Go makes you choose between Stormcloaks and the Empire, and chess has radiation everywhere. Bethesda needs to do better.
Is Chess better than Go? Debate.
Sort:
ModestAndPolite wrote:
Cherub_Enjel wrote:
I have a few reasons, that could be argued:
(1) In Go, masters can still beat computers!
This is no longer true. It used to be thought that as strategy matters more in Go than in Chess, and tactics matter less, that humans would retain the advantage. But last year the AlphaGo program defeated the 9-dan professional Lee Sedol. He is ranked in the world's top ten. That is the Go equivalent of a 2760+ GM (although Elo ratings in Go go higher than chess ratings, into the 3000s)
What we think of as superior or inferior depends on our values and there is no universally agreed set of values. If there were we would not have had millennia of religious and idealogical conflicts.
The simpler basic rules of Go are often quoted as one of its advantages over chess, but they have disadvantages too. One is that you have to be quite strong to know when the game is over and to get the score right if it has been a close game. There is no such problem in chess where checkmate is unarguable and the conditions for a draw are also precise (stalemate, 3-fold repetition, 50-move rule).
Uh... Scoring is simply counting the amount of territory occupied, counting the amount of pieces on board, then adding them together once either side has used up all their pieces. If you think that Go scoring is difficult, wait until you get to Bridge.
Jan 11, 2017
0
#24
Maybe masters can no longer beat computers well in Go, but they can still beat them once in a while! In slow time controls, that is. In speed Go, obviously humans are at a disadvantage. But Nakamura for example would never beat Komodo or Stockfish, even if he played 100 classical games against them. He might get a good number of draws, but computers are just too strong in chess.
alexm2310 wrote:
No one going to comment on the guy concerned with Skyrim vs Fallout?...
I dunno. I kinda feel like my comment got about the amount of attention it deserved. heh
MyRatingis1523 wrote:
Cherub_Enjel wrote:
Maybe masters can no longer beat computers well in Go, but they can still beat them once in a while! In slow time controls, that is. In speed Go, obviously humans are at a disadvantage. But Nakamura for example would never beat Komodo or Stockfish, even if he played 100 classical games against them. He might get a good number of draws, but computers are just too strong in chess.
go players do NOT stand a chance against computers. chess players have a better chance against engines in chess than grandmasters in go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDl6U67AIDU
the engine only uses 7 out of 30 seconds per move, and still crushes rank number 1
That's still slower than Stockfish blitzing out a move in maybe a few milliseconds or so.
MitSud wrote:
I thought this was a chess site
A common misconception. Bethesda is terrible at choosing domain names.
iamunknown2 wrote
Uh... Scoring is simply counting the amount of territory occupied, counting the amount of pieces on board, then adding them together once either side has used up all their pieces. If you think that Go scoring is difficult, wait until you get to Bridge.
It is counting, but unless you are strong it is not simple.
If one side has won by a big margin there is no problem, but if the scores are close miscounting can get the result the wrong way round.
One issue is that Japanese rules and chinese rules often lead to different scores. Another is that it is not always clear if a group is dead or alive. If one side thinks a group is dead the other player thinks it is alive there is a problem. And if one player plays an attacking move to destroy the eye space, but it doesn't work, then it loses a point.
Do you play the game? If you think counting is easy then you must be 1kyu, shodan, or stronger.
Scoring in bridge is much less likely to go wrong. The points system does not seem to have much underlying logic, but there is never any question about how many tricks have been won by each side and who is and is not vulnerable.
gauw