You searched “weak points and strong” or “sun tzu weak point”, probably because you just saw a gap: a rival left something open, a market has an empty corner, a colleague’s argument has a hole. You want a way to use it. This page does not give you one. It gives you a judgment to make first: finding a weakness is not a license to strike. Ask three questions before you touch that gap.
The moment you see a gap, the gap starts moving you
Weak Points and Strong opens with 故善战者，致人而不致于人, which this site’s English gives as “those skilled in warfare can make the enemy move, while not being moved by the enemy.” When you see a weakness and want to hit it at once, who is moving whom? Often the gap is moving you. Your schedule, energy, and attention start to circle someone else’s hole.
So stop and ask: if I had not seen this gap, what was I going to do? If the answer has nothing to do with the gap, it is probably a temptation, not an opening. Making others move starts with keeping your own question, and not letting someone else’s gap set it for you.
Check one: is the aim worth it, gap or no gap?
A gap tells you a place is easy to enter. It does not tell you it is worth entering. Write the aim in one sentence: what do I want, and who is better off when this ends? If you cannot write it, the gap has nothing to do with you. If you can, ask whether the gap lies on the road to that aim.
Look back and you will see that many arguments and rivalries start from “they have a flaw here”, not from “here is what I need”. This site’s Weak Points and Strong states its judgment as solving the problem at the empty place. Note the words: solve a problem, not find someone to hit. With no problem to solve, there is no gap to use.
Check two: can you get it done without striking?
One line in the chapter is easy to skip: 敌虽众，可使无斗. This site’s English gives it as “Even if the enemy has many troops, it can be prevented from using its full strength.” The weight falls on no fight, not more fight. The best use of the gap you saw may be that you never need to contest anything.
A hole in a colleague’s argument can be raised privately so the plan gets better, not exposed in a meeting. A group of readers your rival ignores can simply be served well, with no post knocking the rival. You saw the gap and did not need to wound anyone with it. That is also taking the initiative.
Check three: if you must act, meet the empty, not the wall
If the aim is worth it and you truly cannot get there without acting, the chapter’s direction is 避实而击虚: avoid the strong and strike the weak. It also says 攻而必取者，攻其所不守也, which this site renders as “An attack is certain to succeed when it strikes places the enemy does not guard or cannot easily defend.” If the gap you imagined is in fact guarded, it is a wall.
So you pick one gap and first test whether it is really empty. 策之而知得失之计: weigh gains and losses before you move. If the test fails, stop; do not push harder into the solid. This site’s chapter page puts the next step plainly: verify only whether that emptiness is real. Trying to hit everywhere is not weak and strong. It is just wear.
Questions people ask after searching “weak points and strong”
Is finding a rival’s weakness what this chapter means?
Not quite. The empty place in this chapter is structural: the spot left open because the other side must guard somewhere else. It is not a person’s soft spot for you to press. If you read the empty as “someone I can push around”, you turn a chapter about judgment into a book of tricks. This site reads it as solving the problem where it costs both sides least.
I see a flaw in a colleague’s plan. Should I point it out on the spot?
Start with the aim. Do you want a better plan, or to look more right? If it is the plan, you raise it privately, early, and with a fix, which usually works better and hurts less than calling it out in a meeting. You speak up on the spot only when the flaw will lead people to act wrongly now and there is no time to talk first. Then you name the issue, not the person.
A rival has an obvious weak spot. Am I wasting a chance if I leave it?
Not necessarily. First ask whether that spot lies on your own path. If you can get the job done by serving the readers your rival misses, you never need to touch the rival. The chapter’s line about preventing a larger force from fighting points to no fight. Effort spent on your own open ground is harder to copy than effort spent knocking someone down, and it makes fewer enemies.
How do I tell a real gap from one I imagined?
Write the gap as one sentence: why does the other side leave this unguarded? Then check it. Look for evidence, ask someone who knows, or make one very small test. If it holds, the gap is real. If not, you admit there is no gap and go back to your own work. An imagined gap often turns out solid the moment you touch it, and the cost is higher than you planned.
Isn’t avoiding the strong and striking the weak just taking advantage?
Not as this site reads it. Avoiding the strong means admitting that the solid place is costly: a head-on clash damages people, trust, and the next round. Striking the empty means solving the problem where it takes least force, not hurting the weakest person in the room. If you use this chapter to push around the weak, you drop what the whole book keeps asking first: should this fight happen at all?
What should I do after reading this?
Write three lines: what my aim is; whether I can get it done without striking; and if I must act, which one gap and how I will test that it is empty. If you cannot write the first line, stop there. If you can write all three, open the chapter’s original text and set your judgment against the four checks on the chapter page to see where it still does not hold.
The next step is not another list of a rival’s weak points. Write down your aim, ask whether you can get there without striking, and if you must act, pick one gap and test it. That judgment is the one this chapter is named for on this site: Empty place. If your team wants this habit before anyone acts, Contact Us. We talk teaching, training, and content, not crushing a rival. We reply within two business days.