A personal essay.

[Joelnelsonb]

Let me remind everyone that this essay was written "entirely for fun". I posted it here for feedback on what could be done to improve it (thanks Ed). I decided to write it after reading a debate that I disagreed with and wanted to write a rebuttal. I truly believe that Go is a superior strategy game to Chess. If you disagree, why don't your write a 2500 word essay explaining why. If you feel like the essay should not have been written in the first place, thank you for reading and have a nice day. I am going to finish it, not rewrite it. And any help in making it the greatest essay it can be will be appreciated. If you can persuade me that I'm wrong about my theory, in an educated manner, than when I'm finished with this one, I will have fun writing another essay refuting this one. I'm not trying to write a gospel; you don't have to believe too.

[xed_over]

Let me remind everyone that this essay was written "entirely for fun". I posted it here for feedback on what could be done to improve it (thanks Ed).

I felt that SoDesuNe gave some excellent feedback on some areas for improvement.

[xed_over]

I prefer Go over Chess, but I'm not sure I can vocalize why with any ease.

I think Go has more depth, seemingly endless variations than Chess, especially for lower level players. I was never a great Chess player. I basically quit playing when I got to the level that I started needing to memorize named openings to improve any further. I'm kind of at that similar point in my Go playing now with joseki, though it's taken me much, much longer to get to this same point, and its been a very enjoyable long road at that.

There's something romantic about Chess. The personalities of the pieces, how it stirs the imagination and excitement of warfare of days gone by. The beautiful, medieval artwork.

Go seems almost plain and boring by a simple comparison, yet I can't get over how such simplicity leads to such astounding complexity and wide variation. And it feels less about violent killing and more about mutual sharing (yet there still can be some exciting and violent killing too).

Go appeals more to my logical puzzle solving side than Chess does for me.

But both are still great games. I will still play either, but my preference leans quite heavily toward Go. I just wish there were more horsies

[Bill Spight]

I have had some thoughts about your essay. Let me briefly highlight them.

First, I agree that chess is a much more tactical game than go, and go is a much more strategical game. I was originally drawn to go because it is a game of strategy, but I would not say that that makes it better than chess.

Why the difference between the two games? For one thing, chess starts on an 8x8 board which is half full; go starts on an empty 19x19 board. Right from the start, captures and threats to capture are very important in chess, while staking out different areas of the board is important in go. The sparseness of the go board makes for strategy rather than close fighting. Another thing is the number of fronts. Go typically takes place on several fronts, up to the very end of the game; does chess ever have more than two fronts?

The chess board can be relatively sparsely populated, as well. I think that there is a great deal of strategy in the long endgames that have been discovered in the last couple of decades.

One variant of go that has simple tactics is the Capture Game, where the object is to capture one or more of the opponent's stones. The very fact that it has simpler tactics indicates that it is more strategical than regular go. In regular go Black dominates the 7x7, for instance, but it is so easy for White to make a small, living group in the capture game that White can often effectively open a second front on the 7x7. To me, the capture game is definitely superior to regular go on the 7x7. However, I much prefer the more tactical game of regular go on the 19x19.

[moyoaji]

I believe an apple is better than an orange. There are several reasons. First, you can easily eat the peel of an apple and, therefore, it requires less work to receive the nutrients and sugars. It is true that you typically do not eat the core, but eating around the core is easier than stripping away the skin of an orange. Apples also come in more varieties and, therefore, allow the eater to choose from many levels of sweetness, tartness, and texture. Also, as I live in a northern climate, oranges cannot grow outside of greenhouses nearby and, therefore, choosing apples helps to support local Michigan farmers.

The problem is, at the end of the day, I'm comparing apples and oranges. They are both fruits, but they are very different fruits.

---

Being a member of a "Go and Chess Club" I do often find people debating about the merits of the various games. I personally prefer go, but there are members who like chess more. One of these chess players is adamant that chess is the best game in the world. I am adamant that go is the best game in the world. We eventually came to this agreement: the games are not the same.

We put it this way: "Go is a game of construction. Chess is a game of destruction."

In many ways, the two games are opposites. Go begins with an empty board and the game becomes settled as the board is filled. Chess begins with a full board and the game becomes settled as the board is cleared. The objective of go is broad and achieved with simplicity: to claim a majority of the board - any part of the board - using identical pieces that always are placed the same way. While the objective of chess is specific and achieved with complexity: to capture one piece - specifically the king - using a variety of piece types that can vary in their movements depending on the situation. Go is a game of fixed placement, while chess is a game of dynamic movement.

It is true that the games do share commonalities, but they are very different games.

[Bantari]

Its like tryint to prove that cat is a better pet than dog, or goldfish, or hamster...

Well we know a dog is better than a wife, just lock both of them in the boot (trunk) of your car for an hour and see which is happy to see you when you open it.

Lol.
I'll wait until you are married, then I gonna send this post to your wife and watch the fireworks.

PS>
Anybody wanna try to guess who will be locked where after the dust settles?

[Bantari]

I believe an apple is better than an orange.

I think that in an objective discussion, the more "proper" way of saying that would be that you prefere an apple to an orange. And there is nothing wrong with that, just like there is nothing wrong with prefering this game to that game. You can also say that for you - personally - apples are better than oranges, which is the same and only states personal preference.

For me, the problem arises when somebody tries to prove that an apple is better than an ornage in a context larger than one's personal preference. Why? Because I do not believe this is possible. Some people will always prefer oranges, some will prefere apples, and some will change from day to day, or from apple to apple. Same with games.

Most of my life I have prefered Go to chess, and at that time for me - personally - go is obviously the better game.

But then there are other times when I actually prefer chess to Go, and at that time for me - personally - chess is obviously the better game.

It sort-of alternates, with the Go periods being longer, but still... I play both games for decades, and they both have their place. Maybe a different place, but an equally valid or important place. This is what I think. Trying to prove one is objectively better than the other is, in my opinion, being unjust and doing a disservice to the other game. And all the other good games out there as well.

PS>
Now, it would be fun to see how various people justify their - personal - preference of one game over the other. It would be, by necessity, based on subjective arguments, but it would still be interesting to learn. I bet we all have our own different reasons.

[Kirby]

For me, the problem arises when somebody tries to prove that an apple is better than an ornage in a context larger than one's personal preference.

Hey, have you proven that this is a problem? Or is that just your personal opinion/preference?

(I'm just messing with you )

[Bantari]

For me, the problem arises when somebody tries to prove that an apple is better than an ornage in a context larger than one's personal preference.

Hey, have you proven that this is a problem? Or is that just your personal opinion/preference?

(I'm just messing with you )

As I said - "for me" - which means that this is my personal opinion.

[Kirby]

As I said - "for me" - which means that this is my personal opinion.

Oh, ok. Did you prove that this means it's just your personal opinion? Or that "for me" or other such phrases are required for indicating as such?

Like I said, I'm kind of joking. But my point is that most internet discussion can be assumed to be the opinion of the author, even if they don't explicitly state this.

[Bantari]

As I said - "for me" - which means that this is my personal opinion.

Oh, ok. Did you prove that this means it's just your personal opinion? Or that "for me" or other such phrases are required for indicating as such?

Like I said, I'm kind of joking. But my point is that most internet discussion can be assumed to be the opinion of the author, even if they don't explicitly state this.

No problem.
But what are you tryng to say?
That I should not have posted? That I overstep my bounds or make bad assumption? That I presume to speak for others? I am really not sure...

If you want to step on me, or make a joke - fine. But there still has to be a point somewhere.

PS>
For the record, my point is:

I - personally - think (i.e. it is my opinion) that we cannot really speak of objective superiority of chess over Go, but only of personal preference. A corollary to that is that an interesting subject would be to hear about the personal reasons for their preference from various people, both on the "chess is better" side and on the "go is better" side.

If you have a problem with that, lets discuss.
Otherwise I don't see a point of your psts here, other than trying to yank my chain.

[Uberdude]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment: would you similarly claim that it is a nonsense to say that Chess and Go are objectively superior games than tic-tac-toe? I think they are, and expect many others would agree. So comparing games is not purely subjective, though once you get to a sufficient level of complexity saying 10^140 is better than 10^60 or whatever is not really valid.

One thing I think that makes Go a good game for humans is that the pieces don't move, so although the number of possible moves is far greater than Chess, reading ahead in the mind's eye is comparatively easier so we can still play it well. Computers don't, afaik, derive a similar benefit from the stationary pieces which is one reason they find Go harder than Chess.

As for comparing Chess and Go, I can't play Chess to a high enough level to really comment with any authority, but I far prefer Go. I never felt in Chess that I could play good moves with any plan, but was just waiting for a bad move from my opponent. Perhaps that is just a reflection of learning when I was under 10 years old (so less intellectual development - but we do get strong kids in Go and Chess...) from a primary school teacher who perhaps wasn't a good chess teacher. On the other hand I find learning Go a much more 'human' process: this is a group moving that way attacking that group etc. But then again I was older and smarter when I learnt Go.

[Joelnelsonb]

..As for comparing Chess and Go, I can't play Chess to a high enough level to really comment with any authority, but I far prefer Go. I never felt in Chess that I could play good moves with any plan, but was just waiting for a bad move from my opponent....

This is a very important aspect of Chess theory. Both players begin equal and therefore neither player is able to "force" checkmate on his opponent. The game is about waiting for your opponent to screw up and than capitalizing on his mistake. The player who does this the best will win but the important thing is that you cannot win until your opponent makes a mistake. I do not yet understand the game of Go well enough to comment on the validity of this concept on the goban.

[Bill Spight]

..As for comparing Chess and Go, I can't play Chess to a high enough level to really comment with any authority, but I far prefer Go. I never felt in Chess that I could play good moves with any plan, but was just waiting for a bad move from my opponent....

This is a very important aspect of Chess theory. Both players begin equal and therefore neither player is able to "force" checkmate on his opponent. The game is about waiting for your opponent to screw up and than capitalizing on his mistake. The player who does this the best will win but the important thing is that you cannot win until your opponent makes a mistake. I do not yet understand the game of Go well enough to comment on the validity of this concept on the goban.

Both players begin equal in go, as well. The board is empty. And with an integer komi, or no komi, ties are possible. And with some komi, perfect play will end in a tie, as well.

IIUC, the thing with Western chess is not the equal starting position alone, but that ties are more frequent and it seems likely that perfect play will produce a tie. By contrast, shogi also has an equal starting position, but ties, while theoretically possible, are quite rare. It seems likely that perfect play will end in mate.

A half-integer komi should favor one side or the other, but as a practical matter you can't win at go unless your opponent makes a mistake.

[Uberdude]

When I say I can play good moves in Go I don't mean ones that force a win. For example this white 2 below:

$$B
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

This is a good move for white because it makes a base for the weakened white stone on the side, creating some territory and eyespace. It is a two-space extension so that it is connected. This good move is independent of my opponent making mistakes. I can articulate the reasons why it is a good move in English. I can't do this for Chess (not saying it is not possible by more skilled players than I). The level of my chess play is essentially: get pieces near the middle, make triangles with my pawns, and then hope he doesn't see my fork/pin.