I'm not really familiar with Go so i'm interested in your opinions on which one is more interesting.
After getting known with the concepts and motifs of Go, I decided for myself that it's not worth my time. In my perception it's just a really expanded version of Tic Tac Toe.
They are very different games, I dare say families of games (chess has shogi and xiangqi, go has othello...).
I think chess wins this one by being more tactical than strategic*, so it holds your interest better and has a better short-term sense of reward. Go on the other hand builds up over a long time, and multiple, largely disconnected conflicts are played out on the board -- particularly when played on 19×19. I personally think go is much better on 13×13 or 9×9.
Then again, go has the benefit that it is not as demoralising as chess, and there are far fewer early resignations. Even if you lose one hotspot of captures, you can win somewhere else on the board, or even in the same location. In chess, pieces are lost forever. This is mostly amended by shogi (Japanese chess) with its drop rule.
On the whole though, I don't believe the two games are comparable on an objective level. All I compared here was much I personally (and friends) enjoy each one, and chess wins there.
Also, #2 is SEVERELY incorrect. Tic tac toe is a solved game. Go is a very, very complex game with heaps more abstract concepts than chess. The rules are simpler, but it's extremely difficult to master, like all competitive games.
* In game design lexicon, not chess lexicon. See http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/775/whats-the-difference-between-a-tactic-and-a-strategy. All the answers are valid and should be read.
I think chess wins this one by being more tactical than strategic*, so it holds your interest better and has a better short-term sense of reward. Go on the other hand builds up over a long time, and multiple, largely disconnected conflicts are played out on the board -- particularly when played on 19×19. I personally think go is much better on 13×13 or 9×9.
Then again, go has the benefit that it is not as demoralising as chess, and there are far fewer early resignations. Even if you lose one hotspot of captures, you can win somewhere else on the board, or even in the same location. In chess, pieces are lost forever. This is mostly amended by shogi (Japanese chess) with its drop rule.
On the whole though, I don't believe the two games are comparable on an objective level. All I compared here was much I personally (and friends) enjoy each one, and chess wins there.
Also, #2 is SEVERELY incorrect. Tic tac toe is a solved game. Go is a very, very complex game with heaps more abstract concepts than chess. The rules are simpler, but it's extremely difficult to master, like all competitive games.
* In game design lexicon, not chess lexicon. See http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/775/whats-the-difference-between-a-tactic-and-a-strategy. All the answers are valid and should be read.
"Also, #2 is SEVERELY incorrect."
WHA ... ??? But I thought we were friends!! ;(((
WHA ... ??? But I thought we were friends!! ;(((
Joking aside, it sounds you have a much better grasp of that game than I do ... I never really got into it, and despite its enormous complexity found it pretty monotonous after a relatively short amount of time.
Every stone looks and is played the same way, and all you ever do feels like building a fence to steal territory from your opponent. This comes from somebody (me) who obviously hasn't had much experience yet, others might (and will) disagree with it.
Every stone looks and is played the same way, and all you ever do feels like building a fence to steal territory from your opponent. This comes from somebody (me) who obviously hasn't had much experience yet, others might (and will) disagree with it.
Yeah, go is not solved. I think humans can still beat computers in Go.
I find Go more demoralizing than chess, since you can be winning for the whole game in go, and all of a sudden your opponent can take all that hard earned territory in just a couple moves near the end.
It is too deep for me, and it would take much too long to play it competently.
I find Go more demoralizing than chess, since you can be winning for the whole game in go, and all of a sudden your opponent can take all that hard earned territory in just a couple moves near the end.
It is too deep for me, and it would take much too long to play it competently.
to me I think it adds to the excitement of chess that you can lose a game "just like that" in one move at basically every single moment. it also makes it easier to explain to others, you don't have to show anything beyond the loss of material.
the argument for Go is the depth and beauty.
depth: the skill distribution has more classes* in go than in chess. the learning curve is therefor not only steeper but longer. and as mentioned, computer's aren't half at good at go as chess. (well if chess was played on a 19x19 board that would be different)
beauty: you start with an empty board and the play grows almost like a painting. someone said (will get the person on demand) that this quality corresponds to the mentality of eastern philosophy compared to the western philosophy of chess which is more "destructive" perhaps.
*groups of players who will beat a lower group of players in 75% of the cases, about 200 rating points in chess I believe
the argument for Go is the depth and beauty.
depth: the skill distribution has more classes* in go than in chess. the learning curve is therefor not only steeper but longer. and as mentioned, computer's aren't half at good at go as chess. (well if chess was played on a 19x19 board that would be different)
beauty: you start with an empty board and the play grows almost like a painting. someone said (will get the person on demand) that this quality corresponds to the mentality of eastern philosophy compared to the western philosophy of chess which is more "destructive" perhaps.
*groups of players who will beat a lower group of players in 75% of the cases, about 200 rating points in chess I believe
It just occurred to me, but Bullet Go (if it exists) must be extremely boring to watch! All the stuff that makes speed chess exciting are lacking in go.
" the play grows almost like a painting. someone said that this quality corresponds to the mentality of eastern philosophy compared to the western philosophy of chess which is more "destructive" perhaps."
I find chess to be quite beautiful aesthetically as well. There is an ebb and flow to a chess game, it can flower, morph, and change, though it's more akin to a film than a painting.
I find chess to be quite beautiful aesthetically as well. There is an ebb and flow to a chess game, it can flower, morph, and change, though it's more akin to a film than a painting.
Go.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.