Personally have always preferred the comparison to sport for both games. But make no mistake about it, go is an extremely violent game!
Go VS Chess
Sort:
Cool video.
I wish my brother had kept studying go, he could give me some lessons like this.
some peaple who can not master a single complex game goes to find more complex games,hows that.no doubt its not a popular game and will never be popular except mainland of origin.
what is your source?wikipedia link?
Maybe try reading the thread while you wait?
waffllemaster wrote:
Cool video.
I wish my brother had kept studying go, he could give me some lessons like this.
Yeah, would be cool indeed, he could likely be a dan level player by now. ;)
I just joined a Go club recently and played my first few games. There are some things I notice in comparison to chess:
1. The way to maintain territory is handled differently. Go uses multiple pressure points of conflict to reduce pressure in an area or to redirect the pressure to other areas. Chess for the most part is more of a hand to hand combat. While chess can use the idea of pressure points to manipulate the opponent, it is more comparable to Ko fights in Go.
2. Chess has a number of skimishes which are like Ko fights in Go, but for the most part only maintain two fronts. My Go games have had more like four or five fronts.
3. The concept of tempos and initiative are somewhat different. Tempos in Go are important in maintaining balance, but in general do not lead to a huge advantage as with chess. Tempos in chess are more for building pressure rather than manipulating it.
The initiative in Go is a really small, but nagging advantage that continues for a long time. You rarely see a sweeping initiative that wrecks the other side unless the other side completely ignored a front for several moves or played an extremely poor error. The initiative in chess is much stronger and can be used to swing for victory. The closest thing I can compare the swinging pendullum of Go is the varient of Progressive chess.
4. The openings of both Go and chess are equally important in that they setup the spheres of influence. The middlegame and endgames in a Go game are very short compared to the opening since it takes a long time for the board to develop completely.
5. The complexity is pretty much irrelevant as nobody sits and trys to calculate every single move 40 plies out in chess or go. Just as chess has candidate moves, go is pretty much the same. Go requires much more long-term strategy than chess, but the plans are much more clear-cut than chess (however, the evaluation of a position can be a completely different matter).
6. Tactical and positional play is equally prevalent in chess and go.
Anyways, I have enjoyed my early forays into Go and will improve with more experience and gameplay.
Also, the parts of the board used by Go and chess are quite the opposite. In go, it is more beneficial to grab the corner and edges of the board since they are much easier to defend than the center. Chess tries to have more presence in the center and stay away from the edges. I feel that has more to do with the multiple piece movements.
not a familt friendly game!Childrens can pick those stones and enter in mouth!!!
also a bullet go can cause severel hand collision I guess..
[COMMENT DELETED]
One element of Go that I appreciate is the fact that its more fluid nature allows for more opportunities to recover from mistakes. In chess, if black finds himself down the exchange, or worse, then against a skilled opponent it takes extraordinary play just to eke out a draw. To my mind, a draw is equivalent to a loss. I do not believe in playing not to lose. In a game where one side pulls out a draw, there should have been a strong possibility of turning that into a win instead, but that's not how chess really works. In Go, however, you can make a fairly serious blunder in the middle game and still fight for a win. This is possible for a number of reasons intrinsic to Go, but the fact that there is no such thing as a draw is certainly part of it. Since winning by half a moku is all it takes (after accounting for komi, of course), the game provides constant incentive to keep fighting. As long as there is time on the clock and space on the board to manuever, there exists opportunities to close that 5-point gap and then go ahead in the endgame, pulling out a victory. In fact, one training principle in Go for advanced players is to play with a substantial handicap in order to build up the experience of "fighting from behind" and the will to never give up. In a game like chess where it is not uncommon to end up in a middle game position where the best you can reasonably hope for is a draw, where you are merely fighting to produce a "no decision", the incentive to persevere feels hollow to me.
Honinbo wrote: "Chess, shogi, xiangqi are games that simulate a war. On the other hand, there is no war context in Go." I disagree. Go is just more subtle, but actually Go is more like a knife fight whereas chess is a debate. And seriously, in what army is the woman second in command and essentially the most powerful piece on the board? This is totally unrealistic. With Go, the player is responsible to give meaning to the strength of the pieces and anything could happen, so you are dealing with the sum total of the opponent at both a conscious and unconscious level. If anything about the opponent's thinking is incorrect, it will show up in unbalanced play during Go. The players also have choices as to how to play the game, either indirect, direct, or any combination, due to player mentality. Cultural influences have an enormous impact on how the player times the tempo of the game, forcing moves, vs. quiet moves. At this point my aim during Go is to make extremely forceful cutting moves, all the time, at every move while making the moves appear soft and gentle. This freedom of abstractness is much much harder to perform during chess due to the nature of the game, if you lose one critical piece you may lose the game, however it can be done, as Fischer showed in some of his bizarre games. Also, as Fischer introduced chess960, I wonder if it wouldve been a matter of time until Bobby quit chess entirely and pursued Go exclusively.
What I think:
few rules + gigantic board = very long, static game
lots of systematic rules + small medium-sized board = relatively short, non-static game
Go is anything but static. It has an important quality called "flow", which refers to the fact that groups evolve, their influence evolves, and the importance of even a single stone can change radically as the game progresses and other stones begin to come into contact with it. Go appears static to the uninitiated because they become preoccupied with the fact that most stones, once placed, remain in place. But stones, and indeed whole groups, can disappear in a flash through capture, reconfiguring the board and reasserting potentially new "meaning" and importance to those stones still on the board, to say nothing of those still to come.
go and weed goes hand to hand.
All I see in this thread is "I am completely ignorant of Go so let me give my expert opinion on it as a chess player." Huh. At least I have played the game to actually give an opinion of it.
I enjoy Go.
The latest board game we played is Khet. It's very family friendly and kid friendly, you bounce lasers off mirrors, fun stuff.
"Real lasers" LOL
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/16991/khet-the-laser-game
2D
3) Chess is about tatics, go is about tactics too, but it also has a strong strategy component (I don't want to start a flame war about this, for clarification sake, strategy is how you manage a war, tactics is how you manage a battle, they are military terms). For those who doesn't play go it's hard to understand but imagine that every fight in go it's like a chess game. You can have multiple fights at the same time going on and playing one fight means ignoring another that you can potentially lose. It's up to you to decide which fight is more important while you think of a tactic to win them all. It's said that playing chess it's like playing a battle, playing go it's like playing an entire war. I couldn't agree more.
3) There's much more freedom in go. At the beginning, you can chose to play one out of 361 moves. While only 41 of them are considered "right" all the other moves (except for first and second lines I suppose) can't really be considered wrong. It's much more difficult to force a move in go, simply because your opponent can just say "you want that stone? go ahead and take it I'll play a 10 points move elsewere!".
I'd like to go on and on but this is getting ridiculously long.
I just want to respond to Plutonia: Just look for life and death problems and you will find plenity of examples of how complex yet elegant the game is. But while the solution to your problem leads to victory (checkmate), the solution to go a problem leads to a local victory (a group of stone dead or captured), which might even be bad for the rest of the game. That's the beauty of go!
Yeah, would guess that's why no problems where posted - even basic life and death puzzles would not be comprehended (with out a great deal of explanation) to say nothing of more complex problems. gianpasd responded to you directly Plutonia (agree with all quoted here and pretty much everything he wrote in that post with the only exception being that I don't prefer one over the other - play more chess these days only because I know I won't have to deal with that sickening lost feeling as much).
In any case, here is another essential link for any who really want to know how the other half lives: http://playgo.to/iwtg/en/
And, finally, some puzzles with explanations :)
And the other 4 parts of the lecture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yj5_f0Fd-s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMcSeqI3aEo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V_XRygp2yE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjiRd_WGzhk