Thank you Sollerman, I thought it was 7 pieces each side, or about that, so there is still huge room for computer progress only in the endgame.
When on the subject of complexity:
The size of 5 piece tablebases is about 7 gigabytes.
The size of 6 piece tablebases is about 1.2 terrabytes.
The size of 7 piece tablebases is about 140 terrabytes.
which is difficult to fit into your iPhone
Even if chess never will be near as complex, objectively, as Go it's needless to say that to us humans there's no risk chess will run out of depth in the near future.
The size of 5 piece tablebases is about 7 gigabytes.
The size of 6 piece tablebases is about 1.2 terrabytes.
The size of 7 piece tablebases is about 140 terrabytes.
which is difficult to fit into your iPhone
Even if chess never will be near as complex, objectively, as Go it's needless to say that to us humans there's no risk chess will run out of depth in the near future.
When You play go You can lose and You may not even know why, that is complexity.
@Motion, I don't think you have enough background in chess to argue that its not strategically deep.
The greatest proof comes from the fact that chess understanding is constantly evolving and changing, for example, early in chess history, it was thought that controlling the center and fighting for an equal share of it was necessary, it was only later discovered that its possible to initially allow the opponent to occupy the center with the idea to make it an object of attack (such as in the king's Indian defense )
Another example is the fact that in most chess books, you are told to play pawns on colors that is opposite of your bishop, modern play has shown that even placing pawns on the same color is fine.
To say that chess is nothing but tactics is a large underestimation, however, i do not disagree that go might be more complex.
P.S, i posted on the "painting"
The greatest proof comes from the fact that chess understanding is constantly evolving and changing, for example, early in chess history, it was thought that controlling the center and fighting for an equal share of it was necessary, it was only later discovered that its possible to initially allow the opponent to occupy the center with the idea to make it an object of attack (such as in the king's Indian defense )
Another example is the fact that in most chess books, you are told to play pawns on colors that is opposite of your bishop, modern play has shown that even placing pawns on the same color is fine.
To say that chess is nothing but tactics is a large underestimation, however, i do not disagree that go might be more complex.
P.S, i posted on the "painting"
I agree fully #24 and reckon that motion underestimated the strategic complexity of chess. But I think it's fair to say that Go is more strategic than chess overall, wouldn't you agree?
dont worry i have no interest in winning this discussion
u might wanna look lasker opinion about go
and poincare about chess, perhaps they are a big autorithy enough for you.
u might wanna look lasker opinion about go
and poincare about chess, perhaps they are a big autorithy enough for you.
Go is definitely more strategic than chess, yes!
But i don't believe that chess is bereft from strategy as was implied by motion.
But i don't believe that chess is bereft from strategy as was implied by motion.
hahaha
Let us remind ourselves, before we get our panties in a twist that what we're discussing is mostly subjective. It's always good to have Captain Obvious to remind us of that :), seems some of you in your fervor to extol the depth and beauty of one game over the other, forgot this.
I'm extremely mediocre at both games, but at least I know the rules and can play. I was 4 kyu on Kgs for a while. So let me just respond to some of the things said in this post which I think were inaccurate, then I will give my personal opinion on the provocative question at the end of my post.
#2 I can only agree with what Hellball said, this gentleman (rise_UIED) knows not what he says.
#14 "go theory is based a lot around, let's say, Chinese-inspired ways of education"
This sounds intriguing, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. You then said: "More importantly, Go puzzles definitely exist, but Go education is generally less hands-on than chess education (where you are expected to do a lot of tactics puzzles). Go education is much more theoretical than practical"
I think you're dead wrong about this. Here's why: Go education is very similar to chess education. In order to get good at it you have to learn countless positions and patterns, and this is usually taught with puzzles, and tactical problems. Most go books consist of endless "white to move in order to accomplish X" kind of problems, where X can be: link up groups, kill a group, live in the corner, invade, create a Ko threat etc. ad nauseam.
I don't know if Go is more abstract, but maybe I don't understand the word in this context. Both games consist of hands-on moves of /concrete/ stones and pieces :) in response to a position. If by abstract you mean intuitive then in that sense I would say Go is more "abstract". Especially in the opening. You have to rely on general principles more in your choices where to put a stone because there are 361 theoretically possible moves, whereas in chess there are 18. Obviously this means that you have to rely on your "feel" to a greater extent. As a game progresses the number of possible moves decreases but compared to chess they're an order of magnitude greater throughout. This makes go a more intuitive strategical game. That is not to say that Go isn't tactical, nor that chess isn't strategical/positional. There are situations such as triple ko-fights, or life-and-death, when Go can get so tactical that it almost defies comprehension (certainly my comprehension) and chess can be played positionally with more reliance on general principles and maneuvering of pieces.
Having said that, on the whole, I would like to stress the similarities between the two games. The analogies run deep, despite the static nature of Go (stones tend to stay put) and the dynamical nature of chess (positions, except maybe for pawn formations) evolve. Life-and-death problems are analogous to mate problems, Josekis and Fusekis are like chess openings, requiring memorization. Tesujis are like tactical motifs in chess. In both games there are similar concepts such as influence (in go: thickness and sabaki) , initiativ (go: sente), space, (in go: territorial lead) sound pawn-formations (in go: shape).
From a human standpoint the complexity of Go and Chess is on the same order of magnitude. It matters little (to us) whether there are 10^120 or 10^180 possible board configurations. It does give Go a more strategical/intuitive character and chess a more tactical natue, in one sense, but neither game will be solved by humans, so there is no shortage of possibilities to explore.
So, in conclusion, I think there is as much depth and beauty and interesting concepts as one may wish for in both Go and Chess and which one is more interesting comes down to taste. Personally I think chess is more fun and exciting, but I could probably progress faster to amateur dan than I can reach (let's say 1900 ELO) in chess. Go has an aesthetic appeal which chess lacks. Partly due to it being associated with Japanese Culture, and partly because of it being a slower more intuitive game--imo an almost Zen-like quality!
I'm extremely mediocre at both games, but at least I know the rules and can play. I was 4 kyu on Kgs for a while. So let me just respond to some of the things said in this post which I think were inaccurate, then I will give my personal opinion on the provocative question at the end of my post.
#2 I can only agree with what Hellball said, this gentleman (rise_UIED) knows not what he says.
#14 "go theory is based a lot around, let's say, Chinese-inspired ways of education"
This sounds intriguing, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. You then said: "More importantly, Go puzzles definitely exist, but Go education is generally less hands-on than chess education (where you are expected to do a lot of tactics puzzles). Go education is much more theoretical than practical"
I think you're dead wrong about this. Here's why: Go education is very similar to chess education. In order to get good at it you have to learn countless positions and patterns, and this is usually taught with puzzles, and tactical problems. Most go books consist of endless "white to move in order to accomplish X" kind of problems, where X can be: link up groups, kill a group, live in the corner, invade, create a Ko threat etc. ad nauseam.
I don't know if Go is more abstract, but maybe I don't understand the word in this context. Both games consist of hands-on moves of /concrete/ stones and pieces :) in response to a position. If by abstract you mean intuitive then in that sense I would say Go is more "abstract". Especially in the opening. You have to rely on general principles more in your choices where to put a stone because there are 361 theoretically possible moves, whereas in chess there are 18. Obviously this means that you have to rely on your "feel" to a greater extent. As a game progresses the number of possible moves decreases but compared to chess they're an order of magnitude greater throughout. This makes go a more intuitive strategical game. That is not to say that Go isn't tactical, nor that chess isn't strategical/positional. There are situations such as triple ko-fights, or life-and-death, when Go can get so tactical that it almost defies comprehension (certainly my comprehension) and chess can be played positionally with more reliance on general principles and maneuvering of pieces.
Having said that, on the whole, I would like to stress the similarities between the two games. The analogies run deep, despite the static nature of Go (stones tend to stay put) and the dynamical nature of chess (positions, except maybe for pawn formations) evolve. Life-and-death problems are analogous to mate problems, Josekis and Fusekis are like chess openings, requiring memorization. Tesujis are like tactical motifs in chess. In both games there are similar concepts such as influence (in go: thickness and sabaki) , initiativ (go: sente), space, (in go: territorial lead) sound pawn-formations (in go: shape).
From a human standpoint the complexity of Go and Chess is on the same order of magnitude. It matters little (to us) whether there are 10^120 or 10^180 possible board configurations. It does give Go a more strategical/intuitive character and chess a more tactical natue, in one sense, but neither game will be solved by humans, so there is no shortage of possibilities to explore.
So, in conclusion, I think there is as much depth and beauty and interesting concepts as one may wish for in both Go and Chess and which one is more interesting comes down to taste. Personally I think chess is more fun and exciting, but I could probably progress faster to amateur dan than I can reach (let's say 1900 ELO) in chess. Go has an aesthetic appeal which chess lacks. Partly due to it being associated with Japanese Culture, and partly because of it being a slower more intuitive game--imo an almost Zen-like quality!
"I think there is as much depth and beauty and interesting concepts as one may wish for in both Go and Chess and which one is more interesting comes down to taste."
This is very true.
It is a matter of taste.
This is very true.
It is a matter of taste.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.