Go VS Chess

Hi i returned from vacations (with my bad english) xDDD and black can play Q2 to solve the problem, tho ones who know more about go will say its a small apture and it is indeed, but un yose (late game) moves like ht can reach more value, i guess its a 15-20k problem :)

Thought this was an interesting article:

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-world-of-computer-go/

hmmm... that article is interesting. well, the game of go will still continue to inspire everyone

Meh. Stratego pisses on both of 'em. You're all a bunch of geeks squabbling about who's into the coolest game anyway

I've recently been trying Go and I thoroughly enjoy it. I tend to view the games this way- both are great games but they are very  much a product of their culture. Go is highly asbtract, even esoteric, with little that resembles any excitement to the average onlooker. I can fully understand why the metaphysically oriented, er, "Orient" embraced such a game. Chess in comparison is much more flat out combative. After all you're trying to kill some guy on the board, not capture territory. Again I can understand why the war torn Europe of the Middle Ages would take to that type of thing.

Neither is more difficult than another because both are really, really friggin' hard! To me there is no difference between mega maxi ultra hyper friggin' hard and super extra hyper ultra friggin' hard.

Ha ha, you got that right.

Anyway, you also have Shogi there, wich is a kind of slugfest they say.

@petrip:  In a typical go game between highly competent players, the strategy primarily consists of loosely staking out a claim to (hopefully) more territory than one's opponent does with a few stones at the start. Fighting occurs as the boundaries solidify and/or when someone invades territory the opponent has tried to claim.  Capturing a large group of the opponent's stones rarely happens (it's like dropping a piece in a chess game between GMs) and is usually cause for immediate resignation (as is losing a piece in chess). Like in chess, the THREAT of such a capture is a major feature of play (both strategic and tactical), however many games (most at the highest levels) are settled with few captured stones and the winner being the player more efficient at making his territorial claims stick.  

There is aggression, but it's more subtle:  like two ant colonies disputing territory in an environment with limited resources.  There will be some fighting, of course, but the winning colony will be the one that more efficiently uses the resources to increase its population to the point where it displaces the other by weight of numbers, and thereby causing the losing colony to relocate elsewhere.

I might add that Go is *definitely* a game you need lessons in to fully appreciate. The same is true of chess I think, but Go on the face of it seems a rather dull game. I might have lost interest in it if I hadn't read a good beginners guide to it and learned of eye shapes, ko threats, semeai and such. After that I was hooked!

But enough of that, right now I'm up for a good game of Carcassone.

my personal impression after playing go at the local civic center.... unsanitary. that bowl of sweaty pieces has never been washed or disinfected. I just wanted to wash my hands afterwards and I thought, ' I'm happy with chess!'

wow thats wired, my Go students help me wash the stones for classes onc a week, if you had the bad luck to see such a filthy bowls of stones think you could find also a filthy amount of chess pieces, never washed or desinfected, but those cases are not the common

Hello, winning by a large capturing race is very rare, but threads are just as neccesary as in chess, a well played game of chess need to thread until you can capture the king, the crucial difference is what you can lose to take the capture, for example, in chess you can sacrifice evrithing if it means mate your opponent (there are beautifull sacrifices of bishop for pawn to make the king go out of his defensive spot) but in go you must count evrytime the value of each group, this vaue is changing all along, so you can sacrifice groups with less value to get profit (profit can be a capture, get territory, influence, shape, or forcing a bad shape for you opponent for example)

Now my own games ends most of times in a very complicated fight where i win or lose the game by surrender, i always force this kind of fights and im preparing the sttage from th very begin of the game, but my girlfriend plays the opposite, she avoids evry fight and sacrifices a lot of groups to get solid shapes making near impossible to initiate a semeai (a fight for liberties) at the end she beat her opponents because she is very sharp at counting and making profit from those exanges and finally win the game with more territory also with more cptured (lost) stones xD

Argh... Lee Sedol lost to AlphaGo!

Mainly because of all this recent go news, I've been trying to get into playing go. I'm trying to understand it and play some games because I think a lot of patience is required, which I lack when I play chess nowadays. We'll see. Hopefully I can take some time and relax and learn.

he won a single game! That's good enough! YES!

Kasparov won his first match.

Lee Sedol won... a single game 

I think Kasparov may also have had better idea of the computer's strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately I can't right now find out any information as to when Kasparov begun using computer assistance in his opening prepararation but I think he pioneered it well before computers became strong enough to actually beat top GM's. In any case he had played against computers before and while the IBM machines had way more calculating power the program they used maybe wasn't that different.

On the other hand, previous generation of go engines probably were of no use to top pros and in any case Alpha Go seems to be very different. Lee Sedol had to test many strategies during the match in order to find out its strengths and weaknesses.

No...

Deep blue was not only software. The hardware was purpose made for playing a chess match. Kasparov had no deep blue games to look at. Just the opposite, IBM used Kasparov's old games and Joel Benjamin to try to gain an edge.

Kasparov knew this, and as a result, Kasparov didn't play his usual openings at all.

---

Sedol was unlucky in some ways though. the 6 month old version of Alphago's games were not nearly as good as the version he played. And of course he had no reason to believe a go program would be very strong in any case.

@Shakaali:  There is an old article somewhere on en.chessbase.com that describes Kasparov collaborating with the founders of Chessbase on the first version back in the late 1980s.  He helped them come up with desirable features and was their main alpha tester. 

Chess is, end of story.