12043 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
What do we think? Go is infinitely more complex than chess and entirely unsolvable. Computers cannot really beat human players, and its unlikely they will ever beat Go masters. Go is a strategist's heaven: vast, yet intricate positions with each move having implications hundreds of moves later. And yet, chess allows for beautiful piece coordination and spectacular tactical motifs through elaborate variation calculations: sudden and rupturous annihilation with the deployment of entirely different forces, each filling its perfect role in the onslaught... Thoughts?
My professor and I were discussing this exact issue actually, but about the computer programming aspect of it (since that is his Ph.D and my area of study). It's interesting that a relatively "simple" game like Go is a much more complicated beast in terms of strategy and how one would go about figuring out algorithms to evaluate a position and its subtleties and potential. Where as Chess is more or less solvable because of the quantified ways each piece moves and how they work in conjunction with each other.
The pieces (stones?) are boring. Look like a bunch of black and white m+ms. That's all I can comment on since I don't really know the rules. I checked Wikipedia's entry on the game....... The rules seem boring, too. There must be something to it, though, as 900 billion people play it worldwide.....
I use both these games because they are fun and they have utility value. I find Go to be very very freeing and relaxing to play. However I find that playing Go increases my perceptional ability so that I grow increasingly impatient with nonsense at work, and therefore I largely study chess on my lunch breaks simply to give me the energy to put up with the nonsense. However if I had my way I would be studying go. At my work(in a hospital) there is largely a lot of bs and nonsense that goes on during the day which is irrelevant to patient care. I consider this to be similar to a constant fight or tactics. So chess has the advantage here in terms of activating the left brain and dealing with bs. With Go there is more of an appreciation of understanding of position and space and the almost unlimited possibilities. This is why I play lots of correspondence games of Go, you really get to know yourself and the other player.
All this being said, I also notice with Go that because it is very fatiguing it impacts my weight workouts in a bad way. Chess seems to increase my physical ability to perform work and gives me energy during the day, I actually study chess openings in books in between sets when lifting heavy weights.
In terms of time perception, I believe that because Go is largely a right brain activity, there is a feeling of escaping the world. And yet because Go is so static, a lack of movement, after playing Go it seems that time seems to slow way down. This is very problematic in a big city or at work, as annoyances seem to be more amplified. With chess due to the large amount of movement, yang, if you will, time goes by quicker perceptually, so annoyances are less so.
Both games are very interesting and have value for the reasons I listed above.
Go seems to be very interesting from what I hear. I know the rules and have played a few games with a friend and online but that's about it... my skill doesn't go beyond knowing the rules.
Infinitely complex and entirely unsolvable are silly adjectives to use.
I really like the strategy aspect of go, as tactical wins in chess I find more or less boring.
I heard a game Kramnik talked about, forgot the name, but it's some area's version of chess where the piece movement is much more restricted (eg no queen, and a larger board). He said it was like one long endgame i.e. lots of strategy from move one. This game also sounded interesting.
All games are interesting and Go is very popular and very different from chess.
Once a man realises he cannot match his puny wits against probing reality he generally turns to religion, art, or games.
Arimaa is also very difficult for computers. What do Go and Arimaa have in common? They both have a lot of possibilities for each move. Arimaa has thousands of possibilities for each players turn. It is much more strategic than tactical.
I just learned Go today in a couple of minutes by playing against a weak computer. I can now beat it almost every time. It's really easy to beat.
Interesting idea. To me it seems this knowledge is inborn, if only on a subconscious level.
Hm... I don't think that was real Go. Where are the rules for the most common version?
There has to be something to fill in time between the cradle and the grave. Thanks for your reply. I'm much nearer to the grave than the cradle but I have the fondest memories of that early awakening.
Fair point, let me rephrase:
Go's game tree is vastly more complex than that of chess, and it is substantially more difficult to solve Go than chess.
I dunno about complexity, but it's bigger anyway
At this point, chess only makes me want to gnaw off limbs, but go looks like it may make me want to use pool cleaner for eyedrops, so maybe I should give it a shot.
I like both of them a lot they both reqiure lots of strategy but it is entirly different games.
Go will be solved by computers before chess due to its uniform simple structure
- it is more amenable to hardware-based implementations.
Chess tactics are more exciting than go. The dynamic pieces are also very fun. Chess is plenty complex for me so go's advantage in that field is insignifigant for me. That is why I like chess more.
beardogjones: Wikipedia (the font of knowledge that it is) disagrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go#Obstacles_to_high-level_performance
Me, I prefer chess of course :)
This thread got me curious enough to try the interactive tutorial at a Go website. First impression is intense frustration.
Thanks for the pointer....
I used to play go in college. But over time I discovered that chess has two distinct advantages. First, at least where I live, many more people play chess. Also, the average chess game lasts around 35-40 pairs of moves, rather than over 100 pairs for go (these are my rough estimates). This makes chess much more amenable to rapid play, since it's much easier to conclude an entire game in under 10 minutes (also with go, it's pretty easy to mess up the board irretrievably during time scrambles). Go is still a great game, though. P.S. ThePeanutMonster: Nice poetic description of the two games!
by DrSpudnik a few minutes ago
Things some chess players say when they blunder
by winerkleiner a few minutes ago
The Smaug Attack
by EDB123 3 minutes ago
Against 1. d4, do you play ... Nf6 or ... d5?
by DrSpudnik 3 minutes ago
12/12/2013 - Polugaevsky - Szilayi, Moscow 1960
by subham_behera 6 minutes ago
I am quitting chess.
by DrSpudnik 7 minutes ago
How do I go about studying the middlegame
by Goob63 8 minutes ago
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
by QueenTakesKnightOOPS 10 minutes ago
Cannot add utube videos no more!!
by stephen_33 12 minutes ago
Daeth Opining: The Future of Chess?
by EDB123 12 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!