Abstract: Since the great powers adjust their geopolitical strategy wedges constantly, Myanmar's relative position in the geopolitical strategy keeps changing along with the strategic rivalry among the great powers, while its absolute geographical position stays the same. In recent years, with the US’ return to the Asia-Pacific region, China's peaceful rise and "Belt and Road Initiative" strategy, the great powers’ game in Myanmar becomes more intense, which makes the importance of Myanmar's geopolitical strategy location increasingly prominent, draws more attentions of domestic and foreign scholars to this situation, further uplifts the geopolitical strategic influence of Myanmar, even forms a view in academia that Myanmar in China's geopolitical strategy is irreplaceable. However, history shows that different subjects affect Myanmar as subjects of the Great Power Game vary in different historical periods, which makes its geographical strategic location change over time, resulting in different influence on China's geopolitical strategy. Therefore, combining with GIS research methods, through the geopolitical strategy analysis of sea power theory, theory of heart, edge theory, multilevel world model, the grand chessboard and other classical and modern theory, this paper come to a conclusion that: different geopolitical strategy theories emphasize different geopolitical strategic locations, and geopolitical strategy has its inter subjectivity, which location is subordinate to, finally deduces that geopolitical strategic location has the inter subjectivity. Taking Myanmar as an example, by researching and analyzing the geopolitical strategic location evolution status of Burma in World War II, Cold War, the early stage of People’s Republic of China and the period after China’ rise, this paper shows, in the great power game, why the value of geopolitical strategic location has changed while Myanmar's absolute location has not, which further demonstrates that the geopolitical strategic location has the characteristics of inter subjectivity, refuting the view that the geopolitical strategic location of Myanmar to China's geopolitical strategy is irreplaceable. Then, from the perspective of inter subjectivity, three suggestions are put forward to China’s future geopolitical strategy in Myanmar: Firstly, from the point of view of inter subjectivity, there is no contradiction between China and the United States in promoting democratic reform and economic development in Burma. Thus, we should continue our “cold treatment” strategy when the United States attempts to provoke China through Burma. Secondly, we should correctly understand the significance of Burma to China's geopolitical strategy. To some extent, Myanmar is very important to China, but it is not unique to China. Finally, there are a number of options for China to go out. Myanmar is not the only choice.