has no seeds in the opposite position the three
y seeds in A2 continue and reach A5, capturing three seeds from a4, which are entered
>t again from the left into row A, reaching A3, capturing three seeds from a6, also
entered into row A from the left, then continuing with the accumulated five seeds in
a A3 reaching A8 and capturing one seed from a1, but this time (obligatorily) entering
e from the right into row A. This one seed only reaches A8 and, since a1 is already
a captured, the four seeds in A8 are continued to be spread and reach A4, where the
0
two seeds from a5 are captured and spread again from the right, reaching A7 which
N
has no seeds opposite and has accumulated 6 seeds that are continued to be spread
~,
towards Al. Opposite A1 one seed from a8 is captured and (obligatory) spread from
k the left, reaching A1 and now continued to be spread adding up to five seeds,
:s continuing with another four from A6 ending in B7. Meanwhile all the seeds of the
n opposite row have been captured.
II The directions in this move are changed three times, adding up to four directions
in total. There were fourteen holes/stations emptied. The end position is as follows:
87654321
b 00000000 b
1e right a 00000000 a left
a
le
B 00000011 B
10
es
12345678
In order to undo this move one has to start from B7 and, subsequently, retrace each
step until the original position is recreated, building the opposite row partly from
memory, partly from reconstruction. This task is quite impossible for a beginning
player, but most masters succeeded in returning this complicated move.
Experimental design
The rejesha Bao experiment was designed to obtain insight into the influence of
direction changes upon the calculating abilities of Bao masters.
If we want to measure the influence of direction changes on performance we
have to eliminate all other factors and fix the variables. Therefore, the following
constraints were imposed upon the experiments:
Constant factors:
Number of stations 14 (+/-1)
Number of captures 8
Stage of the game namua (=first stage)
Rows involved a/A row only
Number of seeds 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 per hole
(preferably 1 or 2)
Variable:
Number of directions 2 or 4
The number of captures was set to 8, which meant that the complete row of the
opponent is captured. This forces the player to set up the original game without any
reference points left on the opposite row. The back (B/b) rows are not involved
because they are easy to reconstruct. The number of seeds is limited to small
numbers close to each other to increase the confusion; extremes in the number of
seeds makes them often easier to remember. Moreover, the total number of seeds
stays relatively constant this way.
The directions number either 2 or 4, which is a difference of 100%. There are
also moves with 1, 3, or 5 directions, but for the first and the last it is difficult to
create conditions meeting all the constraints mentioned above.
The experiment's situation

After a duru experiment, the informant was often presented with a Bao position for
the experiment above. It was explained that he was supposed to undo the move that
had emptied the front row of the opponent.
An example was given, sometimes performed by my helper to show the exact
task in the experiment. Then five conditions were presented. Firstly, three conditions
with two directions were executed. The second of which appeared surprisingly
problematical and was, therefore, presented to all informants to confirm its
difficulty. Subsequently, two conditions with four directions were presented and
their opinion was asked about the difficulty compared to the other conditions with
two directions. Usually, their performance confirmed their opinion about the
experiment.
The experiment has three problems. Firstly, it is possible to undo a move by trial
and error. If you are lucky, you can succeed. This trick is often easily detected
because it takes the informant much longer to reconstruct the position. The initial
position is then vaguely remembered and they are never sure whether the outcome is
right or not. A second problem with the experiment is that masters do not necessarily
perform well. Lesser players may perform better sometimes, although the players
who excel are usually masters. The last problem is that the conditions were not
difficult enough to make all masters fail and therefore establish the limits of their
skill. A special variation of the rejesha experiment was designed to establish the
limits of one of the more talented informants.
I
Test techniques: procedural knowledge
As in the duru experiment, procedural knowledge is needed to perform well on the
experiment of rejesha Baa. The experiment is concerned with complicated
combinations in the game. Some familiarity with these combinations is important.
However, much more important is some experience with rejesha Baa. A Baa player
who has never undone a Baa move will immediately fail the experimental conditions
presented here. Rejesha Baa is a common act in a game of Baa. Therefore, all
experienced players are familiar with the skill.
Again, as in the duru experiment, the allocation of memory is all important.
Certain parts of a move are returned quickly but some crucial holes take extra
thinking time, quickly continuing when the number of seeds in the hole has been
decided upon. In one experiment, where most informants (masters and novices)
failed, they all got confused at exactly the same place. Sometimes, they failed even
after showing them this move several times. If the crucial information that was
needed to solve this part of the experiment was pointed out, the informants
performed flawlessly. This confirms once more, that procedural knowledge can be
taught and that practising the wrong track leads to continuing failure.
Results
It appeared that all masters performed well on the rejesha task. Very few mistakes
were made and they were minor ones. 'Since there seems to be no way of
complicating the experiment much more, the idea was not pursued much further.
There was, however, one informant who claimed not to make any mistakes at
anytime in any of these experiments. The thirty conditions that had been designed
were presented to test his claim. Eventually, the experiment was altered to
complicate matters. The informant, Abdu, was asked to look at the board, and then
look away when a move was played. Having seen the starting position, he was then
presented with only the end position. He subsequently, reversed the move I had
played from the end position slowly rebuilding the begin position. Much surprised, I
continued to complicate the test by waiting for up to 3 minutes before the end
position was shown and he was to return the move. The result was another perfect
performance. Now, I provided two positions consecutively, each time only showing
the begin position. Then a move concerning the first position was played while he
was looking away, after which he returned this move perfectly. The second position
was planned, played, and again he returned the move perfectly.
i
In sum, Abdu was able to undo moves blind, simultaneously, seeing only the
1
initial and final positions. Since all the seeds on one row were captured each time,
this performance became very impressive. Only when three games were shown
consecutively did he get into trouble. It took too much time to return the moves, and
1
j
the positions were confused. Each of the experiments was repeated with other sets
of positions in order to rule out coincidence or luck. There was no other player who
1
volunteered to repeat this performance.
s
The following sets are examples of the conditions that were used:
Set 1: One game blind with time interval
1. Move A3L was played (note that move A1 also clears the a-row):
87654321
b 00000000 b
B 00000011 B
12345678
Set 2: Two games blind simultaneously
1. Move A5R was played:

I'
~'' :
87654321
'1''1
'·ll
,,
l;l
00000000 b
:II b
j·il': right a 12122121 a left
·I: left A 02001031 A right
!I B 00000011 B
\: I
I~" 12345678
,:lj
:Iii
!! !~
ill!
2. Move A1 was played:
I!Ji
!Iii
!i!: 87654321
•:I
Ill!. b 00000000 b
II::I right a 22121112 a left
,jl, left A 22000121 A right
:r" B 00000011 B
li:
r:,'
;·,1 12345678
!li
The experiment of rejesha Bao illustrates that it is a common skill, in which, as with
duru skills, some masters excel more than others. The complex duru that are
introduced in the experiment do not suffice to measure the limitations of complex
duru skills of Bao masters. Instead, only limitations of skills in rejesha Bao were
measured, which should be considered one of many fani, discussed in the following
Chapter.
.' ', ._·_, . '. ~ -_

VIII: MASTERSHIP IN BAO: CONFLICT AND STRATEGY
Being a duru expert will never guarantee a win. Duru is just one tool in a design to
deceive the enemy. Those who have many tools have many ways to deceive. A
master of Bao has, therefore, many skills. At the basis of human competition in
championship games is the skill of deceiving the enemy. By definition a
championship game cannot be calculated completely and, especially when
calculations predict an unfavourable situation, the master has to turn to deceit. This
skill in all its forms, legal and illegal, is difficult to measure. However, an attempt is
made here to describe the skills of deceit in terms of psychological warfare and in
terms of Bao strategy.
This Chapter returns to the work of von Clausewitz (1832) and provides insight
in the workings of psychological warfare, i.e. warfare not related to the direct
destruction of the enemy. The elements of psychological warfare have examples in
both Chess and Bao. It appears, however, that only legal deceit has a place in
championship play.
Legal deceit borders on khatima, a specific strategic skill in Bao as it is known in
Swahili. Khatima, fani, and duru are the three skills that Bao mastership is made of,
according to the Zanzibar and Dar Es Salaam experts. Durn is part of fani, which is
part of khatima. They appear as classes that constitute a hierarchical order. Duru is
lowest in this hierarchy but it is also the most basic skill in Bao.
This Chapter, therefore, gives an insight into the place that duru skills have in
Bao playing. It also provides insight into the outcome of the championships. The
examples in Appendix II present a corpus of master games. From this corpus various
examples are explained and they illustrate the findings in this Chapter. As a result an
attempt can be made to present the first comprehensive description of Bao
mastership, by way of describing its games, the skills, and the players.
A. Conflict and excellence
I. Literature on war
Most literature on the subject of conflict is accumulated and analyzed in the works
on war. The analytical work of von Clausewitz (1832) has not only proved its value
through two centuries of warfare but has also provided an analytical framework
within which such complicated conflicts as war can be systematically studied. Both ,':I
the strategic and general definitions of von Clausewitz and his line of reasoning have 1'1
,.,'JL'"'
I
~~~,_:
been used in various sections of this manuscript.
,, As a complement to von Clausewitz, Mahan (1890) elaborated on sea power,
c
since von Clausewitz dealt only with the military on land. Mahan also incorporates
t, the political setting of sea power and, therefore, goes beyond the considerations of
tJ. ~
,'~
von Clausewitz who recognized the importance of politics but did not discuss it.
e {? In order to understand the implications and workings of power politics,
K
e
i"
;~
Machiavelli's work has also some relevance in this respect. However, his work on
the art of war is not considered, instead The Prince serves as a reference for
g
~
psychological/political warfare. In this way, the spectrum from power, politics to
i"
.'J
war is satisfactorily covered for the context of this study.
The discussion of war in the literature mentioned above is culturally biased. In
our century significant non-Western wars have been fought, where the strategy of
guerrilla warfare, for instance, has become more and more prominent (see Friedrich,
1995; van de Dennen 1995). Lawrence (1935:188-196), himself knowledgeable

about Western war literature and recognizing the value of von Clausewitz' work,
adapted his military effort in Arabia to the Arabian context. This adaptation, much
to do with indoctrination and 'preaching' and, therefore, politics, was significantly
different from Western war practices but still successful on the Arabian peninsula.
Lawrence gives us some insight in the cultural differences as well. A popular revolt,
the Arab revolt, rises and develops differently from drafted armies, auxiliaries,
and/or mercenaries in the course of war. The latter three being traditional armies in
the Western context. In the Asian context there exists even more literature on
guerrilla warfare. The earliest work on war by the Chinese Sun Tzu (Sun Tzu 1943)
was used by the allied forces in World War II to gain insight in the Asian ways of
waging war. Although Sun Tzu has similar opinions compared to Western writers on
war, he also states (1945:5): "To conquer the enemy without resorting to war is the
most desirable." This is contrary to the opinion of von Clausewitz, who states that
the object of war is the destruction of the enemy's forces. However, there seems an
instructive reference to politics in Sun Tzu's statement, since the objective in war (as
defined by Mahan 1890:507) may differ from the object of war. It will appear that
political and other non-technical motives resulting in psychological warfare, also
determine the scene of play in the Zanzibar context.
It is unlikely that Bao strategy is very much different from war strategy, since it
is a war game. The players and, therefore, the strategy is influenced by cultural
differences. Psychological warfare in general has not been analyzed and evaluated as
much as military warfare. As such it is underestimated both in descriptions of war
strategy and in descriptions of game strategy. An initial analysis based on the above
works should further our understanding.
2. Psychological warfare
In describing the thought-processes of masters it seems inevitable that these
processes are highly influenced by acts of psychological warfare when it comes to
match or championship play. The extent to which these acts influence the master and
the extent to which the master uses these acts of warfare himself determine to a large 1
extent his success in the championships and matches. n
There has been no analysis of psychological warfare useful for the purposes of n
analyzing a master's skill. We must understand, however, that disturbing the
opponent's play is mostly legal and, therefore, an integral part of playing a game. 0
In the setting of a championship game, human interaction is characterized by ai

competition and confrontation. Competition is measuring ·and comparing the m
opponent, while confrontation is focused on hindering and destroying the opponent. OJ
These seem arbitrary and overly narrow definitions; however, they are necessary to
demonstrate the essential differences between race and war games, and perhaps OJ
between computer play and human play. 01
In competition one can rank players, list them on a scale and compare their ac
performances. Human players will not perform at their best in each and every game.
Competition listings merely represent averages of players' performances. The higher ac
a ranking the closer a player comes to mastership ranking. I will demonstrate that m;
the element of confrontation, which determines the outcome of each individual op
game, also consists of discriminatory elements that belong to the master. These ex
elements do not measure his technical skills in the game, but his skills in the
successful human interaction or confrontation with the opponent.
MASTERSHIP IN BAO: CONFLICT AND STRATEGY 103
Human interaction with an opponent can consist of foul play, irritating moves,
trick moves, unpredictable moves, etc. Such play, which may even be accompanied
by voiced threats, bluff, insults, smoking or even garlic, is not well described
although well recognized by players and teachers. The effects on nerves and stress
are elements of championship play and influence performances.
Human interaction of the kind described above is considered psychological
warfare. It does not involve ranking or measuring different players. Instead, it
applies to players at crucial or troubled moments in championships or individual
games. I will distinguish the elements in psychological warfare, whether on the scale
of a competitive war game or on the scale of guerrilla warfare, all elements should
only vary in degree and little in importance. In the context of this thesis, I will
exemplify the elements of psychological warfare with playing practices instead of
war practices.
Deceit
There is a wide variety of tools that can be used for psychological warfare, but
unlike a deadly weapon, the results of using the tools vary with each opponent,
situation, and strength of the tool. Tools for psychological warfare are usually not
deadly, but deceptive In this context we should distinguish three ways of disturbing
the opponent's play, not based on motivations of the player but on the actual effect:
1. Illegal deceiving: foul play or other law or rule breaking moves that are
forbidden in a game.
2. Legal deceiving: (unusual) moves that have the effect of psychological warfare
by causing panic or other emotional disruptions on the opponent's side.
3. Setting change: acts that do not change the moves of play but only effect the
setting of play, for instance: killing the opponent's mother the day before the
finals, or just shouting at the opponent in the middle of the game.
Illegal and legal only refers to the playing rules and not to the etiquette. Etiquette
may add or even contradict the playing rules and many times etiquette is somewhat
modified for championship or match play.
Illegal deceiving is useful in disturbing the opponent as long as it is not too
obvious. If the deceit is noticed the player may be disqualified but the 'mistake' can
also be simply corrected. In the latter case, disruption has been successful, even
more so if the deceit has not been noticed at all and will bring further disadvantages
or bewilderment to the side of the opponent.
Legal deceiving is usually well prepared, for instance if the uncomfortable
openings for an opponent are known. Knowing the opponent's play or disguising
one's own play can result in confusion on the side of the opponent or create other
advantageous disturbances.
Setting change has multiple forms. It can range from violence, and other criminal
acts, to blowing one's nose too often. Perhaps, there are useful distinctions to be
made but they will hardly cover all outside influences that can be placed upon the
opponent. They can be done before, or during the game, they can be physical to the
extreme of violence or insulting to the extreme of life threatening etc.
Bao: examples of deceit

In the case of Bao we have to consider all three elements of psychological warfare.
Cultural differences between games give different priorities to certain elements of
psychological warfare.
llegal deceiving
Illegal deceiving in the case of Lamu is described by Townshend (1986) as being
allowed as long as it not discovered and even admired if it is very much suspected
but not proven. Illegal deceiving also occurs in Zanzibar, usually by playing
kitakomwe, i.e. playing with one seed concealed in the hand while playing other
seeds (not to be confused with a strategical move of the same name). Playing
kitakomwe is not unusual and does not violate playing rules, but it makes cheating
easier since an extra seed can be dropped from the hand unnoticed.
Rusha, i.e. the throwing of seeds, and fast moves cause many mistakes in play
and may alter the arrangements. Such examples can also be found in the Masters
Tournament (see Appendix II).
Championship rules provide for both instances of illegal deceiving as described
above. The player who throws seeds incorrectly can be disqualified after doing so
twice. Playing kitakomwe is allowed but controlled by both referee and opponent
which makes cheating almost impossible.
Etiquette in Bao has rules for certain irregularities that may occur in the game
(see Chapter IV.F). Therefore, illegal moves do occur, but perhaps not on purpose.
Since it is not allowed to play illegal moves in championships, it is unlikely that
psychological warfare will be very successful in this particular way. There were only
two instances in the games of the Tournament where illegal deceit could be
suspected. In both cases, Kijumbe (Day four) and Nasoro (Day five), the effect was
too small to be decisive. The errors probably occurred by accident but were not
discovered.
Even in Chess, where regulations also prevent illegal deceit, we encounter
psychological warfare of this kind. Chernev (1948:12-13) tells the story of Harrwitz
who played a session of simultaneous Chess. One of his opponents attacked a Knight
with a Pawn. The obvious move would be to play the Knight, however, Harrwitz
found that if the Knight was taken it would be mate in four on the opponent's side.
If he did not move the Knight it would look suspicious, therefore, he turned to illegal
deceit. He makes an illegal move with the Knight. His opponent immediately claims
the usual punishment, i.e. the Knight has to stay where it is and the King has to be
moved instead. He moves the King, his opponent takes the Knight and,
subsequently, Harrwitz could announce mate in four.
Legal deceiving
Legal deceiving is allowed in every game, however, the intricacy of a game has to
allow for moves in order not to be seriously disadvantaged by such deceit.
Disadvantage, in this case, is a move towards losing the game.
Bao allows for many tricks and counter tricks that may blur the opponent's view
or make him wonder, be surprised, panic, afraid, become insecure, or become angry.
The best example in Bao is the shortest win, where the player first loses his house,
usually a big mistake, before clearing the opponent's row and winning the game. If
a player abandons his house it may be a mistake, it may be a good move. If it was
neither of the two, i.e. a bad move intentionally played, then we speak of the ultimate
MASTERSHIP IN BAO: CONFLICf AND STRATEGY 105
legal deceit which is successful if the opponent does not take the house and plays a
move that brings him into more trouble.
In the Tournament, legal moves have resulted in bewilderment or nervousness on
the side of the opponent. In one example, Abdu closed the net on Kijumbe, since
Kijumbe found himself trapped in a series of forced moves, he became increasingly
nervous. He barely escaped and Abdu gained sincere respect from the other players.
Setting change
The examples I presented for setting change were extreme for Zanzibar standards.
However, setting change is more common in Bao than it is in Western play. It is
best compared to street play, as for instance on Washington Square in New York.
Gambling, bluff, time limits, witchcraft, etc. all influence the unsuspected player. In
the same way, a Bao player may be urged to move, people may move seeds instead
of him, the opponent may constantly challenge and provoke him, and often the
opponent returns his move and shows him a 'better' move instead.
As in illegal deceit, championship rules limit the possibilities of setting change.
"Spectators are not allowed to speak or interfere, although they may praise a move
by saying 'Heko"', state the Bao Society rules. Respect is usually shown to masters
at play, since the spectators' comments will be of much lesser quality. Masters,
however, do speak with each other and comment on the game, but not to impress or
influence each other's emotional well-being. A lesser player may want to intimidate
a better player by throwing many seeds and speeding his play, but masters usually
rebut with good moves, the most effective answer.
The Tournament itself appeared the most important setting change to most
players. Abdu and Shamte became very nervous at the start of important matches.
Rajah and Abdu appeared to be much disturbed by losses, which resulted in more
bad games if they played again on that day. Although self-imposed, these influences
are considered setting change. In Chess, 'diseases' like the Kotov syndrome and
amaurosis scachistica have been blamed for blunders in similar circumstances
(Hooper & Whyld, 1992:47).
At a masters level, there are few stories known of extreme setting change. Ali
Kipara played Othman Omar in a friendly match. At a certain point, a complicated
combination would lead to the departure of a hole of 15 seeds on the part of Othman.
Kipara told Othman that this hole of 16 seeds would be a bad move, because he had
calculated it beforehand. Othman disputed the fact that they were 16. Kipara
answered something not very convincing, and Othman played the move, certain that
Kipara had made a mistake. However, the play would result in a complicated but
hardly profitable position. In fact, Kipara could clear the game the very next move.
He told Othman, that as soon as he started to dispute the correct number he knew
that he was going to play this move. This procedure is legal but not in championship
play. In another era, Mkiwa also had to use some deception to make masters play
him, since they were usually afraid of losing as soon as they knew who he was.
Such trickery is, of course, entirely legal but also essential to his becoming East
African champion.
Summary and conclusion

In sum, we should distinguish three ways of disturbing the opponent's play, not
based on motivations of the player but on the actual effect:
1. Illegal deceiving: foul play or other law or rule breaking moves that are
forbidden in a game.
2. Legal deceiving: (unusual) moves that have the effect of psychological warfare
by causing panic or other emotional disruptions on the opponent's side.
3. Setting change: acts that do not change the moves of play but only effect the
setting of play.
Acts of disturbance, or psychological warfare in a playing context, are present in

each game. They are most obviously present when there is a lesser player. Illegal
deceiving and setting change are common for street situations with spectators or for
lesser players trying to intimidate. However, legal deceiving seems to be a very
intricate practice, that requires a true knowledge of the game and which is the only
tool left in championship and match play.
Mzee Mkiwa explained the way he utilized the tool of legal deceiving by playing
draws with masters he did not know. He would win one and lose two (three to zero
being a real victory in those days). In this way, the opponent started to underestimate
him and Mzee Mkiwa started to develop his tricks. As soon as he knew how and
when to beat him most decisively, he would tip the scale and win three games in a
row.
The observation of opponents by a master should be included not only in an
account of the master's development, but also in the description of general playing
skills of the master: i.e. observation of human elements of play, human failures and
tactics practiced by his adversary. In Chess, one studies previous games, in Bao one
can watch 'previous' games or play draws to learn, wins to intimidate, whatever is
most promising in deceiving the opponent.
3. Psychological warfare and master's excellence

In the above analysis of the tools for psychological warfare, it appears that illegal
deceiving and setting changes do apply to Bao masters in the Zanzibar context.
However, their possible applications are limited, for instance: Street play is common,
but playing for money (cheza kamari) is prohibited and cheating is possible but
punished severely in championship games. Therefore, the most likely tool in
psychological warfare has to be legal deceiving, at least in the Zanzibar context.
In the following paragraphs I intend to analyze the elements of psychological (
warfare still further. We already found the applications for the Zanzibar Bao game, c
but we have not defined the tools as to their character and implication to the 'i
definition of psychological warfare. Also the position of psychological warfare i
compared to war in general has to be determined in order to understand their s
interaction and their individual importance in describing the features of Bao strategy (
and procedural thinking. (
u
Setting change
Setting changes often occur during the organization of matches; place, time, s
duration, or even rules of the match have frequently been cause for tension between v
players. The stronger the political elements involve the players, the stronger the II
players need their skill to play a political game. (:
It seems that setting change, as a tool in psychological warfare, increases with d
higher stakes. Financial, political, all kinds of issues enter the game in psychological
warfare, but not to influence the game. Psychological warfare at this scale is only
concerned with the stakes other than the honor of the winner. This defines the border
MASTERSHIP IN BAO: CONFLICT AND S1RATEGY 107
between warfare and psychological warfare in their effect on the individual parties.
Clausewitz (1832) explained that honor is a key element in a soldier's motivation. In
psychological warfare, honor is at the mercy of higher stakes. Winning is more
important than nice play or even worse; winning is less important than the stakes
beyond. At such a stage we leave war-theory and enter into politics. Ugly play or
illegal deceiving resembles immoral ruling by a prince (Machiavelli, 1513), where
the end justifies the means. If, according to Clausewitz, war is the continuation of
politics with other means, then, in the opposite direction, psychological warfare
seeks the political motives in a war game. The game has become a reason to play
politics.
Yet it cannot be called virtue to kill one's fellow-citizens, to betray one's

friends, to be treacherous, merciless and irreligious; power may be gained by
acting such ways, but not glory.
Machiavelli (1513:31)
Machiavelli makes a distinction between well-committed and badly committed cruel

deeds. The following passage from his work is a rare example of tactical analysis in
psychological warfare:
I believe that this depends upon whether cruel deeds are committed well or
badly. They may be called well committed (if one may use the word 'well' of
that which is evil) when they are all committed at once, because they are
necessary for establishing one's power, and are not afterwards persisted in,
but changed for measures as beneficial as possible to one's subjects. Badly
committed are those that at first are few in number, but increase with time
rather than diminish. Those who follow the first method can in some measure
remedy their standing both with God and with men, as Agathocles did. Those
who follow the second cannot possibly maintain their power.
Extremely strong motivations to win are found in players like Bobby Fisher. Fisher
displayed some (in)famous acts of setting change as well. In general, championship
organizers and better players can counterbalance such power. In fact, better players
overrule 'powerful' players. A better player does not have to exceed the power but
will have to withstand its pressure and use other means of war. As players can be
immune to certain tricks in a game itself, they can also be relatively undisturbed by
setting change. Power play is only useful if technical play is also of high quality.
One cannot win a conflict if battle is always refused. In a similar context, Mahan
(1890:138) concludes that "such inquiries [i.e. commerce destroying cruises],
unaccompanied by others [i.e. sea battles], are more irritating than weakening."
Potter (1947) has been the only writer who has seriously addressed the issue of
setting change, or gamesmanship as he calls it. Since the art of winning games
without actually cheating is pure setting change, his work should not be neglected.
In Chess, several examples of gamesmanship are described by Hooper & Whyld
(1992:148). They vary from making a poker face when a mistake is made, to writing
down an extra move that confuses the opponent when he is in time tro_uble.
)_
r
llegal deceiving
Since a ruler, then, must know how to act like a beast, he should imitate both
the fox and the lion, for the lion is liable to be trapped, whereas the fox cannot
ward off wolves. One needs, then, to be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to
frighten away wolves. Those who rely merely upon a lion's strength do not
understand matters.
In the case of illegal deceiving we have to speak of the fox and not of the lion. We
still speak of ugly play or immoral behaviors. Setting change should be called brutal
force. Its messages are more obvious. Illegal deceiving occurs concealed from
onlookers. Machiavelli (1513:25) states, that the Duke of Milan very cleverly
concealed his intentions when he resorted to trickery and therefore became
successful and powerful.
Since concealment of the deceit usually is preferred to discovery, the attention of
the player is on his disguise. There is physical disguise by palming a card, putting
pieces up one's sleeve or playing kitakomwe, but, usually, illegal deceit occurs in
combination with other deceits. A setting change, like shouting, gesticulation or
other distracting actions is very common in this respect and much used in deceits by
magicians.
A more intricate deceit occurs when two deceits take place where only one is
discovered and corrected. Moreover, there are deceits discovered but not corrected
since it seemed favorable to the discoverer. The eventual advantage to the player
then becomes very intricate to calculate and there is a combination of illegal and
legal deceiving produced simultaneously.
The nature of illegal deceit is very different from setting change. Well played
illegal deceit is never fully discovered and such· masters remain under cover.
Legal deceiving
Legal deceit enters into the field of regular tactical or even strategic play. Many
moves are intended to mislead, surprise, or confuse the opponent. They are just an
introduction to a regular good moye that gives, in Chess terms, material or positional
advantage.
There are some aspects of legal deceit in Bao that have more general features.
The requirements for such deceit can then be defined in a general way:
Firstly, there is prepared knowledge, the memorization of a certain set of moves,
r: knowing the outcome without having to calculate too much. Such a set can have
implications for over 17 moves ahead (see example in Chapter V.B) while thinking
17 moves ahead appears an impossible task, especially in a limited time frame.
Secondly, there is the gambit, a common term in Chess for describing a sacrifice.
Pieces or positions are given up in order to gain other advantages that become
important at a later stage in the game. A greedy player in Bao is often and easily
punished, as is shown by the example of the shortest game in Bao where the house is
abandoned (Chapter V.D).
Thirdly, confusion or complexity can be added to the game that, especially with
constraining time limits, makes the opponent more vulnerable to the making of
mistakes. This effect can be reached by introducing many traps at the same time that
also combine into new traps. ·
,il-
MASTERSHIP IN BAO: CONFLICI' AND S1RATEGY 109
These three examples of legal deceit illustrate that legal deceit borders on regular
playing skills but differs when they cause an opponent to make mistakes. The
anticipation and induction of the opponent's mistakes is a crucial asset to a master
that is missing in computer generated play.
Conclusion
The discussion of psychological warfare does not offer tests to measure and quantify
the individual capabilities in the different aspects of deceit in play. However, a
structural analysis of psychological warfare is necessary for our understanding that a
master's excellence does not consist of just memory skills. Their thinking processes
in a particular game are guided by other intellectual processes as well. The manifold
possibilities of these extra skills demonstrate their importance.
4. Towards the elements of strategy
Having shown the relative importance of psychological warfare in Bao, and stressing
the cultural differences as key elements for determining the individual factors, I now
turn to the factor of legal deceit which enters into every competition or conflict
where strategy can be determined. Legal deceit is not identical to strategy. Legal
deceit is concentrated on the human factor within the strategic plans. Legal deceit is,
therefore, part of but not equal to strategy.
By showing that there are such human factors in strategy, we also have to
recognize the inherent complications for computer scientists who intend to solve a
game. Moreover, we can hereby explain what element of a game remains unsolved
when it is 'solved' by computers and continues the challenge for human competition.
All providing that we speak of games of strategy as played in the present human
context.
Mzee Mkiwa, former grandmaster of Bao, played new opponents several times,
making draws of two games to one (three to zero being real victory), before entering
into his real combat play. Hereby, he was able to exploit the weak points he
discovered. Such search for understanding of the opponent is found in all strategic
competition. Mahan (1890:164-165) states: "The qualities and characteristics of the
enemy are among the principal factors which a man of genius considers ... "
Legal deceit in its basic elements consists of recognizing, anticipating and
exploiting the weak points of the opponent. Thus the player has to concentrate on the
opponent's strategic thinking process.
Elements of legal deceit can occur both in tactics and strategy, i.e.
instantaneously or within a general plan. Conceit, feint, and surprise occur most
often in this context. Surprise, as argued by Clausewitz (1832), is often limited to
one time and affects only a minor part of the operations. However, surprise is also an
outcome of successful conceit or feint entering into the climax of the match but
carefully developed beforehand. Such a development is part of strategy and applies
to both technical strategy in warfare and the elements of psychological warfare.
The ultimate strategical challenge should, therefore, be formed in the
concentration of human (legal deceit) and technical (game specific) strategy. When
recognizing the importance of both elements of strategic challenge, it appears that
quantification of one of these elements only will never suffice for the complete
understanding of the differences between masters and novic_es. Technical mastership,
in the above sense, does occur more frequently and may result, for instance in Chess,
from study practice by use of books without considerable playing experience.
However, a champion or a master in the pure sense occurs when the opponent is
beaten and not necessarily when the technical skills of a game are best understood.
Conceit, feint, and surprise applied in combination or separately, cannot be
quantified with tests as easily as the technical skills. The elements occur in a
necessarily strong competition where an opponent triggers the use of skills of legal
deceit. However, as with technical skills, there should be some determinable
presence of skill. Situations which are sensitive to legal deceit should be easily
recognized. There is a problem, however, that there is no necessity in a masters'
game to have both technical skill and skill for legal deceit. Many mistakes, and
therefore technically unsound play, in a game may still result in a brilliant victory by
deceit. Compare the relative numerous mistakes in sea battles where brilliant draws,
or even victories can still be won through genius of conceit, feint and surprise as de
Ruyter did in the battle at Solebay (e.g., Mahan, 1890).
B. Strategy in Bao
1. Methods of research
Apart from general conversations with players, there have been two exercises that
encouraged me to write a Chapter on technical mastership in Bao in all its forms.
Firstly, we conducted seven long interviews on video with masters of the game, i.e.
Mkiwa, Shamte, Nasoro, Kijumbe, Rajah, Masoud, and Majaliwa. Together with
short conversations off camera, these interviews have presented an interesting range
of experiences and theories concerning Bao mastership. Secondly, during the
tournament, there was always a group of masters around that discussed games and
other issues after the matches. Since this continued for three weeks, there was ample
opportunity to discuss rules, elements of mastership, characters of players, and
games. Each master contributed in this way to the theories presented here. I
specifically asked some masters whether I was in a position to discuss matters of
mastership, or whether there was too much else to know before I could enter into
such a venture. There seemed no serious problem; however, I will refrain from any
speculation as far as specific skills are concerned. The annotations to the games only
illustrate superficial, i.e. one or two moves deep, observations or remarks by the
players themselves.
2. Structure of Bao strategy

In the classification of board games and manqala, classes were based on the
following principles; nature, purpose, means, and ways. This division is also useful i1
when classifying strategic moves in Bao. d
The masters of Bao explained the elements of mastership in various ways. The v.
most comprehensive explanation was given by Kasanga Turnbo and later
complemented by Mkiwa and others. He explained that Bao mastership consists of rr.
duru, khatima, andfani. Kasanga Turnbo originally used akheri, however, this term bt
appeared very awkward as a description. It was, therefore, replaced by khatima. The (t
term khatima was first presented to me by Mkiwa and is considered a Bao term, like
duru and fani. C(
Dum is a skill of calculating rounds. The skill of calculating duru has been tested di
extensively in this study. The elements of khatima and fan~ are difficult to test, but ar
should be described at length in order to present a coherent picture of Bao fo
mastership. ca
Khatima can be translated with 'end' or 'conclusion'. Its meaning in Bao

contains knowing the end, knowing what is going to happen next, foresight, or
perhaps insight. A person who can calculate many moves ahead usually has khatima.
The more moves you are able to see in advance the greater your khatima. This does
not necessarily overlap with the skill of calculating duru. Kijumbe is said to have
khatima, while Maulidi has not, according to his teacher Mkiwa. Both players lack a
considerable skill in calculating long duru. Only the ability to think ahead, to
continue until you have reached the end of your ability, is considered khatima.
Fani is a term that is difficult to translate. It is sometimes translated as ways of
play, kinds of knowing the game, best understood by the examples. Fani can be as
diverse as people. Certain fani are considered more difficult or more important in
play. The skills of tega and tegua were mentioned by most other players as the
essential skills of Bao mastership. Although useful terms, they appeared part of fani;
the ways of play.
The object of a game is to win. The object of strategy is to win by use of
strategic moves. Strategy is defined as long term plans in order to succeed, while
tactics are short term. If khatima is the ability to think ahead in Bao, then khatima is
the nature of every strategic move in Bao. The purpose, or lengo, is winning, but
subgoals are also possible (also called lengo) War, in the orthodox way, consists of
battles, and so does a war game. To set various subgoals in Bao, apart from
developing the house or the back row, is considered the most difficult aspect of
mastership. Unlike Chess, it is extremely difficult to execute long term, strategic,
plans, and, it is, therefore, one of the last skills to be mastered.
The means of planning a move, of strategy, is fani. Fani are manifold. Fani
often determine the character of a player. There are as many combinations of fani, in
degree and in kind, as there are masters. A number of these fani will be illustrated
with the games of the 1994 Masters Tournament.
The nature of strategy is khatima, its purpose (lengo) is to win, the means consist
of fani, the ways are with duru, or without, with complex duru, or without. In this
classification, duru appears to take a relatively modest place as a superfluous skill in
Bao strategy. However, this necessity is present in kind, i.e. each strategic move has
an element of duru, of calculation in it. The degree of calculation, for instance the
number of rounds, or the number of captured holes, may differ. Examples show that
masters with the ability to calculate many duru, have the possibility to play their fani
in such a way. Those who do not excel have less simple duru, or less complex duru
in the ways they play.
The role of duru in the description of Bao strategy is, therefore, twofold. Firstly,
it is a necessary skill for all Bao players, a skill of calculating rounds. Secondly,
differences in duru skill characterise players and influence their ability in certain
ways of playing (fani), and sometimes their ability to think ahead (khatima).
The element of duru, as was shown in the previous Chapters (VI & VII), is the
main difference between Chess and Bao expertise. Some elements in Bao play can
be translated into Chess terms, apart from duru, and where useful, Chess terms
(taken from Hooper & Whyld, 1992) will be or have been given for comparison.
Duru also influence the length of play. The complexity of Bao is low in
computer science terms (see Chapter IV.J), but changes make calculation extremely
difficult. Therefore, few possibilities are calculated compared to Chess, and novice
and expert will reach their maximum calculation ability 111:uch quicker. Five minutes
for calculating one move is a long time in Bao. In Chess these short games would be
called rapid Chess. Several attempts to calculate rounds beyond your ability is
usually not successful, however, considering several plans in Chess does not usually
waste a Chess master's time.
3. Fani
Strategic skills in Bao consist of fani, made with many or few duru, and is by nature
a long term objective, looking several moves ahead. We can distinguish two kinds
of fani, general fani used in both stages of the game, and fani restricted to either the
namua or mtaji stage. I will list the important plays with their Swahili terms
illustrated with games from the tournament:
General fani
The verbs weka or miliki, describe a Bao situation in which the opponent is trapped,
i.e. he has lost control over the game, his moves are dictated by the opponent. In
Chess such situations are sometimes referred to as a grip or a bind by a player.
Examples of -miliki, or -weka:

One such trap occurred when Othman made a mistake in the opening against
Abdu. Not once did Othman manage to enter seeds in his back row during
the rest of the game, he was miliki-ed or weka-ed. When reaching the mtaji
stage, there were no seeds in his back row, his house was never played and
was eventually captured by Abdu. Such a play is also called bana Bao (to
squeeze Bao), because the opponent's moves are all squeezed within the front
row. Abdu won the game (Day 8).
In a game against Nasoro, Rajab was forced to play the same takasa
moves over and over again in order to avoid the disadvantageous departure of
Nasoro's house. Rajab lost the game (Day 8). ,-:.:_-
Nasoro trapped Abdu, in a game where the mtaji stage was fully
controlled by Nasoro. For six moves, Abdu had only one capture to play,
dictated by Nasoro's moves. Nasoro won the game (Day 5). Such a sequence
of forced moves is called lazimisha (to force). Since capturing is obligatory,
this is a tactic often used in Bao. ·
Kitakimbi is a specific trap that forces the player to defend his kimbi hole.
This a good example of a weakness, i.e. a position difficult to defend (Hooper
and Whyld, 1992). When this continues for several moves, one speaks of
kitakimbi. This is considered a disadvantageous situation. The kimbi hole is
more difficult to defend than others, since it is less likely to be emptied in a
combination move. Therefore, the kimbi hole is often sacrificed, even if it
contains many seeds.
The saying goes: Nyumba ya kimbi hainamuki. Which means that the
kimbi hole with many seeds should not be played into (namua-ed).
Othman was forced in this way against Shamte (Day 4), but was able to
empty his kimbi hole with 16 seeds into his own row in the 22nd move, the
last move before entering the mtaji stage. A similar thing happened to him
against Kijumbe (Day 1) where he played a kimbi hole eight times in a row. Ft
He finally plays the 28 seeds gathered in his kimbi, but Kijumbe's trap makes TI
him resign before the next move is played. otl
st~
Tapisha Bao is a most spectacular skill in Bao. There are few players who master
this 'vomiting of Bao '. The moves consist of a series of sacrifices, depleting one's
, , 'I,
~:I
,1'
'I
1!:
MASTERSIDP IN BAO: CONFLICT AND STRATEGY 113
own rows while the opponent captures many for his own. Suddenly, a move is
created which captures everything back and changes the situation dramatically and
usually decisively. Many times, the opponent captures many seeds which become
piled up in his front row. Usually, the players who gives many seeds, has some
seeds placed in such a way that travelling the back row is still possible. There are a
few examples in the tournament that illustrate the art.
Example of tapisha Bao:

Abdu played Shamte, starting with an unusual opening, sacrificing the house,
he eventually appeared to play a losing game. Only in move (27) does the
intricate trap that was set for Shamte appear. With only 17 seeds in his own
row (47 in Shamte's row), and with a previous takasa move, Abdu forced
Shamte to play a certain mtaji. When Shamte played, Abdu struck (suddenly
capturing 23 seeds) and eventually won the game.
Day 7:
87654321
b 13203101 b
right a 00121020 a left Abdu
left A 21u79050 A right Shamte
B 21051210 B
12345678
Shamte has to play his only mtaji at this point, A1R. Abdu strikes with a2R
after which the situation is as follows:
87654321
b 04014121 b
right a 20360555 a left Abdu
left A 101200000 A right Shamte
B 21051210 B
12345678
Shamte is forced to takasa, Abdu controls and finishes the game. Similar
feats have been accomplished by Shamte himself, as well as Kijumbe, and
Nasoro.
Fani limited to stages of the game

The above skills are general skills used throughout the game. There are a number of
other skills that are usually restricted to the first, namua, stage or the second mtaji
stage of the game:
Takasia is a specific skill that only occurs in the mtaji stage. It occurs mostly when
a player has a position that has deteriorated, although not necessarily. The move
consists of three single-moves only, however, it can lead to significant captures. In a

game between Ramadhan and Kijumbe (Day 7), Ramadhan had the luck - he
certainly had not calculated this- to takasia Kijumbe two times in a row, in move 34
and 36. Ramadhan was determined to delay the game as long as possible, only on
the 45th move was he forced to resign.
Kitakomwe is, among other things, a special trap in the namua stage, in which the
opponent's house is captured without emptying one's own house. The special moves
used for this game are disadvantageous when your opponent is familiar with them.
The kitakomwe game usually ends quickly and used to be very popular. Among
others, Nahodha is said to have been an expert. Nowadays, .the game is not
considered as being very good and has largely been abandoned.
Namua nyumba, or to play the house, is sometimes avoided by certain players, like
Kijumbe. They prefer openings where the house is emptied early in the game.
Others, like Rajab, prefer the game around the house, or will start building a new
pile of seeds when the house has been emptied. It appears to simplify the moves,
however, the game acquires a certain climax of complexity when the house obtains
dangerous proportions.
A game on Day 8, Shamte vs. Nasoro, shows clearly that Shamte is building a
large hole on A4. On moves 10 to 16 he enters only into A4 in order to defend and
increase it. Such moves usually consist of gosa, which is to place a captured seed in
an empty kichwa (outermost) hole, thereby ending the move.
Takasa nyuma, to play into the back row is considered a different fani. This skill is
not considered a trap, and should be referred to as tegua.
Majaliwa prefers to play into the back row from the opening onwards. Others,
like Rajab and Kijumbe sometimes play an opening where they resort to playing into
the back row, as on day 6 when Kijumbe plays the back row in an answer to Abdu's
sixth move, or on day 12 when Rajab does the same against Shamte. It shows
clearly in the record of the games, since the namua stage appears with many takasa
moves.
The absence of such, moves with the other players - personal communication
confirmed this- shows that they are not comfortable with this kind of play.
Fani and duru

Tegua and tega are considered skills in themselves, and when they do not refer to the
special skills described above, they are indeed. Tegua, or countering a trap, is
comparible with prophylaxis in Chess. Perhaps vunja lengo (break someone's
purpose) comes even closer to this Chess term. A mtego, or trap, usually has
elements of sacrifice, forced move, and complex or long duru in them.
This last aspect has not been illustrated yet. Complex duru can be found in the
tapisha Bao moves described above. Other examples are often found in the long
mtaji games played by Kijumbe and others. Fani with long duru, however, are less
frequently played. Nasoro has a strong preference to include moves with long duru
(many times passing the back row) in his mtego. The game Kijumbe - Nasoro
(Day 2) is an extreme example with such moves. One seven round, one four round,
and a five round move were played by Nasoro. Kijumbe appeared somewhat
overplayed, since his calculation skills are limited in this -respect.
MASTERSIITP IN BAO: CONFLICT AND STRATEGY 115
C. Generalising strategic theory
The strategic skills described above are difficult to generalise into strategic rules.
Apart from sayings, like Nyumba ya kimbi hainamuki, it appears difficult to give
general rules for strategic play. The only tangible agreement on strategic rules is, as
in Chess, the opening moves. For many different reasons, and after many years of
play, masters prefer certain openings, playing the same answers several moves long.
Perhaps contrary to Chess, opening moves are played rapidly, i.e. very rapidly. In
the game Nasoro - Abdallah (Day 7), the first ten moves were played in only 31
seconds. To play 20 single-moves of Chess in 31 seconds is fairly easy. However, in
Bao an average move contains many changes. The reader is challenged to play the
20 single-moves of this game in this record time, and will find it surprisingly
difficult.
Apart from being played rapidly, many opening moves are standardised, i.e.
played in the same way whenever they occur. The opening A7L is especially long
with few variations. It is said that the opening A6L is most diverse, not only
concerning the different answers to certain moves, but also to the different fani that
can be used in it.
Many skills in Bao, and especially opening theory, can be compared to Chess.
Apart from generalising the theory above, the openings of Bao will give us more
insight in Bao from a Western perspective. This is perhaps useful for those
Westerners who doubt the expertise shown by the Bao masters. However, certain
common elements in Chess and Bao are also meaningful for the purposes of this
study. Bao mastership consists of several elements, as was pointed out before. If
Chess skills, like memory for openings, position play, material gain, etc., are present
in Bao but not discussed as such by the masters, then a short analysis of the
tournament games and examples from play should make clear the possibilities and
usefulness of generalising Chess theory to Bao. For such a study we need a more
elaborate analysis by Bao masters. I will restrict my comments to a short discussion
of opening play in Bao.
1. Openingplay
Openings can only be established by proving their soundness. Such proof is the task
of a Bao analyst, in our case, a Bao master. Before establishing the soundness of an
opening it is first necessary to identify them. It is only on this level that the following
study can make a contribution.
Openings in Bao can be discovered in three ways:
1. With the help of the opinion of masters.
2. With the help of an inventory of openings played in the tournament
3. With time records of the tournament that show the number of beginning moves
that are played without hesitation.
I will only discuss certain repeated openings in the game. The relative speed with
which these openings are played may indicate that we are not analysing a
coincidence. Beyond the statistics of the inventory there are no means of analysis
available except the opinion of masters.
As in Chess, certain games are sometimes repeated well beyond the opening
moves. Therefore, we define openings in this tournament as; beginning moves that
were repeated by different pairs of players. Unusual openings are sometimes shown
as well, even if they were not repeated, in order to illustrate the variation.
Unfortunately, one tournament does not present a complete picture of openings

or fani. In this tournament we only had a set of 12 players, 7 of whom were
considered masters or grandmasters, 2 sub-top level players, and 3 regular players.
There were no players present from outside Zanzibar Town, which made the
tournament one of medium strength. Therefore, the presentation of different games
and openings is not complete but merely an indication of the possibilities. The large
number of games do indicate the frequency of certain openings in this tournament.
Also it helps characterise the masters as to their favourite openings. This study
concentrates on the opening preferences of masters and has left out the preferences
of the other players.
Table 13: Preferred openings of masters (only) in the 1994 Masters Tournament
In the tournament league there were 92 games played involving the above masters (four regular players at
the tournament have been excluded). These games provided 64 openings by the masters listed above.
(1) Masters are listed in alphabetical order. The lesser players of the tournament have been excluded.
(2) This column lists the favourite opening move, i.e. first move, of each master.
(3) This number indicates the frequency of their opening moves, with a maximum of 10, 9 (Nasoro and
Rajah), or 6 (Majaliwa).
(4) The master opened the game and answered to each move in the listed way. The opening moves are
only listed if this sequence of moves occurred more than once. Only the longest repeated opening
move is shown in this way, for each opening (6L, 6R, 7L, or 7R). Kijumbe, Rajah and Nasoro have a
single preference and two examples of repeated openings are then provided in the table.
(5) 'A' indicates that the master opened the game (White in Chess). 'a' indicates that the opponent
opened the game (Black in Chess).
(6) Indicates the number of single-moves (plies) or minutes that a master played. The numbers are split
between games opened by the master and games opened by the opponent.
(7) Indicates the number of wins for games begun by the master or the opponent.
The averages and the repeated openings mentioned for Majaliwa .(and, for instance, Maulidi's second
opening) are much less interesting because of the relatively small corpus of data available.
In general, opening theory in Chess does not exceed 11 moves. This is similar in
Bao, however, it is not always possible to determine whether a game is repeated or
whether they are playing opening theory.
Hooper & Whyld (1992:279)state that the rules of Chess in 1475 in some way
prevented the development of opening theory. This changed in the 19th century,
after the London Rules were internationally accepted, and there came a great
advance in opening studies. In the 20th century, knowledge of opening games often
became decisive in games of Chess.
In Bao, decision complexity (see also Appendix III) is small, therefore, by
definition, there is a small number of initial openings possible. However, with each
move there is a seed added to the game. The game, therefore, gradually becomes
more complicated and remains the same until the end.· In Chess, this is the other way
round. The game starts with all the pieces on the board and the end game is defined
by a number of exchanges that reduces the number of pieces of the board.
The tournament shows that the player who started a game (A) did not have a
serious advantage. On the contrary, 41 out of 64 games that were opened by masters
were lost, as opposed to 32 games that were lost when the opponent started. Since
this is the only statistic available on opening play, we can only conclude that in this
championship opening play did not form a serious disadvantage but rather an
advantage to the opponent.
The opening of 7L
This opening was played fairly often in the championship. Nowadays, it is preferred
by many experts, K.ijumbe preferring it to any other opening. The game has certain
characteristics when 7L is followed by 6L in the next move. Firstly, opening theory
(i.e. an often played variant) covers twelve moves, i.e. up to the point where the
players capture each other's house (cf. exchanging Queens in Chess). The game is
considered even for both players at that point and continues with a high turnover of
seeds with each move. This kind of play fits in nicely with the expertise of Kijumbe.
He does not excel at calculating long duru, but complex duru are plentiful because of
the many combination captures that are involved. A second advantage for Kijumbe
is the relatively long opening theory, which will make the players reach the mtaji
stage relatively sooner, ;1 stage which is also much preferred by Kijumbe.
Other variants of this opening also exchange the houses or make the house leave
at an early stage. Therefore, this opening is preferred by specialists of games with
complex duru.
The opening of 6L
This opening consists of many variants. It is the most all-round opening in the game.
Players who prefer the game of defending and playing the house, usually prefer this
opening. However, opening theory of certain variants (see Nasoro's opening, the two
arrows in the notation show that both houses have been played/emptied) sometimes
lead to an early departure of the house, and again complex duru follow. The plays
are so diverse that mastership of all aspects of this opening should bring you all-
round knowledge of opening theory, stated one of the masters. It is not surprising
that this opening was played most often in the championship. Depending on the
opponent, one can choose the direction of the game with the kind of opening, as in
Chess and other board games.
The opening of 6R and 7R

d
These two openings were only played by Majaliwa (and Hassan who is not
d.
considered a master). The play is characteristically into the back row with very few
ft
captures (in the written tournament games of Appendix II this play is easily spotted
ir
with the frequent (tak) in the notation). Few players prefer playing into the back
d
row, and although it should be considered a separate fani, the games were not very
successful for Majaliwa. Also his expertise in long duru is not necessarily useful. It
is impossible, however, to draw any further conclusions on its usefulness, since these fl
E
openings were not played very often.
0
2. The 1994 Masters Tournament c

tl
The Masters Tournament did not provide enough games to make a tentative ELO-
rating for Bao masters. For such a classification it is necessary to have more than 30 p
games for each player in order to obtain a certain degree of accuracy. The Masters k
Tournament outcome cannot be predicted from the outcome of the various
experiments and descriptions of Bao mastership. It confirms that mastership is based v
e
on human weaknesses or limitations of the mind. What weaknesses will prove
0
crucial in certain tournaments cannot be predicted.
The games transcribed nevertheless provide us with data on masters' skills. They n
illustrate fani and show, for instance, that Nasoro makes extensive use of his duru t
(
skills, while Majaliwa seems not to.
I end the description of Bao mastership with the 1994 Masters Tournament
results. It is the final result of my study in Zanzibar. The description of masters'
backgrounds, the interviews with masters, the duru experiments, the political
manoeuvres before the Masters Tournament were all necessary to identify the
masters of Zanzibar, make them cooperate in experiments, make them provide us
with an impressive number of master games, and to accomplish a successful study
on Bao, Bao masters, and mastership.
Table 14: Tournament from 11-10-94 to 30-10-94, the league result:
No. Players 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11/12 Total

1 -Maulidi X 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 12
-2"" Nasoro 1 X 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 1 -- 12-
3 Kijumbe 1 1 X 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 11
4 Shamte 1 2 2 X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
-·:s..·~--- .. Abdullah 0 1 1 1 X 1 2 0 2 1 0 9
6 Omar 1 0 1 1 1 X 1 2 1 1 1 9
7 Rajab 1 0 1 1 0 1 X 1 1 2 -- 8-
8 Abdu 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 X 1 1 -- (2) 7-(9)
9 Othman 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 X 2 1 6
10 Ramadhan 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 X -- 5-
11
u.---
Majaliwa 0 -- 0 1 2 1 -- -- 1 -- X 5
Hassan -- -- -- -- -- -- I -- (0) -- -- -- 0
Due to an error the match between Maulidi and Omar was first given as 2 - 0 for Maulidi, in this table, as
opposed to the announcement at the tournament, this mistake has been corrected.
D. Conclusion
An important part of strategic skill in Bao is difficult to· quantify with experiments.
Although duru skills are at the basis of all Bao skills, fani and khatima appear
difficult to measure. A first analysis of the championship games provides us with

data about frequent openings and depth of openings, average playing length, and a
few obvious examples of well-known fani. However, the average khatima for
individual players cannot be deduced without experts analysing and guessing the
depth of strategic plans.
Inherent to fani is a strong individuality for each player, i.e. there are as many
fani as there are players. It is exactly this individualised skill which makes a master.
Even within fani this individuality can be found, for instance, in the knowledge of
openings. Opening preferences appear to be very personal. Some openings lead to
complex dum (Chapter VII.C) others to the playing of the house and its intricate
traps (Chapter V.B). Opening skill, although a separate fani, is complex and each
player has distilled his particular preferences and has developed his special opening
knowledge.
Apart from specific Bao skills, all strategic skill is influenced by psychological
warfare. Little analytical work has been produced on this subject but it seems that
experience and practice again have some but no decisive effect in the learning stages
of a master. It is reasonable to conclude that psychological warfare individualises the
matches in the same way that fani individualises the players. Two matches are never
the same. Two masters are never the same, a conclusion that returns to the end of
Chapter II, where an analysis of the backgrounds of masters concludes the same .
• I.-
~'
':~
~e'
i
,-;_,
~
I'! I
,:-~
I'
1
~~
~r~ ~ 1·,
~ [j
-
~~
~ I
~~--
'~ ~~
,,
•J' \'
"i.
l :ili
'.i I
':~t 'I
1'1:
I
1
,., ('I
¥
'"?
1111
11 ~ 1
.1, I!
~ I,'I
~
~
-~i
'I I!
t ,I I'I
1'1
:f I:
I'
~
fj !
!
i:
t
':'o~ ,,I•
':I :II
•~ II
,,
"r
~
":i•
il
I
"' II
11
I
. ~
Ii
I
Length of Bao games
35
30
"'
Q)
25
~
01)
....... 20
0
....
Q) 15
z~
~'
10
5
0
1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55
Moves
I
I
l
I; Length of Bao games
'!\
J[!
li
i.,jl: 35
l 30
s"'
Q)
;.'
I 25
1·'
j,
"'
01)
....... 20
0
j: .... 15
I" Q)
~
~ I•
10
z
5
0
1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51--60 61-70
Minutes
IX: CONCLUSIONS
1. Practice
Investigations into the skills of Chess masters (de Groot, 1946; Simon, 1979) have
led to explaining the differences between masters and novices in terms of experience
(de Groot, 1946) or practice:
Hence, the overriding factor in chess skill is practice. The organization of the
master's elaborate repertoire of information takes thousands of hours to build
up, and the same is true of any skilled task (e.g., football, music). That is why
practice is the major independent variable in the acquisition of skill.
Simon (1979:426)
Such an explanation fails to explain the differences between masters and novices in
Baa. Baa players do not seem to have obvious or sufficiently frequent opportunities
either to practice separately from other players, or to study in order to become
masters.
The present study does confirm the conclusions of de Groot (1946) that masters
cannot be defined as more or less intelligent in terms of general education, or
professional/social successes. In Zanzibar, the education and profession of Baa
masters appears to be defined by their time and place of upbringing. Their
educational and professional backgrounds are manifold. The only commonality that
masters seem to possess is that almost all learned the game at a young age, reaching
mastership in their twenties, as seems to be the case in Chess according to de Groot
(1946).
This thesis presents a definition of mastership in terms of limitations. A master is
someone who is that much closer to reaching the limits of the human mind, not
someone who exceeds those limits. This definition contrasts, therefore, with those
that imply that certain masters are essentially super-human. Practice, only in
combination with procedural knowledge, can lead to mastership. The individual
limitations of the masters appear to determine the result in master tournaments and
these limitations can fluctuate per match, per person, and per skill.
2. Limits of the mind

Baa is a manqala game where moves consist of spreading seeds. It has hierarchical
rules that appear very refined in championship play. These detailed rules of Baa
indicate the area where human limitations in playing Baa are important. They
determine the boundaries beyond which moves become too difficult to calculate.
Within these boundaries masters can compete. This suggests that board games have
masters, because masters have limitations to their memory and skills. Without
limitations there is no reason to compete. The outcomes of games requiring skills
beyond these limitations are determined by events outside the players' control.
Therefore, championship games provide ideal testing grounds for determining the
limitations of the human mind.
In this study the following limits were identified:
1. Certain combinations to the house exceed the human ability to think ahead, later
identified as khatima (Chapter V.B) .
.!
2. Masters cannot calculate unlimited simple, short, blind simple, blind short, or
complex duru. All these calculations are limited by Miller's constraint and a
newly introduced dynamic constraint (Chapter VI & VII).
3. Masters possess a limited number of fani. They specialise in certain fani and in
certain openings (Chapter VIII).
4. Masters are vulnerable to setting change and illegal deceit, which may worsen the
limits in their playing skills (Chapter VIII).
3. Dynamic constraint
The average state-space and game-tree complexity in Bao, for which Chess and Go
are famous, is not impressive. Instead, masters require the skill to calculate duru.
The move of spreading seeds together with the complex rules create a mutational
complexity. This is the essence of the difficulty of Bao for humans; however, it is
not 'complex' for a computer. On the contrary, a computer can deal with an almost
unlimited mutational complexity without any serious memory problem while
humans are severely limited. It is exactly this maximum which is investigated in the
experiments with Bao masters.
In all the experiments reported in the literature, subjects stored increasing
amounts of information in memory. In the duru experiment, one can simply replace
the information stored in memory in order to perform well on the task. However,
replacing memory information appears problematic. If masters are presented with
duru experiments with only eight holes, within the limits of Miller's memory
constraint, they perform worse than when they have double the number of holes.
This is initially surprising, because a model with eight pieces of information needs
little more than eight pieces of information to accomplish a perfect performance on
this task. The information is simply replaced with each round.
Since the subjects are limited in their performance on this task with increasing
study times in each round, and since their performances are better explained with a
theory of effective memory allocation, it was argued that human memory has a
dynamic memory constraint as well as a storage memory constraint (Miller's
magical number of seven plus or minus two). This dynamic memory constraint
prohibits rapid replacement of information
This constraint disappears in slow change procedures, like games of blind Chess,
or blind Bao. In the latter case the number of changes exceeds the number of
changes in the best performances on duru tests. Within the skill of blind Bao, the
player is again limited when he calculates duru of one move. However, the master is
perfectly able to use pattern recognition in the sequences of moves in blind play,
whether Chess or Bao, but which appear impossible in the experiment of duru.
4. Summary
At the basis of expert skills in Bao lies the ability to calculate duru. The outcome of
various experiments on duru skills introduce the dynamic constraint in human
memory, unknown in computer memory, which limits continuous change of memory
information. Since practice alone does not explain differences in Bao performance,
the allocation model defined within the limits of Miller's magical number seven and
the dynamic constraint proves more accurate. Procedural knowledge then appears
essential in the acquisition of duru skills.
In order to excel in Bao, masters also obtain_ knowledge about certain
combinations and certain opening moves. They acquire procedural knowledge on
duru calculation skills which they practice in play. They experiment with fani in
CONCLUSIONS 123
order to obtain procedural knowledge, and find a unique combination in comparison

with other masters. They enter championships to experience setting change and
deceit. Only the combination of procedures and practice, of tricks and training, of
individual special abilities will lead to mastership. Practice alone cannot suffice.
Mastership is primarily based on exploiting human weakness. Masters of board
games like Baa exist by the grace of the limited human mind. These limitations are
manifold, as manifold as there are master skills.
The differences in performance on the 1994 Master Tournament are largely
explained by the different combination of master skills among the participants. Each
of these skills helps a master to overcome some limitation to the human mind.
Mastership is at least as diverse as the number of masters. The unique combination
of master skills determines the status of a player, whose successes define a point of
reference but not a guarantee of supremacy in the game. Only masters understand
that a player with the best of skills in Baa will be beaten, if not by another player's
skills, then by the game itself. As the masters say: Baa mguu wa shetani.
GLOSSARY
The following glossary gives a list of Swahili words often heard among Bao players.
The words do not necessarily occur in the text. Most words have similar meanings in
daily life. If appropriate, their regular meaning is presented as well. A few words
(in italics) seem to occur only in Bao. Special attention should be paid to the word
kitakomwe which seems to have several meanings within the game of Bao. Note that
nouns are translated without articles preceding them. Verbs are indicated in the
translation by using 'to'.
Swahili English explanation
akheri see khatima

amua bilisi tQ try one's luck;
bana Bao to keep the opponent from entering his
back row (literal meaning 'to squeeze
Bao')
Bao 1. game of Bao; 2. board; 3. goal (scored
in soccer)
Bao hamna 1. win; 2. clearance (hamna =there is not)
Bao linakawilia Bao does not end quickly
Bao mguu wa shetani Bao, its ways can tum against you (literal
meaning 'Bao is a leg of the devil')
Bara Tanzania mainland
bingwa 1. (grand)master; 2. expert; 3. champion
Chachu proper name (literal meaning 'fierce')
Chama cha Bao Bao Society
I
Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM) Revolutionary Party
cheza kamari to gamble; to play for money
fl
I;
duru round(s)
fani way(s) of strategy
II heko! bravo!
~I
I
go sa to end one captured seed in an end hole
hodari skilled
jenga nyumba to build a house
kete seed(s) used in Bao (original meaning:
'cowrie')
soo term used in Pemba
komwe term derived from the name of the tree
(mkomwe)
khatima foresight
kichwa 1. far-end hole on either side, usually front
row only; 2. head
Kijumbe nickname (literal meaning 'go-between')
kikao 1. hut; 2. club-house
kimbi second and seventh hole on a Bao board
kinamuzi seed that plays namu
kishimo hole (on a Bao ·board)
chumba 1. hole on a Bao board; 2. room
GLOSSARY 125
Kiswahili Swahili, language of Zanzibar, official

language of Tanzania
kitakimbi to attack the kimbi hole repeatedly
kitakomwe 1. special trap; 2. play of seeds, with one
seed hidden in the palm; 3. other
(incorrect ) term for toboa
kubwa ya mpango house or square hole on the Bao board
(literal meaning 'big one of the plan')
lengo goal/purpose
vunja Iengo obstruct the opponent's (long-term) goals
(literal meaning 'break a purpose')
ligi league
maarufu famous/well-known
mantiki gift of understanding the game
mashindano championship/tournament
Maternwe town in Northern Zanzibar
mbilimbili (also Bao Ia watoto/
wanawake/Kiarabu) simple variant(s) of Bao
mchezo game
mchezaji player
miliki, nimeshakumiliki see weka
Mkiwa proper name (literal meaning 'he whose
father died')
rnrima kusini Southern coast (of Tanzania): enda mrima
kusini = to go without knowing where
mshindaji 1. winner; 2. champion
mtaji 1. second stage in the Bao game; 2. hole
with enough seeds to capture (in the mtaji
stage); 3. capital for starting a business
mtego combination of moves, or trap
mtoano knockout system
mtoto child
mwalimu teacher
mwamuzi referee
mzee 1. mister; 2. old man
Nahodha nickname (literal meaning 'captain')
namu first stage of the Bao game
namua (or ng'amua) to play the first stage of the game
( = to enter seeds)
nyumba house
nyumba ya kimbi haimiliki a house in a kimbi hole should not be
(or hainamuki) defended/played
Pemba name of an island to the North of Zanzibar
piga tanji to attack several houses at the same time
piganisha nyumba to have both houses under attack
profesa 1. professor; 2. name for (grand)master
rejesha/rudisha Baci to return/undo moves in Bao
rusha (kete) to throw (kete)
sanaa art
sare draw
Shamba inland
Taasisi Institute
takasa (or takata) to play without capturing
takasia to play without capturing and forcing the
I opponent to play without capturing, after
which it is possible to capture
! tanga mtini not to know where one's move is going
I (literal meaning 'to climb a tree')
I tapisha Bao to play an elaborate gambit (literal
II tega
meaning 'to vomit Bao')
to trap
I tegua 1. to neutralize traps; 2. to counter-trap
to boa 1. to play a special opening move (now
obsolete) where seeds of a/A6 and a/A7
I are lifted together and played to the left; 2.
to bore a hole
I! 1'
tobwe 1. novice; 2. fool
i Tumbatu name of island belonging to Zanzibar, off
II the coast of Northern Zanzibar (opposite
I
Mkokotoni)
Unguja Zanzibar
1:1 1 1. play of singletons (7 or 8) in the front
,,,1
1'1
utitiri
II row; 2. chicken lice
weka 1. to be in power of the opponent's game;
'I 2. to put
zamu turn (of a player in a game)
lI
I
li
'II
1'1
,,
t
;I
,,r:
I'I~
]\
i
r I''I'
11
iii
I''
:i,
1
il ,-_; -,
I
:I'
r:
1:
I,
1.
1,-;.
I I
LITERATURE
Allis, L.V., H.J. van den Herik & I.S. Herschberg, Which gemes will survive? In: D. II
Beal & D. Levy (Eds.), Heuristic Programming in Artificial Intelligence 2: the I
second computer olympiad, pp.232-243, Chichester, England: Ellis Horwood,

1991.
Allis, L.V., H.J. van den Herik & M. van der Meulen, Databases in Awari. In: D.
Beal & D. Levy (Eds.), Heuristic programming in Artificial Intelligence 2: the
second computer olympiad, pp.73-86, Chichester, England: Ellis Horwood, 1991.
Allis, L.V., Searching for solutions in games and Artificial Intelligence, University
of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands: Ph.D.-thesis, 1994. i i'I:
I! I
Atkinson, R.C. & R.M. Shiffrin, Human memory: a proposed system and its control
processes. In K.W. Spence & J.T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and
motivation, Vol. 2, London, 1968.
Atkinson, R.C. & R.M. Shiffrin, The control of short-term memory, Scientific
American, 225:82-90, 1971.
Ballou, K., Regles et strategies du jeu d'awele, Abidjan: Nouvelle editions
Africaines, 1978.
Beal, D. & D. Levy (Eds.), Heuristic programming in Artificial Intelligence II,
London: Ellis Horwood, 1991.
Beart, C., Jeux et jouets de l'Ouest Africain, Dakar: IFAN, 1955.
Bell, R.C., Board and table games from many civilizations. London: Oxford
University Press, 1960.
Burton, R. F. Zanzibar: city, island, and coast, London: Tinsley Brothers, Strand,
1872. (1967 reprint Johnson Reprint Cooperation, U.S.A.)
Chase, W.G. & K.A. Ericsson, Skilled memory. In: J.R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive
skills and their acquisition, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981.
Chernev, 1., The bright side of chess, Philidelphia: David McKay Company, 1948.
Chi, M.T.H., R. Glaser & M.J. Farr, The nature of expertise, Halesdale, NJ:
Dickmeyer, 1988.
Clausewitz, C. von, On War, London: David Campbell Publications Ltd, 1832.
(English translation by M. Howard and P. Paret, 1993.)
Courlander, H., The Ethiopian game of Go beta, The Negro History Bulletin, 1943,
October.
Deledicq, A. & A. Popova, Wari et solo. Le jeu de calcul Africain, Paris: Cedic,
1977.
Dennen, J.M.G. van de, The Origin ofWar, Groningen: Origin Press, 1995.
Department of Education, Government of Zanzibar, Kuhusu makadirio ya mapato na
matumizi ya fedha ya wizara ya elimu kwa mwaka 1994/1995, Zanzibar: CGD
Mbweni, 1994.
Dostoevski, F.M., The Gambler, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1866.
(English translation, 1972).
Driberg, J.H., The game of Choro or Pereauni, Man, 1927, September, Vol. 27.
Eagle, V., On some newly described mancala games from Yunnan Province, China,
and the definition of a genus in the family of mancala games. In: A.J. de Voogt
(Ed.) New approaches to board games research: Asian origins and future
perspectives, Working Papers Series III, Leiden: liAS, 1995.
Eysenck, M.W. & M.T. Keane, Cognitive Psychology: A student's handbook,
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990.
Ji
~--~
Flacourt, E. de, Histoire de la Grande Isle Madagascar, Paris, 1658.

Friedrich, J., Das Gesetz des Krieges, Miinchen: Piper, 1993.
Gadamer, H.G., Wahrheit undMethode, Tiibingen, 1960.
Galton, F., Hereditary genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences, Lond~n:
Macmillan and Co, 1892.
Groot, A.D. de, Het denken van den schaker, Amsterdam: Mouton, 1946.
Groot, A.D. de, Thought and choice in chess, The Hague: Mouton, 1965.
Hellier, M., Notes on the Malay game 'Jongkak', Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society, 1907, V.49.
Herskovits, M.J., Wari in the New World, Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute, 1932, V.32.
Herik, H.J. van den, Computerschaak, schaakwereld en kunstmatige intelligentie. 's
Gravenhage: Academic Service, 1983.
Hooper, D. & K. Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1992.
Howe, M.J.A., Fragments of genius: the strange feats of idiots savants, London:
Routledge, 1989.
Huizinga, J., Homo Ludens. Proeve ener bepaling van het spelelement der cultuur,
Groningen: H.D. Tjeenk Willink, 1938 (1974).
Hunt, E. & T. Love, How good can memory be? In: A.W. Melton and E. Martin
(Eds.), Coding processes in human memory, Washington, D.C.: John Winston &
Sons, 1972.
Ingrams, W.H., Zanzibar: Its history and its people, London: Frank Cass & Co.
Ltd, 1931. (Reprint, 1967).
Keller, B., Loesch-Berger M.-C. & J. Retschitzki, L'influence du materiel et du
niveau des joueurs sur la retention de configuration du jeu d'Awele, Cahiers de
Psychologie Cognitive, 1984, Vol.4:335-361.
: l
Kennedy, A. & A. Wilkes (Eds.), Studies in long term memory, London: John
I
!
Wiley & Sons, 1975.
I, Koltanowski, G., Hoe meester G. Koltanowski het wereldkampioenschap
blindsimultaan veroverde, Antwerpen: Internacia, 1931.
II Lawrence, T.E.; Seven pillars of wisdom: a triumph, London: Jonathan Cape, 1935.
k Lofschie, M.P., Zanzib,ar: Background to Revolution, Princeton, New Jersey:
1r Princeton University Press, 1965.
ir
:,
Luria, A.R., The mind of a mnemonist, New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1968.
(Translated from the Russian by L. Solotaroff)
Luvaas, J. (Ed.), Frederick theGreat on the art of war, New York: The Free Press,
1966.
Machiavelli, N., The Prince, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1513.
(Translation and editing by Q. Skinner and R. Price, 1988).
Mahan, AT., The influence of sea power upon history 1660-1783, Boston: Little,
Brown, & Company, 1890 (1928).
McClelland, J.L., D.E. Rumelhart & the PDP research group (Eds.), Parallel
I distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition,
i\.
Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1986.
McWhirter, N., Het groot Guiness record hoek, Laren: Luitingh, 1982.
Mieses, J., Blindschaken., Den Haag: G.B. van Goor Zonen's Uitg.Mij 1938.
Miller, G.A., The magical number seven, plus or min~s two: some limits on our
capacity for processing information, The Psychological Review, 1956, V.63-
2:81-97.
\.
I'
il
II,
LITERATURE 129
I
Muller, H.R., Warri: a West Mrican game of skill, Journal of American Folklore
1930, 43:169
Murray, E.K.M., Caught in the web of words: James A.H. Murray and the Oxford
English Dictionary, New Haven: Yale University Press 1977.
Murray, H.J.R., A history of chess., Oxford Press, 1913.
Murray, H.J.R., A history of board games other than chess, London: Oxford at the
Clarendon Press, 1952.
N'Guessan Assande, G., L'apprentissage de l'awele: Etude du processus
d'acquisition des tactiques et strategies, Presented at Colloque de Cerisy-la-Salle,
1986, June.
N:simbi, M.B., Omweso, a game people play in Uganda, Occasional Paper 6,
University of California: Mrican Studies Center, 1968.
National Museums of Tanzania, How to play Bao? DarEs Salaam, 1971.
Newell, A. & H.A. Simon, Human problem solving, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1972.
Ochse, R., Before the gates of excellence: The determinants of creative genius,
Cambridge: Cambridge Univerisity Press, 1990.
Odeleye, A.O., Ayo: A popular Yoruba game, Ibadan: Oxford University Press,
1977.
Peterson, L.R. & M.J. Peterson, Short term retention of individual items, Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 1959, V.58, pp.193-198.
Philidor, F.A., L'analyze des echecs, London, 1749.
Potter, S., The theory and practice of Gamesmanship, Middlesex, England: Penguin
Books, 1947.
Raabe, J., L 'Awele, Paris: Ed. de la Courtille, 1972.
Retschitzki, J., Strategies des joueurs d'awele, Paris: L'Harmattan, 1990.
Reysset, P., Les jeux de reflexion pure, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France
1995.
Russ, L., Mancala games, Michigan: Reference Publications, 1962.
Sacleux, Ch.C.S.Sp., Ancien missionnaire Dictionnaire Swahili-Fram;ais., Paris:
Institut D'ethnologie, 1939.
Sanderson, M.G., Native games of Central Africa, Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1913, V.43:726-736.
Sawyer, W.W., The game of Oware, Scripta Mathematica, 1949, V.15.
Shackell, R.S., Mweso, Uganda Journal, 1934, V.II. iII,
Simon, H.A., Models of thought, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979.
Simonton, D.K., Genius, creativity, and leadership: Historiometric inquiries,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1984 .
Stoep, A. van der, A history of draughts: with a diachronic study of words for
draughts, chess, backgammon and morris, Rockanje: Vander Stoep, 1984.
iI
I
li
II
Sun Tzu, The principles of war, Translation by E. Machell-Cox. Ceylon: Royal Air 1i I
Force publication, 1943. (original510 B.C.) r I
Sun Tzu, The art of war, Translation by Cheng Lin. Shanghai: The World Book
Company, Ltd, 1945. (original510 B.C.) I
Tarrasch, Dr., The game of Chess: A systematic text-book for beginners and more
experienced players, London: Chatto and Windus, 1935 .
Townshend, P ., Les jeux de mankala au Zaire, au Ruanda et au Burundi, Les Cahiers
du CEDAF, 1977, V. 3:1. II
Townshend, P., Mankala games, International Committee on Urgent
Anthropological and Ethnological Research, Bulletin, 1977, V. 19, pp.47-54. 'If
::1
Townshend, P., Anthropological Perspectives on Bao (Mankala) Games, Paper 114,

University of Nairobi: Institute of African Studies, 1979 .
Townshend, P ., Games in culture: A contextual analysis of the Swahili board game
and its relevance to variation in African mankala, Ph.D.-thesis: University of
Cambridge, 1986.
Von Neumann, J. & 0. Morgenstern, Theory of games and economic behavior,
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1944.
Voogt, A.J. de (Ed.), New approaches to board games research: Asian origins and
future perspectives, Working Papers Series III, Leiden: liAS, 1995 .
Wagenaar, W.A., Paradoxes of gambling behaviour, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Ltd., Hove, East Sussex, 1988 .
Wagner, P .A., A contribution to our knowledge of the national game of skill of
Africa, Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa , 1918, V .6:47-68.
Wittgenstein, L., Philosophical investigations, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1953.
(English translation, 1967)
c
ri
11
l
!
;:
i
I,. I
~'""
>: . -_=~,-
Ii
--~
!
~,!,_-_-
! ,,
~=..·
("
I! ~;i~
I --;.,·
,,._,=s
ll!'
,,,, ''t'-.=:
/ :~-1
1
11 .;o-.'
.,.,
,,;I[~
f:
j[:" _fj,_
llf'
.'!'f,
~,t'l
c~
'~:
;tc
I'' ~-;t:'.
:•
li
1:.•'l
I'
t
'"'·
'II
t:
~:
'.: .
~:
I
lr
I!
l
!I:-:.
II
I
l
,.
L .
I i·
: ~
APPENDIX I: EXPERIMENTS ON BAO
Table 15: Characteristics of the short duru experiment
Station Cnd.P Round Cnd.( Round Cnd.R Round Cnd.S Round Cnd.T Round
1 4 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 2 1
2 7 1-2 3 1 5 1-2 3 1 2 1
3 4 2 2 1 2 2 4 1-2 5 1-2
4 2 2-3 4 1-2 2 2 5 2 4 2
5 3 3 5 3 3 3 4 2-3 3 3
6 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3
7 4 3-4 2 3 5 3 5 3-4 2 3
8 5 4 3 3 7 3-4 2 4 2 3
9 2 4-5 2 3-4 4 4-5 5 5 5 3-4
10 2 5 5 4 2 5 4 5 7 4-5
11 3 5 7 4-5 4 6 2 5 2 5
12 2 6 4 5-6 3 6 3 5-6 2 5
13 5 6 2 6 4 6 2 6 2 6
14 7 6-7 4 6 3 6-7 2 6 3 6
15 4 8 3 6-7 2 7 5 6-7 2 6
16 2 8 4 7 2 7 4 7 4 6-7
17 4 8 3 7-8 3 7-8 2 8 5 7
18 3 8-9 2 8 6 8 3 8 2 8
19 4 9 2 8 2 8-9 2 8 2 8
20 3 10 3 9 2 8 3 8
21 2 10 6 9 8 8-9 2 8
22 2 10 2 10 8 8-9
23 3 10
24 6 10-11
25 2 11
132
Tables 16, 17, 18, & 19: Results of the short duru experiment, Ta
conditions Q, R, S, and T.
Cnd. Round Station ROR MJS SMS AMF Cnd.R Round Station SMS
2 1 1 4 1 1
3 1 2 5 1-2 2
2 1 3 2 2 3
4 1-2 4 2 2 4
5 3 5 3 3 5
2 3 6 2 3 6
2 3 7 5 3 7
3 3 8 7 3-4 8
2 3-4 9 4 4-5 9 X
5 4 10
7 4-5 11 X X
4 5-6 12
2 6 13
4 6 14 X
3 6-7 15 X
Cnd.S Round Station ROR SMS NOA AMF Cnd.T Round Statiou NOA
2 1 1 2 1 1 't
3 1 2 2 1 2
4 1-2 3 5 1-2 3
5 2 4 4 2 4
4 2-3 5 X 3 3 5
2 3 6 X 2 3 6
5 3-4 7 2 3 7
2 4 8 2 3 8
5 5 9 5 3-4 9
4 5 10 7 4-5 10 X
2 5 11 X
3 5-6 12
2 6 13 X
il
I
133 I'
II
,I,
Tables 20, 21, & 22: Results of the blind simple durn experiment, l !l
conditions B, C, and D. 'I
Ill
2
Cnd.B Round Station AMF
1 1
SMS Cgd.C Round Station ROR
13 1 1
SMS
,I
6
4
1
1
2
3
2
4
1
1-2
2
3 II
: r
5 1-2 4 4 2 4
8 2 5 4 2 5 I'
4 2 6 7 2-3 6 ''
I I
'I
10 2-3 7 8 3 7 II
3
4
3
3
8
9
15
4
3-4
4
8
9
i i
I i
6 3-4 10 3 5 10 blind blind 'I
5 4 11 blind 4 5 11 X
2 4 12 X 8 5 12
7 4-5 13 5 5-6 13 X
4 5 14 blind
6 5 15
4 6 16
5 6 17
8 6 18
4 6-7 19
5 7 20
2 7 21 X
Cnd.I Round Station MJS ROR NOA SMS

2 1 1
2 1 2
3 1 3
3 1 4
5 1 5
2 1-2 6
2 2 7
2 2 8 blind
4 2 9
4 2 10 blind
3 3 11
2 3 12 blind
2 3 13
2 3 14 blind
5 3 15
6 3-4 16 X
2 4 17
2 4 18
2 4 19
3 4 20 X
3 4 21
2 4 22 X
3 4-5 23
2 5 24 X
134
j
Tables 23, 24, 25, & 26: Results of the blind short duru experiment,
conditions Q, R, S, and T.
1
Cnd. Round Station ROR Cnd.R Round Station NOA
2 1 1 4 1 1 (
3 1 2 5 1-2 2 (
2 1 3 2 2 3
4 1-2 4 2 2 4
5 3 5 3 3 5
2 3 6 2 3 6
2 3 7 5 3 7
3 3 8 7 3-4 8
2 3-4 9 blin 4 4-5 9 blind
5 4 10
7 4-5 11 X
4 5-6 12
2 6 13
4 6 14
3 6-7 15
Cnd.S Round Station ROR Cnd.S Round AMF

2 1 1 3 1
3 1 2 4 1
4 1-2 3 5 1-2
5 2 4 4 3
4 2-3 5 blind 2 3
2 3 6 5 3
5 3-4 7 2 3-4
2 4 8 5 4
5 5 9 4 4-5 blind
4 5 10 2 5
2 5 11 X 3 5
3 5-6 12 2 5-6 X
2 6 13
• This condition was rewritten with comparable results.
The pattern is identical apart from the first station that was omitted.
0 This result is included to illustrate a 'bad' performance.
Unfortunately, the only blind performance on this test.
Cnd.T Round Station MJS

2 1 1
2 1 2
5 1-2 3
4 2 4
3 3 5
2 3 6
2 3 7
2 3 8
5 3-4 9
7 4-5 10 blind
l il
l'lI 'I
iI
I',
I,
APPENDIX II: TOURNAMENT GAMES
Day one
Omar (A)- Majaliwa (a) 11-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5L; (2) 3L 7; (3) 1 5R; (4) 2 8; (5) 8 7; (6) 5R 8R (tak); (7) 7R (tak)
7R (tak); (8) 8R (tak) 8R (tak); (9) 6R (tak) 5R (tak); (10) 7R (tak) 6R (tak); (11) 8L
(tak) 8L (tak); (12) 7R (tak) 6R (tak); (13) 6R (tak) 8L (tak); (14) 7R (tak) 7; (15) 1
5R; (16) 2 5R>; (17) 5R> 3R (Blunder!); (18) 4R (Majaliwa covers his eyes.) ... !,
Bao hamna! (A) wins. I:
''I
I 'I
18 moves (35 single-moves), 2 minutes 45 seconds.

i :1
1:1
I
I'
Majaliwa (A)- Omar (a) 11-10-94 III

(1) A6R (tak) a7R (tak); (2) 8R (tak) 6R (tak); (3) 7R (tak) 8R (tak); (4) 8R (tak)
7R (tak); (5) SR (tak) (now there are only five seeds left in the house) 8R (tak); (6)
I~ I
6R (tak) (as long as other holes can be takasa-ed, the house remains with only five
seeds) 5R (tak) (also only five seeds in the house); (7) 8L (tak) 7R (tak); (8) 6R
j,l
:'1,,,
(tak) 6L (tak); (9) 5L 8; (10) 8L (tak) 6R (tak); (11) 6R (tak) 7L (tak); (12) 5L 8>;
(13) 7 3L; (14) 8 3R; (15) 2 6L; (16) 7 1; (17) 7 5R; (18) 5L 5R; (19) 2 6R; (20)
7 3R; (21) 2 8; (22) 2 6L (tak);
(23) B6R b4L; (24) A2R a4L; (25) A2R b6L (tak); (26) A3R b4R (tak); (27) B7R -
(a) resigns.
Ramadhan (A)- Nasoro (a) 11-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) a5R; (2) 6R (tak) 6R (tak); (3) 7R (tak) 8L (tak); (4) 8R (tak) 6R
(tak); (5) 5R (tak) 8L (tak); (6) 7R (tak) 6R (tak); (7) 6R (tak) 8L (tak); (8) 7R (tak)
6R (tak); (9) 8R (tak) 7; (10) 5L (tak) 5L; (11) 3R 1; (12) 5R 7R (tak) (this move
ends in the house); (13) 8 2; (14) 8 2; (15) 3R (tak) 5R>; (16) 5R 3L; (17) 8 6R;
(18) 4R 7; (19) 5R 8; (20) SR 7; (21) 7 6L; (22) 2 8;
(23) B2L b7R; (24) A7L b8R; (25) A3R a6L; (26) A7L a6L; (27) (A) resigns.
Nasoro (A)- Ramadhan (a) 11-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5L; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 5L 3R; (4) 1 5R; (5) 2> 5L; (6) 6L 2; (7) 1 5R;
(8) 5L 3L; (9) 3L 5R; (10) 5R 1; (11) 5L 8>; (12) 5L 8; (13) 5R 6L; (14) 5R 1;
(15) 5R 7; (16) 5L (tak) 6L; (17) 4R 3R; (18) 4L 2; (19) 8 3R; (20) 1 5L; (21) 6L
1; (22) 6L 2;
;';,
(23) A2R b1L; (24) B3L a1R; (25) B1L a4L; (26) A2L (tak) a1R; (27) B2L a4R;
(28) A3R (tak) b8R; (29) B7R a4R (Nasoro starts laughing as he realizes he made a
'' ii
blunder); (30) A4R (takasia) a5L (tak); (31) (A) resigns.
r II
-~,, 30 moves (60 single-moves), 23 minutes 50 seconds.
;;
I'
'
"'
-{ It
1,,
~· I'
~-
'I
136
Majaliwa (A)- Shamte (a) 11-10-94

(1) A6R (tak) a6R (tak); (2) 8L (tak) 7L (tak); (3) 5R 3L; (4) 8 3L; (5) 7R (tak) 1;
(6) 5L 8>; (7) 5R 1; (8) 5R 6R (tak); (9) 8R (tak) 7R (tak); (10) 5L (tak) 2R (tak);
(11) 5L 5R; (12) 5R 6R; (13) 8L (tak) 3L; (14) 7R (tak) 1; (15) 5R 6R (tak); (16)
8R (tak) 8; (17) 5R (tak) 7L (tak); (18) 8 3R; (19) 5L 8; (20) 5R 3L; (21) 5R 2;
(22) 5L 8;
(23) A5L (tak) b1L; (24) B7R b3L; (25) B3L b2L; (26) A1R (tak) a2R; (27) B8R
b1L; (28) A4L (tak) a4R; (29) B2L a4R; (30) A2L (tak) b4L; (31) B4L b1R; (32)
B5L a4R. .. Bao hamna! (a) wins.
Shamte (A)- Majaliwa (a) 11-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5L; (2) 3L 7; (3) 1 5R; (4) 2 8; (5) 8 7; (6) 5R 7R (tak); (7) 7L
(tak) 8R (tak); (8) 8L (tak) 5R; (9) 7L (tak) 8R (tak); (10) 6R (tak) 5L (tak); (11)
5L 3R (tak); (12) 5L> 5R; (13) 2 5R; (14) 8L (tak) 8; (15) 3L 7; (16) 6R 7; (17)
5R 7; (18) 6L 1; (19) 6R 7R (tak); (20) 6L 5L; (21) 6L 6R; (22) 1 5L;
(23) A6R (tak) a2R; (24) A2L (tak) a6L; (25) B2L (tak) b6R; (26) B8L (tak) a3R;
(27) B1L (tak) a4R; (28) (A) resigns.
Othman (A)- Kijumbe (a) 11-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5L; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 5R 3R; (4) 3R (tak) 5L; (5) 6L 7>; (6) 5L 3R;
(7) 5R 3R; (8)5R 6R; (9) 7 6L (tak); (10) 6R 5L; (11) 7> 7; (12) 3R 7; (13) 3L 8;
(14) 7 3L; (15) 7 3R; (16) 7 3R; (17) 7 6L (tak); (18) 7 3L; (19) 7 5R; (20) 7 3L;
(21) 7 7; (22) 8 3R;
(23) B8R a5R (tak); (24) A5R b2L (tak); (25) A7L (tak) (He empties a hole of 28
seeds) (Kijumbe poin~s at b8 which makes Othman resign immediately. B8R
captures all.) (A) resigns.
25 moves (49 single-moves), 8 minutes.
Kijumbe (A)- Othman (a) 11-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) a5R; (2) 6L (tak) 5R; (3) 2 6R>; (4) 5R 7; (5) 5R 2; (6) 8 5L; (7) 6L
7; (8) 5R 1; (9) 5R 2; (These nine moves were played within 34 seconds, moves
6,7, and 8 were played almost simultaneously, which illustrates the necessity of
video recordings) (10) 8> 7; (11) 3L 5R; (12) 1 7; (13) 4L 6L; (14) 2 6R; (15) 4R
7 (a good example of piga tanji, two holes on A4 and AS contains many seeds); (16)
4L 4L; (17) 4L 3L; (18) 3L 1; (19) 6R 7; (20) 3L 5R; (21) 3R 7; (22) 3R 7;
(23) B8R b8R; (24) A3L a6L; (25) B6R a5R (tak); (26) B3L a6L; (27) B2L a3R;
(28) A2R b7R (tak); (29) A1R b5R; (30) A5L b6L; (31) B6R b8L (tak); (32) B8R
b7L (tak); (33) A6R ... Bao hamna! (A) wins.
L
137
Hassan (A)- Abdu (a) 11-10-94

(1) A6R (tak) a6R (tak); (2) 8L (tak) 7L (tak); (3) 5R 3L; (4) 8 3L; (5) 7R (tak) 1;
(6) 5L 8>; (7) 5R 1; (8) 5R 6R (tak); (9) 8R (tak) 2L (tak); (10) 5R (tak) 3L; (11)
5R 2; (12) 5L 8; (13) 5R 5R (tak); (14) 8R (tak) 2L (tak); (15) 5L (tak) 6L; (16) 5L
5L; (17) 1 7; (18) 1 5R; (19) 2 5R ... Bao hamna! (a) wins.
Abdu (A)- Hassan (a) 11-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) a5R; (2) 6L (tak) 6R; (3) 2 4L; (4) 4L 3L; (5) 7 3L; (6) 1 6R; (7) 6R
6R; (8) 4L 3L; (9) 2 5R; (10) 5L 5R; (11) 5L 3R; (12) 8 5R; (13) 6R 2; (14) 6R 2;
(15) 8 5R; (16) 7 7; (17) 5R 6R; (18) 7 7; (19) 4R 6L; (20) 4R (tak) 6L; (21) 5R
3R; (22) 5L (tak) 7;
(23) B4L b8R; (24) A4L (tak) a7R (tak); (25) B3L .b7R; (26) A8L b8R; (27) A3R
b2L; (28) B7R a3R; (29) A8L a6R; (30) B5L ... Bao hamna! (A) wins. L
Maulidi (A)- Kijumbe (a) 11-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) a5R; (2) 6L (tak) 5R; (3) 2 6L; (4) 1 5R; (5) 3R 1; (6) 5R 3L; (7) 7
3L; (8) 2R (tak) 5L; (9) 5R 3R; (10) 3L 3R (tak); (11) 3L 4R; (12) 4R 2; (13) 6R
5R; (14) 3L 3L; (15) 5R 5R; (16) 5L 2; (17) 5L 6L; (18) 5L 3L; (19) 5L 5R; (20)
5L 3L; (21) 4L 3R; (22) 1 (Before playing, Kijumbe points to A2 and b3, a forced
move combination to capture the house) 2;
(23) A2R b3L (captures the house with 19 seeds); (24) (A) resigns.
Kijumbe (A)- Maulidi (a) 11-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) a5R; (2) 6L (tak) 5R; (3) 2 6L; (4) 1 5R; (5) 3R 1; (6) 5R 3L; (7)) 7
3L; (8) 2R (tak) 3L; (9) 5R 5R; (10) 3L 3R (tak); (These moves were played in only
30 seconds.) (11) 3L 4R; (12) 4R 2; (13) 4R 6L; (14) 6L 2; (15) 6R 1; (16) 6L 5R;
(17) 5L 5L; (18) 6R 7; (19) 6R 2; (20) 5R 6R; (21) 5R 2; (22) 2 4R;
(23) A2L (tak) a4R; (24) B7L (tak) b8R; (25) B1L a4R; (26) B5L (tak) a1R; (27)
B2L b5R; (28) A4R (tak) b6R; (29) B6R b1L; (30) B8R b7L ... Bao hamna! (a)
wins.
Day two
Maulidi (A)- Nasoro (a) 12-10-944 _

3L; (8) 2R (tak) 5L; (9) 5R 3R; (10) 3L 3R (tak); (11) 3L 4R; (12) 4R 4L; (13) 3L
138
7; (14) 1 3R; (15) 5L 6L; (16) 6L 4R; (17) 2 6L; (18) 4R 2; (19) 3R 7; (20) 5L
6L; (21) 4L 2; (22) 5L 3R;
(23) B4L a3R; (24) B2L blL; (25) A2R (tak) a8L; (26) B8R b5L; (27) B1L a4R
(tak); (28) A5L b8R; (29) A4R a7L; (30) B1L b6R; (31) A2R a5L (tak); (32) A2R
b1R (tak); (33) ASR b8L (tak) (This is not takasia since there are mtaji's possible on
more than two opposite holes); (34) A7L (tak) b2L; (35) A2R a3R; (36)A1R b1L;
(37) B8R b5L; (38) A7L b7R; (39) A6L b8R; (40) B7L ... Bao hamna! (A) wins.
Nasoro (A)- Maulidi (a) 12-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) aSL; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 5L 3R; (4) 1 5R; (5) 2> 3R; (6) 3L 8>; (7) 3L
2; (8) 3L 5R; (9) 1 5R; (10) 6R 5L; (11) 7 5R; (12) 8 5L; (13) 2 5R; (14) 8 8; (15)
3L 8; (16) 6R 4R; (17) 3R 7; (18) 5R 7; (19) 3L 7; (20) 5R 2; (21) 3R 7; (22)
(Nasoro contemplated for more than 4 minutes here) 3L 3R;
(23) A5L b1L; (24) B7R a4R (tak); (25) A8L b4R (tak); (26) A5L b5L (tak); (27)
A4R b3R (tak); (28) A2R b8R (tak); (29) A7L -(a) resigns.
Nasoro (A)- Kijumbe (a) 12-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5L; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 5L 3R; (4) 1 5R; (5) 2> 3R; (6) 3L 8>; (7) 3L 2;
(8) 3L 2; (9) 4L 3L; (10) 5R 7; (11) 4R 6L; (12) 8 2; (13) 4L 6R; (14) 6L 7; (15)
4L 3R; (16) 4L 7; (17) 5R 5L; (18) 3L 4L; (19) 6L 5R; (20) 2 1; (21) 7 8; (22) 2
3R;
(23) A5R b3L; (24) B1L a6L; (25) B4L (tak) a8L; (26) B5R (tak) b1L; (27) B1R
(takasia) a3R (tak); (28) B2L b5R; (29) B6R b6R; (30) B8R a6R (tak); (31) B7R
b7R; (32) A5L b2L; (33) A6L (tak) a3R; (34) B2L b8L; (35) AlL (tak) a2R (tak);
(36) B1L (tak) a8L; (37) B4L b4R; (38) B8R (tak) a8L; (39) B3L (tak) a4L; (40)
(A) resigns. ·
Kijumbe (A)- Nasoro (a) 12-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) a5R; (2) 6L (tak) 5R; (3) 2 6L; (4) 1 5R; (5)3R 1; (6) 5R 3L; (7) 7
7; (14) 3R 8; (15) 4R 6L; (16) 4R 4R; (17) 6L 6R; (18) 6R 4L; (19) 7 1 (This
move takes seven rounds to complete. Although the first captures in this move
sufficed to make Nasoro play this move, it appears that Kijumbe had not foreseen
this and certainly not calculated the almost disastrous outcome); (20) 6R 5L (again a
complex four rounds of play, this time well calculated by Nasoro); (21) 2 3L; (22)
3R 5R;
(23) B3L b3L; (24) B2L a4R; (25) B1L b2L; (26) A2R b4L; (27) B7R a4R; (Again
a long move, this time five rounds; the back row is such that long moves are easier
. '
to create. Nasoro shows a clear preference for such moves, Kijumbe, however, is ',1'
somewhat overplayed.) (28) A4L (tak) a8L; (29) B1L · a5L (tak); (30) A2L (tak)
139
a2R; (31) B3R (tak) b6L; (32) B6R a7L; (33) B8R b1L; (34) A7L (tak) a2R; (35)
A2R b3L; (36) (A) resigns.
Shamte (A)- Omar (a) 12-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5R; (2) 3L 7>; (3) 5R 1; (4) 7 7; (5) 4R (tak) 7L (tak); (6) 6R 6L;
(7) 6R 2; (8) 6R 8R (tak); (9) 6R (tak) 5R (tak); (10) 7L (tak) 7R (tak); (11) 6R
(tak) 8L (tak); (12) 4R 6L (tak); (13) 5L 5R; (14) 5R 2; (15) 5R 3R; (16) 5L 1;
(17) 5R 2R (tak); (18) 5L 1; (19) 5L 3L; (20) 4L 3R (tak); (21) 5R 1; (22) 5L 5R;
(23) A3L a5R; (24) Ar5 (tak) a2R; (25) B6R b2L; (26) BSL a2R; (27) A1R b7R;
(28) B8R a9r (tak); (29) A7L b3L; (30) B3L ... Bao hamna! (A) wins.
Omar (A)- Shamte (a) 12-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5L; (2) 3L 7; (3) 1 5R; (4) 2 5R>; (5) 5R 7; (6) 5L 2; (7) 6L 5R;
(8) 2 8; (9) 2 8; (10) 6L 2; (11) 3R 4L; (12) 8 4L; (13) 2 5R; (14) 6R 5L; (15) 3L
5R; (16) 3R 1; (17) 3L 4R; (18) 3R 3L; (19) 3R 2; (20) 8 5L; (21) 2 3R; (22) 4L
2·
' A1R b5R; (24) A5L a8L; (25) B7R a8L; (26) A8L b1L; (27) B2L b8R; (28)
(23)
A7L a7L; (29) B8R b3L; (30) A3R a2R; (31) A5L a3R; (32) A6L a6L (tak); (33)
A3R a3R (tak); (34) A5L (tak) b2R (tak) (35) A8L -(a) resigns.
'I
'I
Ramadhan (A)- Abdu (a) 12-10-94
(1) A7L (tak) a5R; (2) 6L (tak) 5R; (3) 2 6L; (4) 1 5R; (5) 3R 1; (6) 5R 3L; (7)7
3L; (8) 2R (tak) 5L; (9) 5R 3R; (10) 3L 3R (tak); (11) 3L 4R; (12) 4R 6R; (13) 5R
3L; (14) 4R 2; (15) 5L 4R; (16) 5L 6R; (17) 4R 8; (18) 6L 8; (19) 5R 2; (20) 6R
5L; (21) 6R 2; (22) 5R 7;
(23)B3L b2L; (24) B7R a4L (tak); (25) A5R b7L (tak); (26) A2R BSR (tak); (27)
B8R -(a) resigns.
Abdu (A)- Ramadhan (a) 12-10-94

(1) A 7L (tak) a5R; (2) 6L (tak) 5R; (3) 2 6L; (4) 1 5R; (5) 3R 1; (6) 5R 3L; (7) 7
3L; (8) 2R (tak) 3L; (9) 5R 5R; (10) 3L 3R (tak); (11) 3L 4L; (12) 4R 2; (13) 5L 1;
(14) 2 4R; (15) 6R 4R; (16) 3L 2; (17) 3R 1; (18) 1 5R; (19) 6R 5L; (20) 1 5R;
(21) 7 5L; (22) 7 1;
(23) B8R b1L; (24) B6L b2L; (25) B8R -(a) resigns.

140
Shamte (A)- Maulidi (a) 12-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) aSR; (2) 6L (tak) 5R; (3) 2 6L; (4) 1 SR; (5) 3R 1; (6) 5R 3L; (7) 7
3L; (8) 2R (tak) 5L; (9) 5R 3R; (10) 3L 3R (tak); (11) 3L 4R; (12) 4R 2; (13) 5L
1; (14) 6L 4L; (15) 3L 4L; (16) 6R 1; (17) 4L 3L; (18) 4R 3L; (19) 3L 3L; (20) 7
1; (21) 5L 2; (22) 3L 5L;
(23) B2L a2R; (24) B7R (tak) b2L (This move has more than three rounds, beyond
the calculation of Maulidi, who played it with luck.) ... Bao hamna! (a) wins.
Maulidi (A)- Shamte (a) 12-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5L; (2) 3L 7; (3) 1 5R; (4) 2 5R>; (5) 5L 3R; (6) 8 7; (7) 5L 7; (8)
7 3R; (9) 4R 7L (tak); (10) 7 3L; (11) 8> 3R; (12) 4L 4R; (13) 8 4R; (14) 4R 2 (A
long move of more than 5 rounds, Maulidi clearly miscalculated, while Shamte was
obviously familiar with this trap) ... Bao hamna! (a) wins.
,,
Day three
Nasoro (A)- Omar (a) 13-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5R; (2) 3R 5R; (3) 3R 5L; (4) 7R (tak) 1; (5) SR 3R (tak); (6) SL
7R (tak); (7) 1 SR; (8) 2R (tak) 5R; (9) 3L 2R (tak); (10) SL 5L; (11) 8 SR; (12) 6R
7; (13) 6L (tak) 5L; (14) 8> SL; (15) 3L SL; (16) 2L (tak) lL (tak); (17) 5R (tak)
2; (18) 8 2; (19) 6L (tak) 5R; (20) 1 SR; (21) 2 SL; (22) 7 1;
(23) A 7L aSL (tak); (24) B4L b3L; (25) A2R alR; (26) B2L blL (In this move
Omar reaches a2, capturing A7 and A8, however, he forgets to capture A7 and
leaves this seed in its hole, capturing A8 only. This move was clearly done in a rush
almost concurrently with Nasoro's B2L, and since the seed he left had no immediate
effect on the next moves, nobody notices the mistake.) (27) A2R (tak) alR; (28)
A3R (tak) a2R (tak); (29) B6L (This move shows the effect of the mistake in B2L,
the hole is emptied during the move with four instead of three seeds.) b2L; (30) B8R
a4L (tak); (31) BlL blL; (32) B3L b8R; (33) B7R a4R; (34) B4L bSL; (35) A2R
(tak) b3R; (36) AlL b7R; (37) B7R b4L (tak); (38) (Nasoro thinks he plays takasa
and plays A4L (tak), but is corrected and then plays A2R) A2R blL; (39) B6R - (a)
resigns.
Omar (A)- Nasoro (a) 13-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) a5R; (2)6L (tak) SR; (3) 2 6L; (4) 1 5R; (5) 3R 1; (6) SR 3L; (7) 7
3L; (14) 3L 4L; (15) 4R 1; (16) 2 3L; (17) SR 2; (18) 3R 8; (19) 3L 4L; (20) 2 3L;
(21) 2 4L; (22) 4R 6R;
(23) A4L (tak) a6L; (24) BlL bSR; (25) A3R (tak) b4L; (26) A4L (tak) a8L; (27)
BSR (tak) a3R; (28) (A) resigns.

.I
141
Abdu (A)- Maulidi (a) 13-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5L; (2) 3L 7; (3) 1 5R; (4) 2 5L; (5) 5L 5R; (6) 6R 8L (tak); (7) 3L
7>; (8) 3R 3L; (9) 5R> 7; (10) 6R 5R; (11) 5L 7; (12) 5R 2; (13) 5L 6R; (14) 1
5R; (15) 3R 7; (16)3L 2; (17) 8 5R; (18) 5L 3R; (19) 3L 7; (20) 4L 4R; (21) 8 3L;
(22) 4R 6R;
(23) A8L b8R; (24) A8L a7L; (25) B4R (tak) b7R; (26) B2R (tak) a5R; (27) (A)
resigns.
Maulidi (A)- Abdu (a) 13-10-94

3L; (8) 2R (tak) 5L; (9) 5R 3R; (10) 3L 3R (tak); (11) 3L 4R; (12) 4R 6R; (13) 4L
8; (14) 4R 6R; (15) 4L 4R; (16) 4L 7; (17) 3L 3L; (18) 3R 3L; (19) 4R 8; (20) 4R
4R; (21) 6R 2; (22) 2 3R;
(23) B7R a3R; (24) B8R a8L; (25) B2L a6L (tak); (26) A2R b1L; (27) A4R a1R;
(28) B2L a2R; (29) B3L a3L; (30) B2L a1R; (31) A2R (tak) a5L; (32) A3R a7L;
(33) B1L b6R; (34) B4R (takasia) a6R (tak); (35) B7R b2L; (36) A6L a1R; (37)
A3L b8R; (38) A1R a4R; (39) (A) resigns.
Othman (A)- Majaliwa (a) 13-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5R; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 8 7L (tak); (4) 5L 6L; (5) 1 5L; (6) 3R 3R; (7)
3R 5L; (8) 6L 5R; (9) 7L (tak) 8L (tak); (10) 3R 7; (11) 3R> 7; (12) 3L 8>; (13)
6L 7; (14) 5L 6R; (15) 4L 7; (16) 4R 3R; (17) 4L 4L; (18) 3R 5L; (19) 3L 2; (20)
1 3R (tak); (21) 2 6R; (22) 5L 3L;
(23) B2L b7R; (24) B7R a8L; (25) B1L a8L; (26) A 7L a5R (tak); (27) A6L b5L;
(28) A1R b1L; (29) B3L b8L; (30) B5R a1R; (31) A8L b3R; (32) B1L b7R; (33)
A4R b1L (This move is 5 rounds long) ... Bao hamna! (a) wins.
Majaliwa (A)- Othman (a) 13-10-94

(1) A7R (tak) a6R (tak); (2) 6R (tak) 7L (tak); (3) 5L 8; (4) 7R (tak) 7R (tak); (5)
8R (tak) 6L (tak); (6) 5L 8; (7) 5R (tak) 2; (8) 6R 7R (tak); (9) 6R (tak) 2; (10) 8
5L; (11) 7> 6R; (12) 2 8>; (13) 7 3L; (14) 4R 4R; (15) 4R 7; (16) 4L 2; (17) 4L
7; (18) 3L 8; (19) 4L 6L; (20) 1 6L; (21) 4L 6R; (22) 2 6L;
I (23) B8R b7R; (24) B6R b1L; (25) B2L b1L; (26) A6R (tak) b8R; (27) B5R b2L;
I (28) B7R a5R; (29) A6L a4R; (30) B6R a2R (tak); (31) A6R b3L; (32) A5L (tak)
:1 a2R; (33) B1L a8L; (34) (A) resigns.

142
Day four
Shamte (A)- Othman (a) 14-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) a5R; (2) 6L (tak) 5R; (3) 2 6L; (4) 1 5R; (5) 3R 1; (6) 5R 3R; (7) 2
6L; (8) 5L 6R; (9) 2R (tak) 5R; (10) 6L 2; (11) 3R> 2; (12) 5R 8; (13) 5R 7; (14)
3R 4L; (15) 8 5L; (16) 8 5R; (17) 5L 7; (18) 3L 4R; (19) 4R 4L; (20) 8 4R; (21)
3R (tak) 7; (22) 5L 7;
(23) A6L b1L; (24) A3L a1R; (25) A4R (tak) a3R; (26) B1L a2R (tak); (27) B3L
b4L (tak); (28) A3R b3L; (29) B2L b1L; (30) B7R -(a) resigns.
Othman (A)- Shamte (a) 14-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5L; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 5R 3R; (4) 3R (tak) 5L; (5) 6L 7>; (6) 5L 3R;
(7) 5R 8; (8) 5L 8; (9) 8L (tak) 3R; (10) 4L 8; (11) 4R 6L (tak); (12) 5R> 3R; (13)
3R 3L; (14) 7 1; (15) 3R 1; (16) 7 4L (tak); (17) 7 3R; (18) 7 4R; (19) 3L 4R;
(20) 2 5R; (21) 6L 2; (22) 6R 6L;
(23) A2R (Both Othman and Shamte start laughing when Shamte's blunder becomes
obvious.) b4R; (24) A7L b2R (tak); (25) A8L b8L (tak); (26) A7L b3R (tak); (27)
A1R a7L (tak); (28) A3L ... Bao hamna! (A) wins.
Abdallah (A)- Shamte (a) 14-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5L; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 5L 3R; (4) 1 5R; (5) 2> 5R>; (6) 6L 1; (7) 5L
6R; (8) 6R 1; (9) 2 4L; (10) 6L 6R; (11) 1 7; (12) 6L 8; (13) 6L 4L; (14) 6R 2;
(15) 8 2; (16) 5R 2; (17) 6R 6L; (18) 8 2; (19) 4R 1; (20) 6R 1; (21) 6L 7; (22)
3L 7;
(23) B8R a8L; (24) (A) resigns.
Shamte (A)- Abdallah (a) 14-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) a5R; (2) 6L (tak) 6R; (3) 4R 4L; (4) 2 4L; (5) 4R 3L; (6) 7 6L;
(7)4R 7; (8) 4R 6L; (9) 6R 6R; (10) 4L 4L; (11) 7 1; (12) 4L 3R; (13) 3L 5R; (14)
2 6R; (15) 5L 6R; (16) 6R 8; (17) 6R 4L; (18) 4L 6L; (19) 6R 1; (20) 4L 7; (21)
5R 3R; (22) 2 3R;
(23) B1L b8R; (24) A7L (tak) a7L; (25) A5L (tak) a4R; (26) B6R a3R (tak); (27)
B8R a6R; (28) (A) resigns.
Abdallah (A)- Kijumbe (a) 14-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5L; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 5L 3R; (4) 1 5R; (5) ~> 3R; (6) 3L 8>; (7) 3L 2;
r:
II (8) 3L 2; (9) 4L 3L; (10) 2 4L; (11) 6R 4L; (12) 4L 7; (13) 6R 2; (14) 6L 1; (15)
II.
i 5R 3L; (16) 5R 3L; (17) 5R 6R; (18) 4L 4R; (19) 6R 6R; (20) 2 (Thinking time
''
! .
143
more than 5 minutes here.) 2; (21) 2 4R (This move takes more than 4 rounds); (22)
7 4R;
(23) A3R b2L; (24) B8R a4L (tak); (25) A8L b1L; (26) B5L b7R; (27) A5L (tak)
a4R; (28) A7L (tak) a5L; (29) B1L b1L; (30) A3L b7R; (31) A6L a6R; (32) A1R
(Thinking time about 5 minutes.) b4R; (33) A2R b6R; (34) A4R (tak) a6L; (35)
B7R (Thinking time about 4 minutes) a6R; (36) A7L b2L; (37) A5L b1L; (38) B1L
b7R; (39) B2L a4L; (40) A1R b8R; (41) A4L a2R; (42) B4L (tak) a3R; (43) B1L
b4L; (44) A1R a3R; (45) A2L (tak) b7R; (46) A7L (tak) b3L; (47) A6L a7L; (48)
A4R (tak) b8R (In this move, Kijumbe makes a mistake in his back row. He skips
b4 when spreading seeds, which makes the move end in a8 instead of b8. Since he
'corrected' himself at that point, he either corrected himself wrongly, or he made a
miscalculation and thought the move had to end at a8. The influence of the mistake
is more significant than mistakes encountered in other matches.) (49) B8R a6L; (50)
A5R a8L (This move would have been a takasa move had his previous mistake not
been made.) (51) A 7L b1R; (52) (A) resigns.
51 moves (102 single-moves), 1 hour 13 minutes 30 seconds.
Day five
Abdu (A)- Nasoro (a) 15-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) a5R; (2) 6L 5R; (3) 2 6L; (4) 1 5R; (5) 3R 1; (6) 5R 3L; (7) 7 3L;
(8) 2R (tak) 5L; (9) 5R 3R; (10) 3L 3R (tak); (11) 3L 4R; (12) 8 6R; (13) 2 8; (14)
4L 1; (15) 4L' 2; (16) 5R 6R; (17) 4R 6L; (18) 6L 7; (19) 7 5L ... Bao hamna! (a)
wins.
Nasoro (A)- Abdu (a) 15-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5R; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 8 7L (tak); (4) 5L 6L; (5) 1 5L; (6) 3L 3L; (7) II 1
5R 5L; (8) 3R 2; (9) 6L (tak) 5L; (10) 3R (tak) 5R; (11) 1 5R; (12) 6L 8>; (13) !I
3L> 1; (14) 5R 5L; (15) 3R 5L; (16) 8 5R; (17) 5L 2; (18) 5R 8 (In this move I,
Abdu passes b1 and b2, but the seed in b1 enters into b2, b2 got therefore two seeds ,,it
and b1 zero); (19) 8 2; (20) 8 6R; (21) 4R 2; (22) 6R 8; ,,
!~
(23) A4R a7L; (24) A5L (tak) b2L (This is the first effect of the error in move 18, I]!'
b2 reaches a3 and creates another mtaji in b1, played in the next move); (25) B7R
b1L (see move 24); (26) B6R a2R; (27) B8R b3L; (28) B2L a2L (tak); (29) A3R :f
b6R; (30) A7R (This move is an illegal move, since A7 has one seed to many in
order to capture anything. Capturing is possible with another move and, therefore, :I
obligatory. Just before Nasoro finished spreading the seeds from A7, Abdu il
resigned, assuming it to be a capture. Nasoro skillfully fumbled the remaining seeds
in his hand, therefore, the swindle was never discovered. The video recorded the
number of seeds in A7. Both Abdu and Nasoro failed to check the number, Nasoro
just assumed it to be 14 or less, i.e. a capturing move. Although the outcome of the
game would hardly have been changed- B3L would have had an equally disastrous
outcome- it is still interesting to win a game with a fip.al illegal move.)- (a) resigns.

144
Omar (A)- Abdu (a) 15-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) a5R; (2) 6L (tak) 5R; (3) 2 6L; (4) 1 5R; (5) 3R 1; (6) 5R 3L; (7) 8>
2; (8) 1 5L; (9) 3R 7; (10) 3L 8; (11) 3L 1; (12) (Omar first played lR (tak),
however, takasa of a singleton is not allowed when your house is gone. Abdu
protested and the move was returned.) 3R (tak) 2; (13) 5R 3R; (14) 3R 3R; (15) 1
3R; (16) 7 3R; (17) 3R 3R; (18) 1 3L; (19) 8 3L; (20) 7 3R; (21) 1 3L; (22) 8 3R;
(22) A2R ... Bao hamna! (A) wins.
Abdu (A)- Omar (a) 15-10-94

1:
(1) A6L (tak) a5L; (2) 3L 7; (3) 1 5R; (4) 2 8; (5) 8 7; (6) 5R 7R (tak); (7) 7L
(tak) 8R (tak); (8) 8L (tak) 5R; (9)7L (tak) 8R (tak); (10) 6R (tak) 5R (tak); (11) 2
II 6R; (12) 1 5R; (13) 3R 8L (tak); (14) 3R> 7; (15) 5L 6R; (16) 5L 8; (17) 5R 6L;
I!
II (18) 7 1; (19) 5L 2; (20) 5R 1; (21) 5L 6R; (22) 4R 7;
i
(23) A5R (tak) a7L (tak); (24) A2R b4L; (25) A4R b3L; (26) A3L a6L; (27) B7L
a1R; (28) B2R (tak) b5R; (29) B3L (tak) a2R; (30) B5L b6R; (31) B6L (tak) b8R;
(32) B2L a4L; (33) B8R a1R; (34) A3R a8L (tak); (35) A5L b3L; (36) (A) resigns.
Abdallah (A)- Majaliwa (a) 15-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5L; (2) 3R 5R; (3) 8 7L (tak); (4) 5R 6R; (5) 7L (tak) 7L (tak); (6)
6L (tak) 6R; (7) 2 8; (8) 2 6R (tak); (9) 2 5L; (10) 8> 5R; (11) 1 5R; (12) 3L (tak)
8>; (13) 2 6R; (14) 5L 2; (15) 5R 8; (16) 5L 2; (17) 2 6L; (18) 5L 3L; (19) 3R 5L;
(20) 2 5R; (21) 6R 1; (22) 6R 4R;
(23) B3L b8R; (24) BlL b4L; (25) (A) resigns.
Majaliwa (A)- Abdallah (a) 15-10-94

(1) A7R (tak) a6R (tak); (2) 6R (tak) 8L (tak); (3) 8R (tak) 6R (tak); (4) 7R (tak)
8L (tak); (5) 8R (tak) 7R (tak); (6) 5R (tak) 8R (tak); (7) 6R (tak) 6R (tak); (8) 8R
(tak) 8L (tak); (9) 7R (tak) 6R (tak); (10) 1 5R; (11) 2 5R>; (12) 5R> 7; (13) 6L
6L; (14) 4R 4L; (15) 6R 7; (16) 5R 6L; (17) 1 7; (18) 3R 4R; (19) 6R 4L; (20)4R
4L; (21) 2 4L (tak); (22) 6L 2;
(23) A6R b2L; (24) A3L a1L(23) (24) (25) (26); (25) AlR a4R; (26) B3L ... Bao
hamna! (A) wins.
I. J 26 moves (51 single-moves), 24 minutes 15 seconds.

,, i'
'!·
! i '
II,
!! ' Majaliwa (A)- Maulidi (a) 15-10-94
li,; (1) A7R (tak) a6R (tak); (2) 6R (tak) 7L (tak); (3) 5L R; (4) 8R (tak) 7R (tak); (5)
'I:Il. l 7R (tak) 6R (tak); (6) 8R (tak) 7L (tak); (7) 5R (tak) 3R; (8) 7R (tak) 6R (tak); (9)
._1 I
+
l
145
8L (tak) 3R (tak); (10) 7R (tak) 6R (tak); (11) 8L (tak) 3R (tak); (12) 7R (tak) 7R
(tak); (13) 8R (tak) 8; (14) 5L 7; (15) 1 7; (16) 4L 8; (17) 4L 6L; (18) 5R 7R
(tak); (19) 1 7; (20) 8 2; (21) 4L 1; (22) 5R 1;
(23) A5L (tak) a5L; (24) B6R b6R; (25) B8R b8L; (26) A6L (tak) a4R; (27) A3L
b1L; (28) B1L b2L; (29) A2R (tak) b3L; (30) (A) resigns.
Maulidi (A)- Majaliwa (a) 15-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) a5L; (2) 6L (tak) 5L; (3) 3L 5R; (4) 1 5R; (5) 3R (tak) 5L; (6) 7 3R;
(7) 2 8; (8) 5R 7; (9) 5L 8>; (10) 7 3L; (11) 8 3L; (12) 7R (tak) 1; (13) 5R 3L
(tak); (14) 5L 5R (tak); (15) 1 7; (16) 3L 8; (17) 3L 5R; (18) 1 5R; (19) 2 8; (20)
2 8; (21) 5R> 3R; (22) 3L 7;
(23) A3L b3L; (24) B8R b8L (tak); (25) B1L b1L; (26) A3R a2R; (27) A5L a5R
(tak); (28) A5L - (a) resigns.
Kijumbe (A)- Abdallah (a) 15-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) a5R; (2) 6L (tak) 6R; (3) 5R 5R; (4) 2 8>; (5) 5R 3L; (6) 7 1; (7) 5L
3L; (8) 3R 1; (9) 5R 7; (10) 3L 3R; (11) 2 3R; (12) 7 6R; (13) 2 6R; (14) 2L (tak)
6R; (15) 7 5R; (16) 2 3R; (17) 5L 7; (18) 5R 3R; (19) 5L 2; (20) 5R 1; (21) 5R 8;
(22) 8L (tak) 3L;
(23) ASR (tak) a2R; (24) A8L (tak) b2L; (25) B4L (tak) b7R; (26) B3R b6L; (27)
B7R (tak) a7L; (28) B5R a6L; (29) A5R (tak) b2L; (30) B6R (tak) a8L; (31) B7R
b5L; (32) B8L (tak) a2R (tak); (33) B4L (tak) a8L (tak); (34) (A) resigns.
Ramadhan (A)- Rajab (a) 15-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) a5R; (2) 6L (tak) 5R; (3) 2 6R; (4) 2 6R (tak); (5) 2 5R; (6) 2R (tak)
5R; (7) 3R 5R; (8) 7L (tak) 5R; (9) 3L 7R (tak); (10) 1 5R; (11) 6R (tak) 8R (tak);
(12) 7R 5L (tak); (13) 5R> 5L; (14) 6R 5L (tak); (15) 6L 5R; (16) 5L 5L; (17) 8
5R; (18) 1 5R; (19) 7R (tak) 8L (tak); (20) 3L 7; (21) 3L 5R; (22) 6R 5R>;
(23) B1L a1R; (24) B8R a2R; (25) A6R b2L; (26) B6L a3L; (27) B1L a3R; (28)
A1R B1L; (29) A3L a2L; (30) B4L a6L ... Bao hamna! (a) wins.
Rajab (A)- Ramadhan (a) 15-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5L; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 5R 3R; (4) 8L (tak) 2; (5) 6R 1; (6) 5R 3R; (7)
5L 8; (8) 5L 6L; (9) 5R 7R (tak); (10) 1 5R; (11) 3L 3R; (12) 2 8; (13) 2 3R (tak);
(14) 5L 5R; (15) 2 6R; (16) 2 2R (tak); (17) 5L 5R; (18) 3R 5L; (19) 6R 5L; (20) 2
5L; (21) 6R 2>; {22) 6R> 7;
_;;,L__ -_
146
(23) A7L b7R; (24) B8R b5L (tak); (25) B6R b4R (tak); (26) A3R b1L; (27) A3R
a2R; (28) A5R a5L; (29) A6L a4L; (30) B4L b8R; (31) A4R a5R; (32) A6L b7R;
(33) B7R b1L (tak); (34) A3L b8L (tak); (35) B3L - (a) resigns.
Omar (A)- Rajab (a) 15-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) a5R; (2) 6L (tak) 5R; (3) 2 6R; (4) 2 6R; (5) 2 5R; (6) 2R (tak) 5R;
(7) 3R 5R; (8) 7L (tak) 5R; (9) 3L 7R (tak); (10) 1 5R; (11) 3R (tak) 5R; (12) 2 6R
(tak); (13) 2 5R; (14) 7R (tak) 8L (tak); (15) 3R> 5R; (16) 2 5L; (17) 8 5R (tak);
(18) 3R 7; (19) 3R 4L; (20) 7 4L; (21) 3L (tak) 5L; (22) 6R -(a) resigns.
22 moves (41 single-moves), 11 minutes
Rajab (A)- Omar (a) 15-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5R; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 8 7L (tak); (4) 5R 6L; (5) 7 6L (tak); (6) 5R 3R;
(7) 7L (tak) 3R; (8) 3L 8>; (9) 3R 3R; (10) 2 8; (11) 7R (tak) 8R (tak); (12) 8 2;
(13) 4L (tak) 7; (14) 3L (tak) 8; (15) 8> 5L; (16) 5R 2; (17) 2 4R; (18) 2 6R; (19)
1 6R; (20) 2 3R; (21) 3R 3R; (22) 8 3L;
(23) A5L a5L; (24) A3L b8R; (25) A5L -(a) resigns.
Majaliwa (A)- Kijumbe (a) 15-10-94

(1) A7R (tak) a6R (tak); (2) 6R (tak) 8L (tak); (3) 8R (tak) 6R (tak); (4) 7R (tak)
8L (tak); (5) 8R (tak) 6R (tak); (6) 5R (tak) 8L (tak); (7) 7R (tak) 7R (tak); (8) 6R
(tak) 8; (9) 2 6R (tak); (10) 2 5R; (11) 7 1; (12) 5R 2>; (13) 3R 3L; (14) 8> 3R;
(15) 2 5L; (16) 7 4L; (17) 6L 4L; (18) 7 3L; (19) 4L 4L; (20) 6L 4L; (21) 6R 7;
(22) 1 5R;
(23) B2L - (A) resigns (B8R is hamna)
Kijumbe (A)- Majaliwa (a) 15-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) a5R; (2) 6L (tak) 5L; (3) 3R 7; (4) 3L 1; (5) 5R 2; (6) 8 3R; (7) 1
5R; (8) 7 5L; (9) 6L 5R; (10) 8> 7; (11) 6L 6L; (12) 6L 5R; (13) 7 5L; (14) 6R 1;
(15) 2 5R; (16) 1 5R; (17) 3R (tak) 5L; (18) 7 5L; (19) 2R (tak) 5L; (20) 7 5L;
(21) 3R 3R; (22) 5R 5L;
(23) A3R - (a) resigns (b8R is a forced move which followed by A6L allows the
opponent to capture the house of 27 seeds which results in Bao hamna.)

147
Day six
Nasoro (A)- Othman (a) 16-10-94

(1) A6L a5R; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 8 7L (tak); (4) 5L 6L; (5) 1 5L; (6) 3L 5R; (7) 1 5R;
(8) 7 5R; (9) 3R 7; (10) 6R (tak) 8L (tak); (11) 3L 7R (tak); (12) 1 5L; (13) 8 5R;
(14) 2R (tak) 5R; (15) 3L 7R (tak); (16) 1 5R; (17) 2R (tak) 5R; (18) 3R 7L (tak);
(19) 3R 5R; (20) 7R (tak) 8L (tak); (21) 3R 7R (tak); (22) 7L (tak) 8R (tak);
(23) A5R (tak) a5R (tak); (24) A4R b3L; (25) A2R blL (tak) (26) B3R ... Bao
hamna! (A) wins.
Othman (A)- Nasoro (a) 16-10-94

(1) A6L a5L; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 5R 3R; (4) 3R (tak) 5L; (5) 6L 7>; (6) 5L 3R; (7) 5R
3R; (8) 5R 6L; (9) 7 1; (10) 5L 3R; (11) 7 8; (12) 4R 3L; (13) 4R (tak) 3R; (14) 8
3R; (15) 5R 2; (16) 5R 7R (tak); (17) 8R (tak) 2L (tak); (18) 5L (tak) 5L; (19) 5R
r.: 1 (20) 5L 5L (tak); (21) 8 8; (22) 5R 6R;
):·/ B8R a5L; (24) ASL (tak) a3R; (25) A6L (tak) b6R; (26) B3L a6L; (27) B7R
b7R; (28) A6L (tak) a6L; (29) B6R a3R; (30) B2L b2L; (31) A2R (tak) blL; (32)
BlR b8R; (33) A4R a6R (tak); (34) B7R b3L; (35) B6R a6L; (36) A8L b7R; (37)
A7L a2L (tak); (38) B4L alR (tak); (39) B8R (Othman makes an error, in the last
phase of his move he drops two seeds in B5 and arrives in B6 continuing to B8)
b3L; (40) A3R (tak) b2L; (41) B5R blL; (42) B2R (tak) (In this move the
consequences of the error in move 39 are visible for the first time) a7L; (43)B6R
a6L (tak) (This move without capture continues for four rounds); (44) A6R b8R;
(45) A6R (tak) b3L; (46) A7R (tak), a3R; (47) B7R b2L; (48) B8L (tak) a3R (tak);
(49) B2L b5R; (50) B4R (tak) b8R ... Bao hamna! (a) wins.
Othman (A)- Rajab (a) 16-10-94

(1) A6L a5L; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 5R 3R; (4) 3R (tak) 5L; (5) 6L 8; (6) 8 7; (7) 7 7R
(tak); (8) 7R (tak) 6R (tak); (9) 8R (tak) 7R (tak); (10) 6R (tak) 8L (tak); (11) 7R
(tak) 6R (tak); (12) 8L (tak) 7R (tak); (13) 6R (tak) 8L (tak); (14) 7R (tak) 7R
(tak); (15) 1 5R; (16) 3R> 8; (17) 3L 8>; (18) 3L 2; (19) 1 5L; (20) 3R 1; (21) 3L
4L; (22) 7 5L;
(23) B2L b3L; (24) B6L a5L (tak); (25) A4L alR; (26) B5R blL; (27) BlL b3L;
(28) A2R (tak) b2L; (29) B3L b4R; (30) B6R b7R; (31) A4R (tak) a7R; (32) BlL
a3R; (33) AlL (tak) a6L; (34) B7R (takasia) a7L (tak); (35) A8L b6R; (36) A6L
(tak) b2L; (37) (A) resigns.
Rajab (A)- Othman (a) 16-10-94

(1) A6L a5R; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 8 7L (tak); (4) 5L 3L; (5) 1 5L; (6) 3L 5R; (7) 7 8;
(8) 3R 7L (tak); (9) 3L 8>; (10) 5L 3R; (11) 3R 2; (12) 3R 5L; (13) 7 3R; (14) 3R
148
3L (tak); (15) 3L 1; (16) 3R 2; (17) 1 5R; (18) 8 8; (19) 3L 8; (20) 8 4L; (21) 4R
4L; (22) 3R 4R;
(23) B2L b3L; (24) (A) resigns.
Maulidi (A)- Ramadhan (a) 16-10-94

(1) A7L a5R; (2) 6L 5R; (3) 2 3L; (4) 1 5R; (5) 3R 1; (6)5R 3L; (7) 8> 2; (8) 1
5R; (9) 2R (tak) 5L; (10) 7 3L; (11) 4L 4L; (12) 6R 1; (13) 7 3R; (14) 2 3L; (15)
4L 7; (16) 7 7; (17) 4R (This move takes several laps, both Ramadhan and Maulidi
did not foresee a direct win until Maulidi was halfway through the move) ... Bao
hamna! (A) wins.
Rajab (A)- Abdallah (a) 16-10-94 ,

(1) A6L 5R; (2) 3R 5R; (3) 3L 7R (tak); (4) 1 5L; (5) 8 5L (tak); (6) 5L 3R; (7) ~;
5L; (8) 2R (takO 3L; (9) 4L 4R; (10) 7 1; (11) 3L 4L; (12) 3L 3R; (13) 1 3L; (14)
7 1; (15) 3R 7; (16) 3L 8; (17) 3L 1; (18) 2 4R; (19) 4R 2R (tak); (20) 4R 3R;
(21) 3L 5L; (22) 3R 2;
(23) A3L (tak) a5L; (24) A3R a3R; (25) B8R a6L; (26) B7R b7R; (27) A8L b6R;
(28) A5L (tak) a7L; (29) A6L a7L; (30) (A) resigns.
Abdallah (A)- Rajab (a) 16-10-94

(1) A6L a5L; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 5L 3L; (4) 1R (tak) 3L; (5) 4L 4R; (6) 3L (tak) 4R;
(7) 3L 4L; (8) 6R 1; (9) 7 3R; (10) 8 8; (11) 8 3L; (12) 4L 4R; (13) 2 3L; (14) 4R
7; (15) 3R 4L; (16) 2 1; (17) 6L 4R; (18) 2 6R; (19) 4L 7; (20) 4L 7; (21) 1 4L;
(22) 4L 4R;
(23) A4R (tak) a4L; (24) A5R b4R; (25) B4L b1L; (26) B8R b6R; (27) (Abdallah
points at A1R ... Bao hamna!) (a) resigns.
Abdu (A) - Kijumbe (a) 16-10-94

(1) A6L a5L; (2) 3L 7; (3) 1 5R; (4) 2 5R; (5) 8 7; (6) 5R 8L (tak); (7) 7L (tak)
7R (tak); (8) 8R (tak) 6R (tak); (9) 6R (tak) 7R (tak); (10) 8L (tak) 8L (tak); (11) 6R
(tak) 6R (tak); (12) 8R (tak) 7R (tak); (13) 7R (tak) 8L (tak); (14) 8R (tak) 6R
(tak); (15) 5R (tak) 8L (tak); (16) 6R (tak) 6R (tak); (17) 7L (tak) 5R: (18) 8R (tak)
7R (tak); (19) 6R (tak) 2; (20) 5L 8>; (21) 5R 1; (22) 5R 3R (tak);
(23) A5L (tak) b7R; (24) B1L b8R; (25) A3R (tak) b2L; (26) B8L (tak) a3R; (27)
B2L (tak) a6R; (28) B1L b8R ... Bao hamna! (a) wins.

149
Kijumbe (A)- Abdu (a) 16-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) a5R; (2) 6L SR; (3) 2 6L; (4) 1 SR; (5) 3R 1; (6) SR 3L; (7) 7 3L;
(8) 2R (tak) SL; (9) SR 3R; (10) 3L 3R (tak); (11) 3L 4R; (12) 4R 6R; (13) SR 3L;
(14) 4R 2; (15) SL SR; (16) SL 6R; (17) 2 3R; (18) SR 3R; (19) 4R 8; (20) 3L 8;
(21) SR 6L; (22) 6L 4L;
(23) B1L a4R; (24) A3R b2L; (25) ASL a4R; (26) B7R a6L; (27) A8L b3L (This is
the move that Abdu had not foreseen. He thought he could takasa. Therefore,
Kijumbe, suddenly, escapes his trap and Abdu is trapped himself); (28) A7L bSR;
(29) A4R b1L; (30) B1L aSL (tak); (31) B2L a4R (tak); (32) A8R a8L (tak); (33)
B1L b6R (tak); (34) A8L b2R; (35) A7L b8R; (36) B3L -(a) resigns.
Ramadhan (A)- Shamte (a) 16-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) a5R; (2) 6L (tak) SR; (3) 2 6L; (4) 1 SR; (5) 3R 1; (6) 5R 3L; (7) 7
3L; (8) 2R (tak) SL; (9) SR 3R; (10) 3L 3R (tak); (11) 3L 4R; (12) 4R 6L; (13) SL
1; (14) 7 1; (15) 3R 3L; (16) 3R 4L; (17) 4R 2; (18) 6R 4L; (19) 7 7; (20) 3R 4L;
(21) 4R 1; (22) 4L 6R;
(23) A6L a3R; (24) A4R b2L; (25) B3R a3R; (26) B8R a7L; (27) (A) resigns.
Shamte (A)- Ramadhan (a) 16-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) aSL; (2) 3L 7; (3) 1 SR; (4) 2 8; (5) 8 7; (6) SR 8L (tak); (7) 7L
(tak) 7R (tak); (8) 6R (tak) 6R (tak); (9) 8L (tak) 7R (tak); (10) 6R (tak) 8R (tak);
(11) 8R (tak) SR (tak); (12) 7L (tak) SR; (13) 3R 8L (tak); (14) 3L 7R (tak); (15) 1
SL; (16) 8> SR; (17) 1 SR; (18) 6L (tak) 8>; (19) SR 6L; (20) 8 2; (21) 6R 6L;
(22) 7 7;
(23) B6R b7R; (24) A7L b8R; (25) ASL a6L; (26) B1L b1L; (27) A4L b6R; (28)
B7R b3L; (29) A7L b2L; (30) B8R a4L; (31) ASR (tak) a2L; (32) (A) resigns.
Day seven
Othman (A)- Maulidi (a) 17-10-94

(1) A6L aSR; (2) 3R SR; (3) 3L 7L (tak); (4) SR 6L; (5) 7> SL; (6) 6R 6R; (7) 1
SL; (8) 6L 6R; (9) SR 8>; (10) 6R 7; (11) SL 2; (12) 6R 2; (13) 8 6L; (14) 4R 8;
(15) 7 6L; (16) 2 2; (17) 6R 1; (18) 6R 6L; (19) 8 2; (20) 8 6L; (21) 6R SL; (22)
6R 7;
(23) A8L aSL (tak); (24) ASR a6R; (25) (A) resigns.
t1
150
Maulidi (A)- Othman (a) 17-10-94

(1) A7L 5R; (2) 6L 5R; (3) 2 6R>; (4) 5R 7; (5) 5R 2; (6) 8 3L; (7) 4R 2; (8) 5L
8; (9) 3R 5R; (10) 8 6R; (11) 6L 5R; (12) 5R 5R; (13) 2> 5R; (14) 3R 8; (15) 2
5R; (16) 5R 3L; (17) 5L 6L; (18) 5L 6L; (19) 7 1; (20) 5R 2; (21) 5L 6R; (22) 5R
(tak) 6R;
(23) B1L b2L; (24) B2L b4L; (25) B8R ... Bao hamna! (A) wins.
Abdallah(A)- Nasoro (a) 17-10-94

(1) A6L 5L; (2) 3R 5L; (3)5L 3R; (4) 1 5R; (5) 2> 3R; (6) 3L 8>; (7) 3L 1; (8) 3L
2; (9) 5L 3R; (10) 2 8; (11) 3L 1; (12) 2 4L; (13) 4L 3L; (14) 3L 2; (15) 4L 7; (16)
3L 7; (17) 1 3L; (18) 7 3R; (19) 5R 3R; (20) 3R ... Bao hamna! (A) wins.
Nasoro (A)- Abdallah (a) 17-10-94

(1) A6L 5R; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 8 7L (tak); (4) 5L 8>; (5) 3R 3R; (6) 3L 8; (7) 3R 3L;
(8) 7R (tak) 1; (9) 5R 3R (tak); (10) 5L 6R; (It should be noted that these 10 moves
were completed in the record time of 31 seconds, with players playing almost
simultaneously.) (11) 5R 2; (12) 1 7; (13) 1 2; (14) 5L 6L; (15) 2 3L; (16) 5R 5L;
(17) 5L> 5L; (18) 6L 4L; (19) 6R 4R; (20) 3R 4R; (21) 7 3L; (22) 7 7;
(23) A7L b7R (tak); (24) B6R b4L (tak); (25) A7L b5R; (26) B1L b6R (tak); (27)
A6R b1L; (28) B3L a3R; (29) B5R -(a) resigns.
29 moves (57 single-moves). 35 minutes 25 seconds.
Shamte (A)- Abdu (a) 17-10-94

(1) A6L 5R; (2) 3L 7>; (3)5R 1; (4) 7 7; (5) 4R (tak) 7R (tak); (6) 8> 8; (7) 2 5R;
(8) 3L 5R; (9) 2L (tak) 5R; (10) 5L 7; (11) 5L 7R (tak); (12) 1 5R; (13) 3R 3L;
(14) 3L (tak) 1; (15) 5R 8; (16) 5R 3R; (17) 3R 8; (18) 3L 2; (19) 4R 2; (20) 5R
7; (21) 3L 3L; (22) 5L 7;
(23) B3L b8R; (24) B8R a7L (tak); (25) A6L b2L; (26) A2R a3R (tak); (27) A1R
a2R (Result of excellent play!) (28) A3R (tak) a6L; (29) B7R a2R; (30) A8L b7R;
(31) B6R a3R (tak); (32) B4R a8L (tak); (33) B7R a5R; (34) A5L (tak) b6R; (35)
A3R (tak) a7L; (36) B1L b4R ... Bao hamna! (a) wins.

j i
Abdu (A)- Shamte (a) 17-10-94

(1) A6L a5L; (2) 3L 7; (3) 1 5R; (4) 2 5R>; (5) 5L 3R; (6) 8 7; (7) 5L 7; (8) 7 3R;
(9) 4R 7L (tak); (10) 7 3L; (11) 8> 3R; (12) 4R 6R; (13) 4R 8; (14) 6R 5L; (15) 7
4L; (16) 7R (tak) 6R; (17) 2 6L; (18) 6R 1; (19) 6R 5L; (20) 6R 4R; (21) 6L 8;
(22) 6R 2; ..: !
~ I
I
151
(23) A6L (tak) a6R; (24) B1L a6L; (25) A3R (tak) b1L; (26) B7R a2R; (27) A5L
b6R; (28) B3L b8R; (29) B5L (tak) - Shamte points to B4R (= Bao hamna) and
Abdu (A) resigns.
Omar (A)- Kijumbe (a) 17-10-94

(1) A 7L a5R; (2) 6L 5R; (3) 2 6L; (4) 1 5R; (5) 3R 1; (6) 5R 3L; (7)7 3L; (8) 2R
(tak) 5L; (9) 5R 3R; (10) 3L 3R (tak) (11) 3L 4R; (12) 4R 2; (13) 6L 4R; (14) 3L
4L; (15) 6R 1; (16) 6R 5R; (17) 8 3L; (18) 8 4L; (19) 4R 3R; (20) 4R 3L; (21) 5L
7; (22) 5L 5L;
(23) A6L b2L; (24) B1L a2R; (25) A2R a4R; (26) B8R a6L (tak) (27) B7R a5L;
(28) A3L a3R (tak); (29) B5L b4L (tak); (30) A6R b1R; (31) A7L b7R; (32) A6L
b8L (tak); (33) B1L b5R (tak); (34) A7R (tak)- (a) resigns.
Kijumbe (A)- Omar (a) 17-10-94

(1) A7L a5R; (2) 6L 5R; (3) 2 6L; (4) 1 5R; (5) 3R 1; (6) 5R 3L; (7) 7 3L; (8) 2R
(tak) 3L; (9) 5R 5R; (10) 3L 3R (tak); (11) 3L 4R; (12) 4R 4L; (13) 3L 7; (14) 3R
3R; (15) 4L 6L; (16) 4R 2; (17) 5R 1; (18) 5L 6L; (19) (Kijumbe was thinking for
more than six minutes here ... ) 6L 8; (20) 3L 5R; (21) 2 3L; (22) 2 3L;
(23) B6R a3L (tak) (This moves attacks two kimbi holes at the same time, a fork
attack); (24) A7R (One kimbi is played) b7R (The other is captured); (25) B2L a2R;
(26) B8R a4L (tak); (27) B7R b 1L (The back row is practically depleted now); (28)
B5R - (b5L would give the possibility of capture with help of the takasia rule, but
apparently not enough) (a) resigns.
Ramadhan (A)- Kij"Qmbe (a) 17-10-94

(1) A7L a5R; (2) 6L 5R; (3) 2 6L; (4) 1 5R; (5) 3R 1; (6) 5R 3L; (7) 7 3L; (8) 2R
(tak) 5L; (9) 5R 3R; (10) 3L 3R (tak); (11) 3L 4R; (12) 4R 2; (13) 5R 6L; (14) 4L
1; (15) 4R 2; (16) 4R 6L; (17) 4R 3R; (18) 4R 4L; (19) 8 4R; (20) 6L 4L; (21) 3L
1; (22) 6L 7;
(23) A7L b8R; (24) A6L a7L (tak); (25) A5R b2L; (26) A4L (tak) b6R; (27) B6R
a7L; (28) A8L (tak) a8L; (29) B2L b1L; (30) B4L b8R; (31) B7R a7L; (32) A4R
(tak) b3L; (33) B3R (tak) a7L; (34) B6R (takasia) a6R (tak) (Takasia means that
the opponent has to takasa but is not allowed to empty a certain hole, c.q. a2. Since
a6R reaches this hole, this move ends/sleeps at a2); (35) B7R b8R; (36) A7R
(takasia) (At this moment Kijumbe started to laugh, since this takasia move came
about just by luck, even Ramadhan smiled when he understood the situation.) a4R
(tak) (As in move 36, this move ends on a1 which is takasia-ed.); (37) B7R a6L;
!
(38) A8L b6L; (39) A5R b3L; (40) B5R a2R (tak); (41) A4R b5R; (42) B8R a7R;
(43) A7L b4L; (44) A5L a8L; (45) (A) resigns (B2L is a forced move, followed by
b8R is Bao hamna.)

152
Abdallah (A)- Maulidi (a) 17-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5L; (2) 3R 5R; (3) 8 7L(tak); (4) 5R 6L; (5) 7 8L (tak); (6) 5L 3L;
(7) 7 4L; (8) 7 6L; (9) 4R 1; (10) 2 3L; (11) 2 2; (12) 4L 3L; (13) 4L 4L; (14) 3R
3L; (15) 7 4L; (16) 6L 5L; (17) 6L 7; (18) 5R 2; (19) 3R 7; (20) 7 5L; (21) 3R 3L;
(22) 2 4L;
(23) A4R a2R (tak); (24) A5L b2L; (25) A8L a4L; (26) A5L b1L; (27) A3R (tak)
b6R; (28) B8R a1R; (29) B6R a7R; (30) (A) resigns.
Maulidi (A)- Abdallah (a) 17-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) a5R; (2) 6L (tak) 6R; (3) 4L 4L; (4) 2 4L; (5) 3L 3R; (6) 1 3R; (7) 7
3L; (8) 8 3R; (9) 3L 7; (10) 3L 7; (11) 7 4R; (12) 3L 2; (13) 4L 6L; (14) 5L 2;
(15) 1 4L; (16) 2 4L; (17) 7 6L; (18) 6L 6R; (19) 7 6R; (20) 6L 2; (21) 6L 5R;
(22) 3R 7;
(23) A6R b7L (tak); (24) BSR- (a) resigns.
Day eight
Kijumbe (A)- Ramadhan (a) 18-10-94

(1) A7L a5R; (2) 6L 5R; (3) 2 6L; (4) 1 5R; (5) 3R 1; (6) 5R 3L; (7) 7 3L; (8)
2R (tak) 3L; (9) 5R 5R; (10) 3L 3R (tak); (11) 3L 4R; (12) 4R 2; (13) 4R 6L;
' (14) 6L 2; (15) 6R 1; (16) 6L 5R; (17) 5L 5L; (18) 6R 6L; (Kijumbe was
thinking for almost four minutes here.) (19) 7 7; (20) 42 6R; (21) 7 5L; (22) 2
4L;
(23) B8R b3L; (24) B7R a4R; (25) A7L b5L; (26) B8R b4L; (27) A6L (tak)
b3L; (28) A4L b1L; (29) A5R (tak) a5L; (30) BSR a6L; (31) B6R b6R; (32)
A7L b8R; (33) B4L b2L; (34) A7L a2R; (35) A8L a6L; (36) A3L b1L; (37)
A4L b2L; (38) A3R a1R; (39) A6L a3L; (40) A2R b1L; (41) A2R a2R; (42)
A5R a4R; (43) B3L b5R; (44) A4L -(a) resigns.
-.:::_-!
44 moves (87 single-moves), 49 minutes 10 seconds. One single-move per 1

minute 5 seconds.
Rajab (A)- Maulidi (a) 18-10-94

(1) A6L a5L; (2) 3L 7; (3) 1 5R; (4)2 5L; (5) 5R 3R; (6) 2 3R (tak); (7) 2 5R; (8)
5R 2; (9) 2L (tak) 8>; (10) 5L 3R; (11) 3R 1; (12) 5R 6L; (13) 5R 2R (tak); (14)
5R 3R; (15) 5R 2; (16) 8> 3L; (17) 5R 2; (18) 5R 7; (19) 1 6R; (20) 4L 6R; (21)
6L 7; (22) 3L 7 (= utitiri as defence);
li (23) B8R b8R; (24) A5L (tak) a8L; (25) A1R -(a) resigns.

153
Maulidi (A)- Rajab (a) 18-10-94

(1) A7L a5R; (2) 6L 6R; (3) 4L 4R; (4) 2 4R; (5) 6L 6R; (6) 4L 6L; (7) 5L 2;
(8) 6R 4L; (9) 6R 1; (10) 6L 7; (11) 3L 7; (12) 1 4R; (13) 7 4R; (14) 2 8;
(15) 3L 5L; (16) 8 4L; (17) 2 5L; (18) 6R 7; (19) 6L 6R; (20) 2 6R; (21) 6R
4R; (22) 4R 6R;
(23) B2L a6L (tak); (24) B5L b2L; (25) A6R - (a) resigns.
Nasoro (A)- Rajab (a) 18-10-94

(1) A6L a5L; (2) 3R 5R; (3) 8 8L (tak); (4) 3R 7R (tak); (5) 6R (tak) 8L (tak); (6)
3R 7R (tak) (7) 6R (tak) 8L (tak); (8) 3R 7R (tak); (9) 7R (tak) 8L (tak); (10) 3R
5R; (11) 7R (tak) 7L (tak); (12) 3R 8L (tak); (13) 3R 7R (tak); (14) 8R (tak) 8R
(tak); (15) 6R (tak) 5R (tak); (16) 3R 7R (tak); (17) 6R (tak) 8L (tak); (18) 3L 7R
(tak); (19) 1 5R; (20) 2R (tak) 5R; (21) 3L 7R (tak); (22) 1 5R;
(23) A5L (tak) b7R; (24) A7L a4R (tak); (25) A5L a5R (tak); (26) A4L b6R; (27)
B2L b7R; (28) A3R a7L; (29) A7L (This move takes about five rounds to complete
with four captures at the beginning and one after four rounds) a3R (tak); (30) A2R -
(a) resigns.
Rajab (A)- Nasoro (a) 18-10-94

(1) A6L a5L; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 5R 3R; (4) 8L (tak) 2; (5)6R 1; (6)5R 3L; (7)5R 2L
(tak); (8) 8> 7; (9) 3R 3R; (10) 3R 3R; (11)7R (tak) 5L; (12) 6R 5L; (13) 5R 2;
(14) 8 7; (15) 3L 8; (16) 3L 3R>; (17) 3L 2; (18) 4R 6R; (19) 4L 4R; (20) 7 4R;
(21) 6L 5R; (22) 3L 5R;
(23) A5R b7R; (24) B6R blL; (25) B8R b6R; (26) A5R a7R; (27) (A) resigns.
Forced moves imposed by (a) will lead to victory.
Abdu (A)- Othman (a) 18-10-94

(1) A6L a5R; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 8 7L (tak); (4) 5L 6L (5) 1 5L; (6) 3L 5R; (7) 1 3L;
(8) 5R 5R; (9) 3R 2; (10) 6L (tak) 5R; (11) 3L 7; (12) 1 5R; (13) 2> 5R; (14)8 7;
(15) 7 5R; (16) 5R 5L; (17) 2 5R; (18) 3L (tak) (This move takes about four rounds
to complete) 5L; (19) 6R 2; (20) 3L 5R; (21) 6R 4L (22) 8 4L;
(23) A3R (tak) a2R; (24) A2R (tak) a3R; (25) A6L (tak) a2R; (26) A3L - (a)
resigns.
~l
----------------------------------~~
154
Othman (A)- Abdu (a) 18-10-94

(1) A6L a5R; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 8 7L (tak); (4) 5L 6L; (5) 1 5L; (6) 3R 3R (he does
not defend his house); (7) 3R 5L; (8) 6L 5R; (9) 7L (tak) 8L (tak); (10) 3R 7; (11)
3R> 7; (12) 3L 8>; (13) 6L 7; (14) 5R 2; (15) 8 6R; (16) 4L 2; (17) 5L 6R; (18) 2
(This moves was played with an error, in the end B2 has 1, B3 has 4, and B4 has
only 2 seeds) 6L; (19) 6R 6R; (20) 5R 5R; (21) 5L 3R; (22) 3R 8;
(23) B1L b8R; (24) B8R (This move is influenced by the error in move 18, since the
effect is too far ahead we should speak of an unintentional error) b6R; (25) B2L
b2L; (26) A1R alR; (27) B7L b4L; (28) B1L a1R (Abdu makes a calculation
mistake, the opponent captures one seed too many); (29) A3R (If he captured 14
seeds instead, the move would have ended quickly) a2R (tak); (30) A7L b8R; (31)
B8R b4R (tak); (32) B2L b8R; (33) A7L a8L; (34) B6R a6L; (35) B3L b2L; (36)
A3R b1L; (37) BlL (the final blow) b3L; (38) B7R b2L (tak); (39) A6R (tak) -(a)
resigns.
Shamte (A)- Kijumbe (a) 18-10-94

(1) A6L a5L; (2) 3L 7; (3)1 5R; (4) 2 5R>; (5) 5L 7; (6) 5L 5R; (7) 6R 2; (8) 2>
8; (9) 2 2; (10) 6R 1; (11) 2 2; (12) 3R 1; (13) 3L 3R; (14) 4L 3R; (15) 3L 7; (16)
3R 8; (17) 4L 8; (18) 6L 4L; (19) 8 5L; (20) 7 3L; (21) 7 6L; (22) 7 7;
(23) A 7L (tak) a7L (tak); (24) A3R b7R; (25) B7R blL; (26) A3R b3L; (27) A2R
(tak) alL; (28) A4L a3R; (29) BlL ... Bao hamna! (A) wins.
Kijumbe (A) - Shamte (a) 18-10-94

(1) A7L a5R; (2) 6L 5R; (3) 2 6L; (4) 1 5R; (5) 3R 1; (6) 5R 3L; (7) 7 3L; (8) 2R
(tak) 5L; (9) 5R 3R; (10) 3L 3R (tak); (11) 3L 4R; (12) 4R 6L; (13) 4R 6L; (14)
6L 7; (15)1 6R; (16) 2 (?) 6L ... Bao hamna! (a) wins.
Nasoro (A)- Shamte (a) 18-10-94

(1) A6L a5L; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 5L 3R; (4) 1 5R; (5) 2> 5R>; (6) 3L 1; (7) 3R 3L; (8)
8 2; (9) 6R 8; (10) 3L 8; (11) 6R 6R; (12) 6R 2; (13) 6R 2; (14) 8 6R; (15) 2 6R;
(16) 2 8; (17) 2 2; (18) 6L 5L; (19)6R 2L (tak); (20) 8 8; (21) 2 8; (22) 6R 7;
(23) A6L (tak) b3L; (24) B2L a2R; (25) A4L (tak) b6R; (26) B1L a2R; (27) B8R
b8R; (28) B6R b1L; (29) (A) resigns.
Shamte (A)- Nasoro (a) 18-10-94

(1) A6L a5L; (2) 3L 7; (3) 1 5L; (4) 2 5L; (5) 5L 5R; (6)6R 8L (tak); (7) 3L 7>;
(8) 3R 3L; (9) 5R> 7; (10) 4L 8; (11) 4L 2; (12) 4R 3R; (13) 4R 6R; (14) 4L 2;
155
(15) 4L 6R; (16) 1 6R; (17) 6L 2; (18) 4L 6L; (19) 8 2; (20) 8 6R; (21) 1 2; (22)
5R 5R;
(23) B2L b8R; (24) A2L a2R; (25) A4R a5L; (26) B3L b2L; (27) B8R b2L (tak);
(28) B1L b6R; (29) A1R -(a) resigns.
Day nine
Abdallah (A)- Abdu (a) 19-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5R; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 8 7L (tak); (4) 5R 6R; (5) 7L (tak) 7L (tak); (6)
6L (tak) 6R; (7) 2 8>; (8) 8 3R; (9) 2 2; (10) 8> 6L; (11) 1 6R; (12) 8 6L; (13) 7
7; (14) 4L 1; (15) 5R 3R; (16) 1 6R; (17) 7 3R; (18) 8 2; (19) 5R 6R; (20) 6R 5L;
(21) 3L 3L; (22) 3R 7;
(23) A8L a2R ... Bao hamna! (a) wins.
Abdu (A)- Abdallah (a) 19-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5R; (2) 3R 5R; (3) 3R 5R; (4) 7R (tak) 7L (tak); (5) 5L 6L>; (6) 5L
7; (7) 1 6R; (8) 8> 7; (9) 6L 6L; (10) 7 4L; (11) 4L 6R; (12) 5L 6R; (13) 4L 1;
(14) 7 3L; (15) 4R 2; (16) 6R 1; (17) 5L 6R; (18) 2 2; (19) 5R 5R; (20) 5R 6R;
(21) 6R 5R; (22) 3R 7;
(23) B8R a5R (tak); (24) B1L ... Bao hamna! (A) wins.
Maulidi (A)- Omar (a) 19-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5R; (2) 3R 5R; (3) 3R 5R; (4) 7R (tak) 7L (tak); (5) 5L 8; (6) 3R
7R; (7) 8L (tak) 3L; (8) 3R (tak) 3L; (9) 5R 5R; (10) 7 3R; (11) 7L (tak) 5R>; (12)
5R 3L; (13) 5R 2R (tak); (14) 5R 3L; (15) 7R (tak) 1; (16) 5R 7L (tak); (17) 5L 7;
(18) 1 5R; (19) 2 5L; (20) 8 3R; (21) 5R 2; (22) (A) resigns.
Omar (A)- Maulidi (a) 19-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5R; (2) 3R 5R; (3) 3L 7L (tak); (4) 5R 6L; (5) 7> 5L; (6) 3R 5R;
(7) 6L 5L; (8) 7 1; (9) 5R 2>; (10) 5L 7; (11) 5L 5L; (12) 5R 1; (13) 5R 5L (tak);
(14) 5L 6L; (15) 5R 7; (16) 5R (tak) 7; (17) 7 5R; (18) 6R 7; (19) 4L 7; (20) 4L
7R (tak); (21) 1 7; (22) 8 7;
(23) A8L (tak) b8R; (24) B8R b6R ... Bao hamna! (a) wins.

156
Kijumbe (A)- Rajab (a) 19-10-94

(1) A7L (tak) a5R; (2) 6L (tak) 6R; (3) 5R 5R; (4) 2 8; (5) 2 6R; (6) 1 5R; (7) 3R
2; (8) 8 5L; (9) 7 5L; (10) 5R 3L; (11) 8 3R; (12) 2 6R; (13) 2 5R; (14) 3R> 5R>;
(15) 3L 3L; (16) 5R 5L; (17) 7 5R; (18) 2 8; (19) 5L 6L; (20) 5L 2; (21) 5R 2;
(22) 6L 7;
(23) B3L b6R; (24) B7R b2L; (25) BlL alR; (26) B2L a3R (tak); (27) A3R b2L;
(28) A2R alL (tak); (29) BlL blR (tak); (30) A8L b5L (tak); (31) A2R b7R; (32)
B3L a4R ... (a) resigns.
Days ten, eleven, and twelve
Rajab (A)- Kijumbe (a) 20-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5L; (2) 3R 5L; (3) 5R 3R; (4) 8L (tak) 2; (5) 6R 2; (6) 5R 3R; (7)
5L 8; (8) 5L 6R; (9) 1 5R; (10) 3R> 5R>; (11) 3R 4R; (12) 6L 5R; (13) 3L 5R;
(14) 2 1; (15) 3R 2; (16) 3L 3L; (17) 4R 7; (18) 5L 3L; (19) 5L 7; (20) 6L 1; (21)
3L 5L; (22) 6R 2;
(23) A6R b7R; (24) A5R a8L; (25) A6L a4R; (26) B7R b6R; (27) B8R b8R; (28)
A3R b7R; (29) ASL (tak) a7L (tak); (30) B4L b2L; (31) B3R a2R; (32) A8L a6L;
(33) A5R a4R; (34) B7R a6R (tak); (35) A6L a5R (tak); (36) B2L blL; (37) B5R -
(a) resigns.
37 moves (73 single-moves), 1 hour 16 minutes 30 seconds.
Abdu (A)- Rajab (a) 21-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5L; (2)3L 7; (3) 1 5R; (4) 2 5L; (5) 5L 5R; (6) 6R 8L (tak); (7) 3L
7>; (8) 3R 3L; (9) 5R> 7; (10) 4R 2; (11) 8 3L; (12) 5L 2; (13) 1 6L; (14) 5L 3L;
(15) 7 3L; (16) 5R 5R; (17) 8 5R; (18) 6L 5L; (19) 7 6L; (20) 5L 3L; (21) 5R 1;
(22) 5L 6L; --
(23) ASR (tak) a5L; (24) B7R b3L; (25) B3L (tak) b8R; (26) (A) resigns
Rajab (A)- Abdu (a) 21-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5L; (2) 3L 7; (3) 1 5R; (4) 2 5L; (5) 5L 5R; (6) 6R 8L (tak); (7) 3L
7>; (8) 3R 3L; (9) 5R> 7; (10) 3L 2; (11) 3L 7; (12) 3R 1; (13) 3L 8; (14) 3R 1;
(15) 3L 8; (16) 3R 1; (17) 3R 2L (tak); (18) 3R 3R; (19) 3R 3R (tak); (20) 3R 4R;
(21) 3R (tak) 7; (22) 7 4R;
(23) B2L a7L; (24) A3R b2L; (25) B4L a2R; (26) B1L b3L; (27) B7L a5R; (28)
A4R b6R; (29) A6L (tak) b8R; (30) BSL (tak) b7R; (31) (A) resigns.

157
Shamte (A)- Rajab (a) 22-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5L; (2) 3L 7; (3) 1 5R; (4) 2 8; (5) 8 7; (6) 5R 8L (tak); (7) 7L
(tak) 7R (tak); (8) 6R (tak) 6R (tak); (9) 8L (tak) 7R (tak); (10) 6R (tak) 8L (tak);
(11) 8L (tak) 7R (tak); (12) 6R (tak) 6R (tak); (13) 8L (tak) 7R (tak); (14) 6R (tak)
8L (tak); (15) 8L (tak) 6R (tak);(16) 6R (tak) 7L (tak); (17) 5L 8>; (18) 5R> 7; (19)
4R 6R; (20) 4L 4L; (21) 1 4L; (22) 6L 2 (Rajab captures a house of 16 seeds);
(23)A2R b8R; (24) B6R b7R; (25) A6L b6R; (26) A4R b2L; (27) A6L b8R (The
kimbi house is emptied); (28) A3R b3L; (29) B3L b1L; (30) B2L a6L; (31) B1L
a3L (tak); (32) B8R a8L; (Moves 29 to 32 show that Shamte is forced to slowly
deplete his back row mtaji's) (33) A5R a7L; (34) B5R a6L; (35) A7R (tak) B7R;
(36) (A) resigns (B6R would be a forced move, followed by b3L ... Bao harnna!).
Rajab (A)- Shamte (a) 22-10-94

(1) A6L (tak) a5L; (2) 3L 7; (3) 1 5R; (4) 2 5R>; (5) 5L 3R; (6) 8 7; (7) 5L 7; (8)
1 5R; (9) 7 5L; (10) 6L 5R; (11) 2 8; (12) 5L 7; (13) 5R 1; (14) 5R 2; (15) 5R
5R; (16) 7 5L; (17) 7R (tak) 1; (18) 5R 6L (tak); (19) 5R> 5R; (20) 5L 3L; (21) 1
5L; (22) 6L 4L;
(23) B2L a4R; (24) A2R (tak) a5L; (25) B6R (tak) a6L; (26) B7R a3R; (27) B8R
a5R; (28) A7L a7R; (29) A7L a1R; (30) A5L (tak) a2R; (31) B2L a5R; (32) B3L
b7R; (33) (A) resigns.
-----------------------.L~
APPENDIX III: TIME MANAGEMENT AND POSSIBLE MOVES
Example of time management and possible moves in Bao:
Time Possible moves Rajah Time Possible moves Kijumbe Move

0 sec 4 A6L 2 sec 4 a5L 1
4 2 3R 13 3 5L 2
18 4 5R 22 2 3R 3
24 4 8L (tak) 29 3 2 4
30 2 6R 31 2 2 5
35 4 5R 37 2 3R 6
42 4 5L 43 3 8 7
47 4 5L 57 3 6R 8
59 1 1 1.00 min/sec 4 5R 9
1.30 min/sec 3 3R> 2.35 7 5R> 10
2 minutes
3.30 3 3R 4.30 6 4R 11
6.15 6 6L 6.30 7 5R 12 I
6.45 7 3L 7.15 5 5R 13
8.05 3 2 9.45 3 1 14
11.50 7 3R 14.00 6 2 15
14.30 5 3L 15.20 6 3L 16
17.35 4 4R 19.20 5 7 17 I
23.25 5 5L 24.00 4 3L 18
24.20 7 5L 28.50 8 7 19
31.00 4 6L 34.25 4 1 20
37.25 7 3L 40.10 2 5L 21
40.10 6 6R 42.40 5 2 22
Mtaji
44.40 2 A6R 49.45 3 b7R 23
49.35 2 A5R 50.00 1 a8L 24
50.05 1 A6L 50.15 2 a4R 25
51.20 3 B7R 54.45 5 b6R 26
55.20 4 B8R 57.45 2 b8R 27
57.50 2 A3R 58.25 2 b7R 28
59.05 4 A5L (tak) 1.00.20 h/m/s 6 a7L (tak) 29
1.04.30 h/m/s 5 B4L 1.04.35 1 b2L 30
1.07.50 4 B3R 1.08.10 1 a2R 31
1.08.30 6 A8L 1.08.50 1 a6L 32
1.09.12 3 A5R 1.09.20 1 a4R 33
1.09.55 3 B7R 1.11.35 4 a6R (tak) 34
1.14.10 3 A6L 1.14.20 2 a5R (tak) 35
1.14.40 2 B2L 1.14.50 1 b1L 36
1.15.10-1.15.50 3 B5R resigns 1 (b7R, A1R, Bao hamna!)
Total time: 1 hour; 15 minutes; 50 seconds

Moves: 36.5 =73 turns
Average possible moves: 3.7 choices per turn
Average thinking time: 62 seconds per turn
SUBJECT INDEX
Ability Capture modes, 51

Inborn, 2, 95 see Classification
Addiction, 4 see Rules
PUiica,1,2, 7,8,9,35,88,105 Caribbean, 7
Akheri, see Khatima, 110, 124 Chama cha Bao, see Bao Society
Allocation model, 79, 80, 81, 86, Championship, see Tournament
87, 92-95, 99, 122 Championship games, 2, 3, 23, 26,
Artificial Intelligence, 1 35,44,47,48,101, 102,119,
see Computer science 121
Asia, 7, 8 Chunking,67,68,79-82,86,87
China, 7, 8, 35, 49 Process, 79, 86
Average Classification, 3, 23-33
Branching factor Bao, 49 Alinement games, 26, 28, 29
Changes per tum, 91 Bao,31
Duru of a master, 82 Board games, 23-29
Length of Bao game, 120, 158 Championship games, 26, 27
Number of choices, 50, 158 Hunt games, 28, 29
Number of moves, 50 Manqala, 24, 27-33
Playing time, 7, 120, 158 Race games, 24-30
Take per move, 47 Variants, 33, 34
Awari, 1, 25, 26, 48, 49 War games, 24-30
Awele, see Awari, 1 Clubs,9, 16, 17,20,21,22
Backgrounds,4, 15, 19,121 Combination moves, 3, 52, 55-62
see Masters Competitive games, see
Bao Championship games
Classification, 31 Complexity, 23, 44, 48, 49, 51, 52,
Clubs, see Clubs 83, 111, 114
Moves, see Moves Game-tree, 49, 50, 122
Openings, see Fani Mutational, 50, 51, 122
Rules, see Rules State-space, 48, 50, 122
Tournament, see Tournament Computer, 1, 2, 48,51
Society, 4, 8, 11, 12, 16, 21, Science, 2, 4, 23, 68
35 (Tanzanian Bao Conflict, 101-109
Society), 105, 124 Constraints, 66, 83
Bingwa, 7, 35, 124, see Master Dynamic, see Dynamic
Blind, 2, 3, 44, 50 Miller's, see Miller
Bao,3,50,88-95, 122 DarEs Salaam, 9, 10-13, 16, 17,
Chess, 88, 92, 122 22,35,42,46,101
Experiment, 88-95 Deceit
Simultaneous, 88, 99, 100 illegal, 101-109, 121, 143
Blunders, 105, 135, 142 legal, 103-108
Boundaries, 46, 47, 121 setting change, 103-108, 121
see Limitations Devil, 123, 124
Branching factor, see Average, see Dice, 23,26
Game-tree complexity Digit span, 67
Bridge (tactical move), 62, 63 Direction changes, 30, '48, 53, 97,
Capturing 98
m~
.I
I"
·~
I
li'
i(
f 160
i
I
I Duru Gambit, see Sacrifice
1I Experiment, see Experiment Gambling, 106
li Expert,82-84,95,101,118 Game-tree, see Complexity
~I Dynamic constraint, 3, 68, 86, 88, Genius, 68, 110
It:· 92,95,122 Go, 1,25,26,48, 122
Errors, see Irregularities God, 107
Ethnological theory, 1 Handicap-play, 46
Experience,2,20,21,83,123 Heko!, 105, 124
Experiment, see Table of Contents Hierarchy, 23, 35, 36, 39-42, 44,
Blind short results, 93, 134 46,47,101
Blind simple results, 93, 133 History
Complex, 95-100 Bao, manqala, 7, 8
Rejesha, see complex Bao masters, 10
Short duru results, 85, 132 Bao Society, 8, 9
Simple duru results, 72-75 Masters Tournament, 12-15
Expert, 2, 4, 32, 44, 48, 66-68, 79, Zanzibar, 8
92-94,117,119,121 House,6,34,36,38,40,42,45,
Expertise, 66, 68, 95, 121 46,63,64, 70,114,117,125,
I Exponential increase, 76, 87 135,157
Fani, 2, 100, 101, 110-119, 122, Human weakness, 2, 118
I 124 Ideal model, 87, 93, 95
Jenga nyumba, 124 Illegal deceit, see Deceit
Kitakimbi, 112, 115, 124, 157 Intelligence, see Masters
Kitakomwe, 63 (fani), 104 Interference, 67, 86, 87
(deceit), 108 (deceit), 114 Irregularities, 43, 104, 140, 143,
(fani), 125 144, 146, 154
Lazimisha, 112, 125 Islam,
Lengo,111, 125 Koranschool, 17, 22
Vunja lengo, 114, 125 Muslim law, 19, 88
Miliki, see weka Kenya, see Lamu
Namua nyumba, 114, 125 Khatima, 62, 101, 110 ,111, 118,
I
~~II
Opening play; 52, 115, 116, 119, 121, 124
119 Kikao, 8, 11, 124, see Clubs
Takasa nyuma, 114, 125 Kiswahili, see Swahili
~-'
i-1!
: Takasia, 33, 34, 41-46 (rules), Kitakimbi, see Fani
··'
J. 113,126,135,138,141,147, Kitakomwe, see Fani
~i
151 Knowledge, 2, 119
Tapisha Bao, 112, 113, 126 Koranschool, see Islam
Tega,64, 111,114,126,140, Lamu, 35, 104
j 149 Lazimisha, see Fani
Tegua,64,111,114, 126 Legal deceit, see Deceit
J
I~
I ,~
VVeka, 112, 125, 126
Finger movement, 70, 87
Forced moves, 52, 137, 146, 153,
Lengo, see Fani
Length of Bao game, see Average
Limitations, Limits, see also
'!
, I
157 constraints, 2, 3, 23, 48, 68, 76,
·? long flank, 59 79,92, 100,121,123
.1,
I ,~
short flank, 58 Duru, see Experiment
;i. Table 3, 60-62 Fani,_see Fani
'I
!.
Fork attack, 63, 136, 151 Khatima, see Khatima
,t' Four-row game, 7, 30 Qualitative, see Fani
'I
Ji
~
161
Quantitative, see Quantitative Mtaji, 7, 38, 39, 41-43, 45, 46,

Long term memory, 68 112, 113, 125
Machine, see Computer, Muslim law, see Islam
Magical number seven, see Miller Mutational complexity, see
Mancala, see Manqala Complexity
Manqala, 6, 7, 23, 27, 31, 37, 48, Nahodha,9,10,11,15,16,18,21,
49,51,121 22,113,125
see Classification Namua, 6, 38-40, 42, 43, 98, 112,
see History 113, 125
see Spreading Notational system, 53-54
Masters Redundancies, 54
Age, 4, 22, 121 Nyumba, see House
Date of Birth, 15, 21, 22, 121 Official clubs, see Clubs
Education, 4, 17, 21, 22, 121 Opening play, see Fani
Epithets, 15, 22 Pattern recognition, 70, 83, 87, 92
Intelligence, 4, 19, 121 Pemba, 8-10, 12, 13, 16, 22, 125
Latest Club, 16, 22 Perfect information, 48
Learning Age, 16, 22, 121 Piga tanji, see Fork attack
Marital stage, 19, 22 Playing time, see Average
Names, 22 Practice, 2, 12, 20, 21, 80, 99, 121,
Place of Birth, 16, 21, 22, 121 123
Profession, 19, 21, 22, 121 Problem solving skills, 2, 3, 44,
Social life/success, 4, 21, 121 66,93
Masters Tournament Procedural knowledge, 80, 81, 99,
Finals, Semi-, 13, 14 121, 122
History, 9, 12-15 Psychological warfare, 101-109,
Knock-out, 12, 13 119
League, 13,118 Qualitative limitations, see Fani
Matches, see Appendix II Quantitative limitations, 2, 3, 23,
Players, Participants, 15, 22 48
Results, 118 Referee, 9, 104, see Irregularities
Mastership in Chess, see de Groot, Rehearsal, 67, 81, 83, 86, 93
see Simon Rejesha Bao, 43, 95, 98, 99, 100,
Matemwe, 12, 13, 16, 17 125
Mathematical game, 4 Repetition, see Rehearsal
Memory Rules, 4, 6, 7, 35-44, 52, 53
see Constraints see Irregularities
see Dynamic see Mtaji
see Miller see Namua
Long term, see Long term see Takasia
Short term, see Short term Rusha, 7, 10 (Mohammed Hasan),
Methodology 104, 125
Experimental, 70, 88, 96 Sacrifice, 108, see Tapisha Bao
Historical, 9, 110 Said bin Jubair, 88
Oral history, 10 Setting change, see Deceit
Moves Shortcuts, 7
Combination, see Combination Short term memory, 67, 68, 80, 92
Forced, see Forced Short win, 53, 63-65
Rules, see Rules Singleton, 1, 37, 40-44, 53, 144
Singletons attack, see Utitiri
162
Songka,49 Tobwe, 7, 126

Spreading, 6, 27, 29, 30 ,37, 53, Tourism, 8, 35
69,97,121 Tournament, see Masters
Stone Town, see Zanzibar Tournament
Strategic move, see Khatima, Training, see Practice
see Fani Tricks, see Procedural knowledge
Swahili, 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, 20, 51, 68, Tumbatu, 10, 15, 16, 22, 126
70, 112, 125 Unguja, 126, see Zanzibar
Document, 9, 36 Utitiri, 62, 152
Takasia, see Fani Variable, 20, 69, 98, 121
Tanzania, 8, 11, 15, 16, 22, 35 Variation, 23, 33, 47, 48, 117
Tapisha Bao, see Fani Warfare, 2, 101
Tega, see Fani Wari, see Awari
Tegua, see Fani Weakness, see Human weakness
Thinking time, 70, 72, 74, 112, Weka, see Fani
138, 142, 151, 152 Zanzibar, 2-4, 8-13, 16, 17, 20, 22,
Thinking space, constriction of 35,36,43, 70,88,92,96,101,
excellence,23,44,51 102, 104-106, 116, 118, 121,
Time limit, 7 4 see History.
Toboa,34,126
AUTHOR INDEX
Allis, L.V., 1, 4, 27, 48-51, 68 Luria, A.R., 66

Atkinson, R.C., 66, 67 Machiavelli, N., 101, 107, 108
Beal, D., 1 Mahan, A.T., 101, 102, 107, 109,
Bell,R.C., 7,24,26,27,29,33 110
Chase, W.G., 67 McClelland, J.L., 68
Chernev, 1., 104 McWhirter, N., 88
Chi, M.T.H., 4, 68 Meulen, M. van der, 49
Clausewitz, C. von, 26, 101, 107, Mieses, J., 88
109 Miller, G.A., 67, 79, 80, 83, 94,
Deledicq, A., 7 122
Dennen, J.M.G. van de, 102 Morgenstern, 0., 4
Department of Education, 17 Murray, H.J.R., 7, 20 23, 24, 27,
Dickmeyer, C., 127 28,29,30,33,35,49,88
Eagle, V., 7, 8, 30, 35, 49 National Museums, 20, 35, 44
Ericsson, K.A., 67 Newell, A., 2, 67, 79,88
Eysenck, M.W., 68 Ochse, R., 4, 68
Parr, M.J., 4, 68 Peterson, L.R. & M.J., 67, 86
Flacourt, 35 Philidor, F.A., 20, 68
Friedrich, J., 101 Popova,A., 7
Galton, F., 68 Potter, S., 107
Glaser, R., 4, 68 Retschitzki, J., 1, 68
Groot, A.D. de, 2-4, 16, 20, 50, 66, Reysset, P., 1, 24, 68
96 Rumelhart, D.E., 68
Herik, H.J. van den, 1, 48, 49 Russ, L., 7
Herschberg, I.S.,1, 48 Sanderson, M.G., 35
Herskovits, M.J ., 7 Shiffrin, R.M., 66, 67
Hooper, D., 20, 33, 68, 88, 105, Simon, H.A., 2, 3, 20, 67, 79, 88,
107, 111, 117 121
Howe, M.J.A., 68 Simonton, D.K., 4, 68
Huizinga, J., 1 Sun Tzu, 102
Hunt, E., 66, 67 Tijdeman, 49
Ingrams, W.H., 8, 35 Townshend, P., 1, 2, 20, 35, 41,
Keane, M.T., 68 44,47,50,51,104
Kennedy, A., 68 Von Neumann, J., 4
Koltanowski, G., 88 Whyld, K., 20, 33, 68, 88, 105,
Lawrence, T.E., 102 107, 111, 117
Levy, D., 1 Wittgenstein, L., 34
Love, T., 66, 67
SUMMARY
Bao is a board game played in East Africa that is a member of the manqala family of
games. Regular championships are held in Bao, especially on Zanzibar. These
championships have produced Bao masters, who form the object of this study. Bao
masters appear to be capable of calculating extraordinarily complex moves, difficult
for humans to emulate but easy to calculate with present-day computers. The aim of
this study is to determine those characteristics that are particular to mastership in
Bao. This will enable us to gain insight into a limitation of the human mind
identified in a game at which Bao masters excel, eventually presenting a description
of mastership in terms of human memory and problem-solving limitations. In order
to understand these characteristics and their relevance to Bao it will be necessary:
1. to understand the historical and geographical context within which the game is
played;
ii. to do cumen t and structure the rules of the game;
iii. to collect sufficient material to document Bao masters at play, illustrating
where human mental limitations constrain the way masters play;
iv. to assess empirically the limitations of human calculating and problem-solving
skills appropriate to Bao.
In Chapter II, the history of Bao masters is described and a list of all the Bao
masters living today in Zanzibar is presented. It appears that no more than ten
masters have been active at any given time in this century. Professions and
educational backgrounds vary widely among both the younger and the older
generations. Bao mastership was, therefore, impossible to link to any particular
skill, whether skills learnt at school, or social skills that make people successful in
society. The only conclusion that could be drawn was that masters appear to reach
mastership in their early twenties, starting in their teens. This confirms earlier
findings on Chess masters collected by de Groot (1946). .;1I
In the third Chapter an attempt is made to give a systematic classification of
board games based on the rules of the games. In that respect, Bao is a war game.
Bao is also a manqala game- a family of games in the classification by Murray
(1952) - these are games with a particular way of moving pieces. Such a move is
known as spreading, where a number of seeds, for instance, are spread one by one
into consecutive holes in a certain direction. Wari and Songka are games related in
that respect, Wari also being played in championships and even programmed to be
played by computers.
The rules of Bao, however, appear much more complicated than in any other
manqala game. The structure of the rules is presented in detail, and the hierarchy of
these rules shows that Bao is complicated but systematic in the application of the
rules. It appears that rules for championship Bao still develop by way of consensus
among the masters. It, therefore, occurs that not all the rules of Bao are agreed
upon. The rules concerned seldomly occur but the decision on their implementation
is essential to the definition and refinement of a championship game.
In order to illustrate Bao moves, one chapter is dedicated to examples of moves
and combination moves. They show the very basic moves used in Bao and conclude
with the identification of a first limitation to human thinking, which is a forced
move, known by some masters, where the outcome can be predicted to up to
seventeen turns ahead. Masters only calculate about eight turns ahead and this
165
particular forced move has to be memorised if used, since no master is able to

calculate the outcome.
The following Chapter introduces the skill of calculating duru, which appears
central to all other skills in Bao. In a Bao game a move may consist of many
rounds, i.e., the seeds may spread through a player's own rows making several laps.
Duru is a Swahili term meaning round(s). A player who has duru is a player who
can calculate many rounds. An experiment was set up in which masters were to
calculate duru while their progress was timed and their maximum performance was
measured. It appeared that among masters, duru skills varied averaging four duru,
i.e. four rounds of sixteen boles with consecutive spreadings of seeds according to
the rules of the game. The further they progressed in the experiment the more time
they needed to calculate the next spreading.
Various conditions of this experiment serve to identify the variables that are
most suited to compare masters and performances. Two models were introduced to
describe the problem-solving process of the masters. The allocation model, based
on the experience of the researcher, and the ideal model, based on Miller's (1956)
magical number seven plus or minus two, provide two possible explanations. A
second experiment was set up to test these models. The rounds of sixteen boles
were changed into rounds of eight holes. The allocation model predicted that the
performance would worsen, while the ideal model predicted that the performance
would be perfect, with no limit to the number of rounds calculated. When it
appeared that the allocation model was more accurate it also became clear that the
7±2 constraint on human memory defined by Miller (1956) is insufficient to explain
the limited performance of the masters. Therefore an extra limitation to human
memory was introduced, the dynamic constraint prohibiting fast changes of short-
term memory information.
The above experiments were also conducted in such a way that the masters were
no longer able to recapitulate or repeat their calculations during the experiment. This
condition gave more insight into which variables were influenced by the existence
of mental limitations and how they were capable of being bypassed within certain
constraints. Complex duru skills are also important in play; nevertheless, the
rejesha Bao experiment, that consisted of returning complicated moves to the
original position, did not f9rm a necessary skill in championship play and, therefore,
is not a skill possessed by all masters.
Finally, one master specifically trained in order to play a game of blind Bao, i.e.
a game of Bao played with his back to the board in which moves are only
communicated by voice. After getting used to playing the blind game, he was able
to play 44 consecutive turns. In such turns there were significantly more position
changes than in his best duru performance. Apparently, a master can recognize and
chunk various moves, using well known combinations of moves and standardised
openings, to bypass the dynamic constraint. In the duru experiment such
recognition appears impossible.
Chapter VIII summarizes certain limits of the mind, and gives a characterisation
of Bao mastership. Duru skills form the basis of mastership leading to khatima, or
foresight, when complex duru are concerned. Fani are the ways that a player can
play a strategic move which includes opening specialties. Finally, psychological
warfare is part of the game, though less relevant at the level of master. A
description of khatima, fani and duru makes it possible to define mastership in Bao.
Most importantly, it shows that each master has a set of individual skills that
166
distinguishes him from other players and from other masters. Each player is,
therefore, limited both in the number of skills and in the skills themselves.
The study is concluded with a description of league games, played in the 1994
Masters Tournament, where masters participated. From this list of games various
examples confirm and illustrate the findings in this study.
SAMENVATIING
Baa is een Oost-Afrikaans bordspel en behoort tot de familie van manqala spelen.
Er worden regelmatig Bao-kampioenschappen georganiseerd, met name op
Zanzibar. De Bao-meesters die deze kampioenschappen hebben voortgebracht,
vormen bet onderwerp van deze studie. Bao-meesters blijken in staat om bijzonder
complexe zetten te berekenen, die moeilijk zijn te bevatten voor mensen maar
eenvoudig zijn te berekenen met de hedendaagse computer. Het doel van deze studie
is dan oak om inzicht te krijgen in de begrenzingen van bet menselijk brein die bij
dit spel aan de orde komen. De karakteristieke eigenschappen van meesterschap in
Baa worden vastgelegd in termen van menselijk geheugen en probleem-oplossings
beperkingen. Om deze karakteristieken te begrijpen is bet noodzakelijk om:
1. de historische en geografische context waarin bet spel gespeeld wordt, te

begrijpen
ii. de regels van bet spel te documenteren en te structureren
iii. voldoende materiaal te verzamelen over bet spel van Baa meesters, waarmee
de mentale beperkingen van de mens die een rol spelen bij meesters,
gei:llustreerd kunnen worden
iv. op empirische wijze de beperkingen van menselijke reken-en probleem-
oplossings vaardigheden vast te stellen voor zover zij betrekking hebben op
bet Bao-spel.
In hoofdstuk II wordt de geschiedenis van Bao-meesters beschreven met behulp van

een lijst van aile levende Bao-meesters van vandaag op Zanzibar. Het blijkt dat niet
meer dan tien meesters tegelijkertijd actief waren op een bepaalde tijd in deze eeuw.
Professionele achtergrond en scholing blijken zeer te varieren zowel bij de oudere
als de jongere generaties. Bao-meesterschap is daarom onmogelijk te relateren aan
een bepaalde andere vaardigheid die, dan wei op school dan wei in de maatschappij
wordt aangeleerd. De enige conclusie die kan worden getrokken is dat Bao-meesters
rand hun twintigste meester worden en rand hun tiende jaar beginnen met spelen.
Dit bevestigt eeh eerdere conclusie over Schaakrneesters door de Groot (1946).
In hoofdstuk III, is een paging gedaan om een systematische classificatie van
bordspelen te formuleren op basis van de spelregels. Op basis van deze classificatie
is Baa een oorlogsspel. Bao is oak een manqala spel, volgens een classificatie die in
de Iiteratuur gebruikelijk is (Murray, 1952; Bell, 1960). Dit zijn spelen met een
bepaalde manier van stukken verplaatsen. Zo'n zet bestaat uit spreiding, waarbij
zaadjes een voor een worden verspreid in naast elkaar gelegen hoiletjes en in een
bepaalde richting. Awari en Songka zijn oak voorbeelden van manqala spelen,
waarbij Awari tevens gespeeld wordt in kampioenschapsverband en zelfs
geprogrammeerd is om te worden gespeeld door computers.
De regels van bet Bao-spel blijken echter veel gecompliceerder dan in enig ander
manqala-spel. De structuur van de regels is in detail gepresenteerd en de hierarchie
die hierin spreekt, toont aan dat Baa gecompliceerd maar oak systematisch is in de
toepassing van de regels. Het blijkt dat kampioenschapsregels nog altijd verder
ontwikkeld worden als er een consensus wordt bereikt onder de meesters. Het kan
daarom voorkomen dat niet aile regels van bet Bao-spel worden geaccepteerd door
aile meesters. Dit soort uitzonderingsregels komt zelden voor maar de beslissing
over de implementatie ervan is essentieel voor de definitie en de verfijning van bet
Bao-spel als een kampioenschapsspel.
168
Het vierde hoofdstuk is gewijd aan het illustreren van (combinatie-)zetten in het
Bao-spel. Eenvoudige zetten worden uitgebreid gei:llustreerd; aan het eind van het
hoofdstuk wordt een menselijke rekenlimiet vastgesteld bij een gedwongen
zettenreeks, waarbij de uitkomst voor die meesters die bekend zijn met deze situatie,
wel 17 beurten vooraf kan worden voorspeld. Aangezien Bao-meesters niet meer
dan acht beurten vooruit kunnen denken moet zo'n situatie uit het hoofd geleerd
worden, daar geen meester deze reeks van beurten kan berekenen.
Het volgende hoofdstuk introduceert de vaardigheid van het berekenen van duru.
Deze vaardigheid blijkt aan de basis te staan van alle andere vaardigheden in het
Bao-spel. Een Bao-zet kan uit verschillende rondes bestaan, dat wil zeggen dat
zaadjes verspreid kunnen worden over de rijen van een speler en meermalen rond
kunnen gaan. Dum is een Swahili term dat 'ronde(s)' betekent. Een speler met duro
is een speler die vele rondes kan doorrekenen. Een experiment laat zien hoe
meesters vordering maken tijdens het berekenen van duru, waarbij het tijdsverloop
en de maximale prestatie worden vastgelegd. Het blijkt dat meesters onderling nogal
verschillen maar gemiddeld zo'n vier rondes door kunnen rekenen, dat wil zeggen
vier rondes van zestien holletjes met opeenvolgende verspreiding van zaadjes
volgens de regels van het spel. Hoe verder zij komen hoe meer tijd zij no dig hebben
om de volgende stap te berekenen.
Verschillende varianten van dit experiment zijn nodig om de variabelen te
identificeren die meesters en prestaties vergelijkbaar maken. Twee modellen zijn
vervolgens ge'introduceerd die de oplosmethodes van de meesters beschrijven. Het
allocatie model, gebaseerd op de ervaring van de onderzoeker, en het ideale model,
gebaseerd op Miller's (1956) magische nummer zeven plus of min twee, vormden
twee mogelijke verklaringen voor de prestaties. Een tweede experiment werd
ontwikkeld om deze modellen te toetsen. De ronde van zestien holletjes werd
gehalveerd tot een ronde van acht holletjes. Het allocatie model voorspelde dat de
prestaties van de meesters bij het doorrekenen van kleinere rondes zou
verslechteren. Het ideale model voorspelde dat de prestaties ongelimiteerd goed
zouden zijn, ofwel een perfecte prestatie zouden opleveren. Toen het bleek dat het
allocatie model accurater was, bleek ook dat Miller's beperking ·qp het menselijke
korte termijn geheugen, het magische nummer zeven plus of min twee, niet volstond
voor de verklaring van de prestaties van de Bao meesters. Hierom is een extra
beperking op het korte termijri geheugen geintroduceerd, de dynamische beperking,
die snelle veranderingen van gebeugen-informatie in het korte termijn geheugen
verbiedt.
Het bovenstaande experiment wordt vervolgens uitgevoerd op zo'n manier dat
bet de meester verhinderd wordt om hun berekeningen te recapituleren of te
herhalen gedurende het experiment. Deze variant geeft meer inzicht in de invloed
van de verschillende variabelen ·op de men tale beperkingen. Complexe duru-
vaardigheden zijn eveneens belangrijk in het spel; niettemin wordt het experiment
van rejesha Bao, dat bestaat uit het reconstrueren van gecompliceerde zetten naar de
oorspronkelijke positie, niet als noodzakelijke vaardigheid voor kampioenschaps-
Bao gezien en wordt daarom ook niet door elke meester beheersd.
Ten slotte heeft een meester specifiek getraind voor het spelen van blind Bao, dat
wil zeggen dat hij kan Bao-spelen met zijn rug naar bet bord en de zetten alleen
communiceert door middel van woorden. Op deze manier is hij in staat gebleken om
44 beurten te berekenen die uit een significant grater aantal positieveranderingen
bestaan dan zijn beste prestaties op het duro experiment. Blijkbaar kan een meester
bekende combinaties en gestandaardiseerde openingen herkennen of in grotere
169
stappen verwerken, ook wei chunking genoemd, om de dynamiscbe beperkingen te

omzeilen. In bet durn experiment blijkt zo'n herkenning onmogelijk.
Hoofdstuk VIII vat de besproken beperkingen van bet menselijk brein samen en
geeft een karakterisering van Bao-meesterscbap. Dum vormt de basis van Bao-
meesterschap dat leidt tot khatima, of inzicht, waar het complexe dum betreft. Fani
zijn de manieren van een speler om een strategische zet te spelen waartoe ook zijn
openingsspecialiteiten behoren. Ten slotte blijkt psychologische oorlogvoering een
rol te spelen, hoewel dit minder relevant is op het meesterniveau. Een beschrijving
van khatima, fani en dum maakt het mogelijk om Bao-meesterschap te definieren.
Bovendien laat zij zien dat elke meester een stel individuele vaardigheden heeft die
hem onderscheiden van andere spelers en van andere meesters. Elke speler is
daarom beperkt in zowel het aantal als het soort vaardigheden.
De studie wordt afgesloten met een beschrijving van de grote ronde van partijen
die in het 1994 Meester-toernooi is gespeeld met name die partijen waarbij meesters
participeerden. Uit deze lijst van partijen komen verschillende voorbeelden die de
bevindingen van deze studie bevestigen en illustreren.
--!

Limits of The Mind Full Text

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Limits of The Mind Full Text

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LIMITS OF THE MIND

TOWARDS A CHARACTERISATION OF BAO MASTERSHIP

Research School CNWS

CNWS PUBLICATIONS is produced by the Research School CNWS, Leiden University,

CIP-DATA, KONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK, DEN HAAG

Voogt, Alexander Johan de

Limits of the mind : towards a characterisation of Bao mastership I Alexander Johan de

Front cover design: Nelleke Oosten.

10 Copyright 1995 Research School CNWS, Leiden University, The Netherlands

II Bao: the game and its masters 4

III Classification of Bao 23

IV Zanzibar Bao rules 35

v Illustrations of Bao play 52

Table la: Official clubs 1992-1994 9

Plate 1: A Bao board at the feet of a Bao master 5

1. All competitive games, especially board games, presuppose human weakness

These assumptions are developed in the following order:

Plate 1. A Bao board at the feet of a Bao master.

2. History and structure of the Bao Society

Table l.a: Official clubs 1992-1994

C. History of Championship Bao

2. History of Baa (grand) masters

championships or other incentives to keep up practice. Abdi was still playing

3. The 1994 Masters Tournament

Plate 2. Semi-finals of the 1994 Masters Tournament. From left to

1. Full name, and epithet

3. Place of birth, and the importance of travel

4. From student of Bao to master of Bao

5. Latest club information

Plate 3. Shaame Kondo Khamis (Nahodha)

8. Marital stage1 number of children

De Groot (1946) explained that the differences in Chess performance were

Bao masters cannot be generalised as more or less successful in terms of general

Table lb: Backgrounds to Zanzibar (grand)masters

The following Chapter introduces a systematic hierarchical definition of board

A A classification of board games

I. Board games and classification

1. All games should be classifiable.

2. War and race games

War games Race games

Destruction Implied destruction

Capturing Enclosement Diagram 4.

Many arguments can be made to distinguish other classes of hunt, positional or

1. war games of pure destruction: Draughts (and perhaps Awari).

'Implied' means that reaching a certain situation in the game is equivalent to

War games Race games

Destruction Implied destruction

Hunt games Alinement

Manqala Manqala Diagram 5

6. War versus race games

War games Race games

Destruction Implied destruction

Capturing Enclosement Diagram 6.

Classes based on the nature of the game:

In the classification of manqala games, it is possible to maintain the same line of

1. The nature of the move

2. The purpose of the move

3. The means ofplay

one circle two circles

capture one two in a line capture one two in a line

8 7 6 5 etc. holes per row

2 3 4 5 Bao 7 etc. seeds per hole

1. They occur a very limited number of times in a game:

·~;:..;;J.~~:,;~,:J:.~r-·~·~-;;'ll:~~~f.l.:-~tt61Mf&:.W~"··i~"ii!'oJi=tiHh"+'-Qit.sil#f1 f1tt!±W11 u -..i""·w.···.:.·tcw~~~hl;hi-."'«Tf'"~"~·~·:-.,."WJ~.,;.,,~,-"'-~ :,.,... ~w-~.i;.,~,,(j.,