IMO chess has a very good balance of long term elements (strategy) and short term elements (tactics).
I see go as much harder for the long term elements and shogi as much harder for the short term, but they trade away one type for the other.
Different games will appeal to different people. I probably would have loved go, but I was born in America, and there were basically no tournaments. As a teenager I consciously chose chess over go because books and tournaments were close to me.
I ask that because someone said that Japan and China they have a better board game's culture. So they invented Go and shôgi who are more complex. While Chess is more a occidental game and our culture is more focused on fun and not to the complexity of a game. Do you agree ?
And compared to Chess, Go as a bigger board game. So for me Go is not more complex than Chess, just it as more possibilty. And more possibility mean not more complex. If you play on a 8x8 go board, I don't think this will be more complex than Chess.
This person said also that in the futur, go will be most popular than Chess but I don't know how you can say that. Probably you can help me to understand.
I ask that because someone said that Japan and China they have a better board game's culture. So they invented Go and shôgi who are more complex. While Chess is more a occidental game and our culture is more focused on fun and not to the complexity of a game. Do you agree ?
Yes, I saw that topic.
Frankly it wasn't worth commenting on because its premise was too stupid.
And compared to Chess, Go as a bigger board game. So for me Go is not more complex than Chess, just it as more possibilty. And more possibility mean not more complex. If you play on a 8x8 go board, I don't think this will be more complex than Chess.
It's more complex in terms of brute forcing a solution, but it's not more complex for humans.
There might be 100 legal moves on your turn, but as many as 95 of them are stupid and no one would ever consider them, so it's pointless to say the board is large. A strong chess player chooses between only a few reasonable moves, and it's the same for a go player.
This person said also that in the futur, go will be most popular than Chess but I don't know how you can say that. Probably you can help me to understand.
It doesn't matter which is popular, they're both great games.
I think they're dissimilar enough that one will never replace the other.
Yes. Both games are too complex for the human brain, but it is all the unique, different pieces, that move in different ways, that make chess what it is. It's like trying to get all kinds of different musical instruments to perform a symphony for you, while the composer across from you is trying to ruin everything...
I ask that because someone said that Japan and China they have a better board game's culture. So they invented Go and shôgi who are more complex. While Chess is more a occidental game and our culture is more focused on fun and not to the complexity of a game. Do you agree ?
Yes, I saw that topic.
Frankly it wasn't worth commenting on because its premise was too stupid.
And compared to Chess, Go as a bigger board game. So for me Go is not more complex than Chess, just it as more possibilty. And more possibility mean not more complex. If you play on a 8x8 go board, I don't think this will be more complex than Chess.
It's more complex in terms of brute forcing a solution, but it's not more complex for humans.
There might be 100 legal moves on your turn, but as many as 95 of them are stupid and no one would ever consider them, so it's pointless to say the board is large. A strong chess player chooses between only a few reasonable moves, and it's the same for a go player.
This person said also that in the futur, go will be most popular than Chess but I don't know how you can say that. Probably you can help me to understand.
It doesn't matter which is popular, they're both great games.
I think they're dissimilar enough that one will never replace the other.
Thank you for you arguments my friend 
Know I have a question very personal, which of the tree game that I cited you thing is the more elegant and/or complet ?
I don't know what complete means in a game (?)
Aesthetically go is a lot more fun to look at (stone/wood, circle/square) but I'm not an artist, and that doesn't have much to do with the game
---
But I think one thing that makes go better is there are no draws. If I play 1/1000th better than my opponent, I might win a go game, but to win a chess game I have to play quite a lot better than my opponent, otherwise it will just be a draw.
And also a go game lasts for more moves. I like that there can be small independent skirmishes that slowly evolve into an interconnected larger battle. I have a more strategic mindset, so a game like that is more appealing to me. I suppose what it loses is the short term tactical fireworks of games like shogi and international chess, and some people wouldn't like that trade.
I only learned the rules of Go and bought The Many Faces of Go.
Go is amazing. It's just like the trench warfare of WW1.
An advantage is also a disadvantage.
Go is more mathematically complex. That's good and bad. Chess is simple enough that we can spar with a computer program. And a computer can analyze our real games.
Go is not dramatic. Go is essentially trying to get a bigger piece of the pie. Not dramatic.
Chess models war. Chess models hand to hand fighting. Chess is dramatic, all the characters on a stage, 2 men enter 1 man leaves. "To be, or not to be" - Shakespeare. Chess is Shakespearean.
Go is more realistic. Burger King has been fighting McDonalds for decades. Each gets a share of the fast food piece of the pie. Even the dead competitors, Roy Rogers, still has a few stores around.
Coke vs. Pepsi (which is part of the burger wars) they've been at it forever.
I prefer drama. You fight until there are only 2 kings left. You fight until you get to the core of the conflict, that's what drama is.
Go for realism. Chess for drama.
I'm a very weak go player, but for English speakers who are interested in learning more about the game, check out Nick Sibicky's videos on youtube.
I'm not sure why you're suggesting complexity is a good thing. A lot of the beauty and wonder of chess lies in its simplicity. If you don't understand that then I'm afraid you don't really appreciate the game at all.
To be honest with you that person is just talking nonsense. A lot of people have a major drive to distinguish themselves from their peers or to seek attention. However they don't always have the ability to do this naturally and find themselves without interesting things to say. So they latch onto exotic ideas like this instead, and imagine themselves as being cultured, well-read, well- traveled and to appreciate the finer things, and that they have something interesting to say, that they have the inner scoop and are superior to the common plebs of the western world, when it's really all a bunch of nonsense.
You see this in many different areas - mostly among young people but sometimes older adults as well. So instead of watching regular tv shows they'll watch anime. Instead of liking a mainstream band everyone likes they have to like some eastern european band noone has ever heard of. They may read opinion articles in the newspaper, but they'll be jerking off to how they have books of some Swedish philosopher most people have never heard of and namedrop him and his views in how they think is a subtle way in conversations.
It's fine to talk about how you really like go or even think it's far better than chess. But acting like there is some objective way it's better is plain idiocy.
And I suppose I'm selling chess short a little there.
It's not as if tactics and strategy happen in isolation. Part of what makes chess great is you have to simultaneously balance the short term tactics with the long term considerations. Sometimes this makes for incredibly rich positions where tons of precise combinations have to be evaluated not only for their short term gains and losses but also through the lens of all the endgames that arise... and what makes this so much fun is there are often completely different values. For example in the opening a center pawn is best, but in an endgame your flank pawns can be the most valuable.
So there are all these dynamic exchange rates with short and long term consequences, and it's a lot of fun when these ideas mix together, and you have to resolve things that can seem like contradictions in value.
https://www.myabandonware.com/game/go-simulator-2hq
You can download the prototype of The Many Faces of Go here. Use with DOShell and DOSBox.
I like Chess more than Go
The real game is Chinese Chess. It is closer to the original chess from India, but more Chinese.
Everything in Chinese Chess has an opposite.
Connect vs Disconnect (the pawns). Like a quarter staff, strong, long reach, 2 handed vs. 2 sticks, more articulation.
Fast and Slow. Rook vs. Pawn. At a near distance, a pawn is a mini rook. Within 50 yards, a knife is better than a gun.
Direct and Indirect. Rook vs. Cannon. Attack face to face, or hide behind other actors, "the power behind the throne."
Straight or circular. Rook vs. Knight. The shortest distance between 2 points is not necessarily a straight line. The shortest distance between 2 points on Earth is a circle, because the Earth is round. The shortest distance in space is round, if you go straight, you are going against the gravitational "current" of the orbiting planets.
Lock vs. Unlock
Knights can go in but can't go out. Just like life: there situations you can get in but cannot get out.
Agile vs. cumbersome.
The Elephant can move 2 squares diagonally. A Knight seems more agile; but it takes a Knight 4 moves to move 2 squares diagonally vs 1 for the Elephant.
Offensive pieces vs. Defensive pieces.
Everything in Chinese Chess has an opposite. And you don't know which one is better when!
Know I have a question very personal, which of the tree game that I cited you thing is the more elegant and/or complet ?
Tenchu: Stealth Assassins, PS2, Debug mode, Level 1, the Ninja has nothing but a sword, no grappling hook.
The dog is the master of the ground. The archer is the master of the air, the spear man is the connector of both, the swordsman is the master of close quarters. The characters can stand, attack, or retreat.
1 ninja = the whole of the samurai forces. The ninja must be the master of land, air, and in between. And a master of advance, stand, retreat.
Defensively, it's best the arrange the samurai forces in a "chain". The ninja fighting face to face is like Chess, but breaking the "chain" and divide and conquer is more like Go.
I loved this game. The game is fantastic. You don't know how fantastic it is. I don't need the game to play it! I can imagine the offense and defense for both sides, the 25 samurai forces vs. the 1 ninja. I can play the game only in my mind!
Try it. PS2. Debug mode, Level 1. Ninja has only sword, no grappling hook. You set up the scenario, see if your friend can beat the level, can kill all the samurai forces. In essence, you don't need the PS2 to play. In essence, it's just mind vs. mind. That's what made Tecnhu: Stealth Assassins so awesome.
I defeated a real Ninja, with only my mind.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/a-sport-must-be-a-sport?page=68#comment-47672020
I'm not sure why you're suggesting complexity is a good thing. A lot of the beauty and wonder of chess lies in its simplicity. If you don't understand that then I'm afraid you don't really appreciate the game at all.
To be honest with you that person is just talking nonsense. A lot of people have a major drive to distinguish themselves from their peers or to seek attention. However they don't always have the ability to do this naturally and find themselves without interesting things to say. So they latch onto exotic ideas like this instead, and imagine themselves as being cultured, well-read, well- traveled and to appreciate the finer things, and that they have something interesting to say, that they have the inner scoop and are superior to the common plebs of the western world, when it's really all a bunch of nonsense.
You see this in many different areas - mostly among young people but sometimes older adults as well. So instead of watching regular tv shows they'll watch anime. Instead of liking a mainstream band everyone likes they have to like some eastern european band noone has ever heard of. They may read opinion articles in the newspaper, but they'll be jerking off to how they have books of some Swedish philosopher most people have never heard of and namedrop him and his views in how they think is a subtle way in conversations.
It's fine to talk about how you really like go or even think it's far better than chess. But acting like there is some objective way it's better is plain idiocy.
---- This is one of the greatest things I've ever read on the net. Bravo!
Nope. Love both games. And both of them are more complex than the human brain can master. But as I have put many more hours in learning chess compared to learning go, I am better at chess, so chess will be my personal favorite.