A personal essay.

[Joelnelsonb]

That's really weird because I feel the exact opposite. Every move I make in Chess has a concrete, black and white meaning behind it that I can express in words. So many moves that I make in Go, I could never explain why I made it; it just felt like the right place for the stone. But then again, I'm a Taoist-Christian so my approach to the game of Go is quite a bit more "mystical" if you will.

[EdLee]

So many moves that I make in Go, I could never explain why I made it;
it just felt like the right place for the stone.

That's certainly one way to play Go.
It is your current level and understanding.
And that's OK. If you want to improve, however, that's another story.

Your feeling and reality don't always align.

[Shaddy]

That's really weird because I feel the exact opposite. Every move I make in Chess has a concrete, black and white meaning behind it that I can express in words. So many moves that I make in Go, I could never explain why I made it; it just felt like the right place for the stone.

This is only because you're still relatively weak. Getting stronger is understanding more and more of your moves.

[Joelnelsonb]

I mean, I have outlining reasons such as "make the first move an in empty corner, put pressure on a weak stone while expanding influence, obtain liberties while taking them," but these are kinda' shallow. The real reason I make moves is because I have a plan for how the entire boards going to look at the end and it takes intuition to know where this move fits into that plan.

[Kirby]

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.

Hi Bantari,
I am simply trying to express the following:
1. I agree with you that you cannot speak of objective superiority of chess over Go.
2. But, this is true of all arguments on the forum.

Because of #2, I think it is perfectly fine to make non-objective arguments, and in fact, that is what most discussion is.

It's about persuasion - not absolute truth. None of us are omniscient, so when it comes to discussion, I don't think that objectivity matters that much. What matters is that you can persuade your audience effectively. I've come to know this more, as I've been practicing some public speaking.

So while you cannot make "objective" claims about superiority of chess over Go, I do not see a problem with people trying to make convincing arguments to persuade their audience.

Granted, this is not a topic that's all that important to me, so like I said, most of my comments are in jest. But I still think it holds that in these types of discussion, persuasion is more important than objectivity.

So if someone makes a non-objective statement that "chess is better than Go", all the more power to them. The question lies into whether or not they can persuade their audience.