😕 mmh...let's just go with @kokesi.
chess vs. Go
Sort:
Another go and chess player here.
The 'skill span' in go is much larger than chess, maybe twice that in chess. What I mean is that the difference between a reasonable beginner and the top in chess is about 2000 ELO (from 800 to 2800), and about 4000 ELO in go. (While the rating systems in chess and go are different, there are people who have calculated chess ELO ratings for go players based on their games, and concluded that the range of players is about -500 to 3500.)
To reach 'master' level (some 2000-2100 FIDE in chess or 1 Dan in go) is easier in go than in chess. To reach the top, obtaining 'professional' rank in go (not meaning anyone who can make a living on go) is much harder than become titled in chess. My guess is that getting ranked as a professional in go is harder than becoming a GM in chess.
Otherwise I think go is a far more 'elegant' game. Rules are simple, the size of the go board (19x19) is also spot on choice, and the game play is more strategic than in chess.
I fully agree with Lasker: "While the Baroque rules of Chess could only have been created by humans, the rules of Go are so elegant, organic, and rigorously logical that if intelligent life forms exist elsewhere in the universe they almost certainly play Go."
Oct 5, 2018
0
#25
I think a large part of that is because there are no draws in go.
So if you're a slightly better player, you will win, whereas in chess if you're only slightly better then you're probably the same rating.
I think this is really one of the great things about go: no draws.
Tapani wrote:
Another go and chess player here.
The 'skill span' in go is much larger than chess, maybe twice that in chess. What I mean is that the difference between a reasonable beginner and the top in chess is about 2000 ELO (from 800 to 2800), and about 4000 ELO in go. (While the rating systems in chess and go are different, there are people who have calculated chess ELO ratings for go players based on their games, and concluded that the range of players is about -500 to 3500.)
To reach 'master' level (some 2000-2100 FIDE in chess or 1 Dan in go) is easier in go than in chess. To reach the top, obtaining 'professional' rank in go (not meaning anyone who can make a living on go) is much harder than become titled in chess. My guess is that getting ranked as a professional in go is harder than becoming a GM in chess.
Otherwise I think go is a far more 'elegant' game. Rules are simple, the size of the go board (19x19) is also spot on choice, and the game play is more strategic than in chess.
I fully agree with Lasker: "While the Baroque rules of Chess could only have been created by humans, the rules of Go are so elegant, organic, and rigorously logical that if intelligent life forms exist elsewhere in the universe they almost certainly play Go."
Yes, I see now. Especially the part about it being organic.
It's like -- it resembles an organism on the board. Like -- you could almost study the evolution of a virus, or a human, through go. I mean -- a virus is so small and so simple, but, still so baffling, so complex (I mean they are killing us), it's like Go is a godly game of sorts. Simple dots of cells and bacteria taking up space, but with a plan.
😇
😐
Two humans, one with legs, and the other with wings. They're both told to get to the other side of the room. The one with wings gets there faster, but it turns out that they're both just as tired from the little experiment.
Naa, the winged dude had to fight against gravity more. Just like riding a bicycle a certain distance will expend less energy than running that far (and for the same reason).
Also, even if both methods were equally efficient, expending energy in a shorter amount of time means you had a higher power output. Probably not important if we're just going across a room, but over longer distances that can make one person feel more tired. As an imperfect example imagine someone walking 200 meters and someone sprinting 200 meters.