I love the beauty of the go board as it becomes filled with stones.
Sorry that this is off topic. But I just had to say that.
Amy
Chess VS. GO
Sort:
Apr 20, 2012
0
#23
Almost the whole of this discussion seems off topic to me.
Different games with different structures. I find the discussion about which of them is more deep, more war-like, more intellect etc. mostly infantile, irrelevant and time-wasting. Most people talking about these games understand neither very well (not to be rude, neither do I).
Personally I prefer Go, but I do more chess since the vastness of possibilities on a Go board, for one reason or another, seems to frighten me. Maybe it's just because I have more experience on chess.
But I honestly don't see the point in comparing time and time again - just play and enjoy the game, thinks me.
Go is a way superior game to chess.The computer ruined chess,now you don't analyze your own games,you just have Houdini do it for you.You don't analyze openings yourself you have Houdini do it.You spend lots of time memorizing computer lines.Chess has become more like database management,a few moves in the middle game and that's it.In go you have to analyze everything for your self,your in uncharted waters very quickly sometimes on move 2 or three.It has an artistic intuitive quality of great moves that doesn't come from calculation alone.
Go is more like fighting over area. And I believe current computing technology is still behind to calculate all the possibilities.. 19 by 19 maxium 361! +alpha( you can take opponents piece).. let's say human build the software beat human in Go. They can just add one more line, 20 by 20, to fuck the computer up...so yeah.. -_- chess is simple to play but not professional b.c. human lost to a computer... something like human already achieved the goal that they built a semi-perfect chess master(Ironically, what if supercomputer vs supercomputer they will just calculate the bestest move.. and that one game is end of chess ... It has to be a draw game otherwise it is not even game...) I played Go when i was young ..well rule of go is much much simple but hard to understand strategies... It is damn difficult so.. I choose to play chess.... But I wish that I wanna be good at Go.... :(
Jul 1, 2013
0
#26
Puchiko wrote:
tonymtbird wrote:
GO has corporations of players that are paid play go! These professials are sometimes sent out into the local community to teach/give simuls/teaching games. Why can we not do this in chess?? GO players also compete for titles in a way that chess does not currently enjoy.
That's true for Asia, but my little sister plays Go here and a few years back, the Czech Go champion (6 dan, amateur though) was a taxi driver. He coached her, and it was very cheap-just to illustrate that the net worth of a top European player is very low.
Chess does have people in say, the top 60, who can make a comfortable living out of tournament chess, and more lower rateds who write chess books or coach. Sure, they don't compare to footballers, but I don't think Go's pros are really that better off.
One thing that enourmosly boosted the popularity of Go was the series Hikaru no Go, a children's anime about a boy who meets the ghost of a Go player from ancient times and with his help becomes the best player of all time. It aired on Japanese and subsequently U.S. television, and Go club attendance soared, many new clubs were created thanks to this wave of popularity. Perhaps chess could use something like this.
Great series, but "the best of all time" is an exaggeration of Hikaru's strength, considering that at the end of the series he's still not the best player of his age in Japan.
Jul 1, 2013
0
#27
Hollywood777 wrote:
Go is a way superior game to chess.The computer ruined chess,now you don't analyze your own games,you just have Houdini do it for you.You don't analyze openings yourself you have Houdini do it.You spend lots of time memorizing computer lines.Chess has become more like database management,a few moves in the middle game and that's it.In go you have to analyze everything for your self,your in uncharted waters very quickly sometimes on move 2 or three.It has an artistic intuitive quality of great moves that doesn't come from calculation alone.
Speak for yourself. Do you even play chess?
Go is only a sophisticated black/white jig-saw puzzle. Just fill in the pieces properly. It lacks chess' interaction of pieces in time and space. All the moves are committed and irreversible. It's like playing chess with only pawns, wherein the pawn structure is little by little set in stone.
Nov 4, 2013
0
#29
I actually learned go before chess. Both games are very rich but I play chess now because its more familiar to Americans and its much easier to find teachers and friends who play chess...
Go, I have to admit, is way better... The board is way larger which means... more space to think! Strategy!! And go can be played on any board size!! Chess is fun, but not as good.
chess has more aspects involved so I decided to pursue it over go cause its more challenging.
I like chess because there are way more books, and I like to throw away my money on useless things.
Jan 23, 2014
0
#33
I tried playing Go once, after reading this thread. People say it's simple and easy to learn, but i just couldn't get it.
I'm going to suggest everyone who likes chess and/or go to also check out the game called "Arimaa".
It kinda combines the good parts of chess and go while skipping the tedious ones.
Only bad thing about it is it's lack of popularity due to not being thousands of years old.
(and that the camel is a camel and not a rhinozeros!)
I personally feel it's a lot of fun and everyone who plays chess should at least try it out once.
[COMMENT DELETED]
I played Arimaa! It was really fun! On par with Go! Sorry, chess doesn't have the simplicity....
I played Arimaa as well, but it didn't quite work for me. In the beginning it was very fun, but as I got a bit better it started to get quite annoying. The gameplay feels like arm wrestling -- both players defend their pits and try to make helpless pokes until someone blunders enough to lose a piece after which everything comes crumbling down. If both player sit at their sides it's quite hard to make an attack that has greater pay-off than risk.
But I only played it for a few months casual so maybe the game gets different once you really get into it.
Go is great, and not difficult at all. It just takes a while to learn "how the pieces move". After that, you can really express yourself on the board. I think it's more strategical and chess is more tactical.
The only problem I have with Go is the praised handicap system -- it means you cant really hope to win when your tired, or down a few beers, because your rank is determined in the long run by your best performance and the handicap is calculated from the rank (which is really accurate btw). Every game is a great struggle, no matter the opponent.
May 23, 2014
0
#38
Go relies a lot more on intuition. Draws can occur in multiple ko situations, but I think this only happens in a low percentage of games. The fundamental rules of capture and placement are simple, but there are multiple rule sets and scoring systems (Japanese, Chinese, etc.) that can be confusing to the beginner. Unlike chess, it not as obvious who has won the game, because the win is determined quantitatively by amassed territory or area on the board. Counting and estimating territory accurately is a skill that requires considerable practice and acquired judgment. When I played, a typical criticism was that I was too greedy or I tried to fight too much. Most of my games were usually won by resignation because they often turned into an all or nothing fight. It is quite a thrilling game! I reached 4 kyu AGA fairly quickly after playing in a couple of tournaments before I decided to focus on chess. Go is a wonderful game, but it has a long way to go (no pun intended) in the United States. Last I heard, there was a professional system developing here, but I think there is still a large gap between Western amateurs and Eastern professionals.
It has become fashionable for coffee shop folks to talk about the superiority of Go, with so many possible moves. But keep in mind that at any one time probably 350 out of those 361 are just bad. So what if the field is big? Bigger is not necessarily better. If you put chess pieces on a 19x19 board would it be a better game? No, it would just be less compact and more chaotic. Would Go improve on a 100x100 board? You see what I mean. I personally find it less mentally challenging to imagine and build shapes in Go, compared to calculating precise move sequences in chess. I also wonder if programmers have just put more work into chess and that is partly why go engines aren't as strong.
19x19 Go is objectively more difficult than orthodox Chess. This can be measured by the rating difference between a top player and a beginner. For Chess this is something like 2000, for Go it would be more like 10,000.
There has been a lot of effort in computer Go the past decade, now that Chess is considered a solved problem by the AI research community. But the problem is that it is completely unclear how to evaluate Go positions. In Chess there is the simple heuristic of 'counting wood' (Q=9, R=5, etc.) which already gives you >90% of the truth in quiet positions. In Go the number of stones is almost meaningless, as large chains can be doomed in th elong term. The 'poor man's approach' of using mobility (number of moves) when you really have no idea of what to evaluate, which works well in Reversi/Othello, also does not work in Go, as the number of moves you have is simply a function of turn number, no matter what you move.
the machine will not think on kill you, so you win by out of time, and that is how a human beat all the machines