Maybe I should not even talk, I play quite poor chess and I never played Go, I don't even know how a chess engine work (someone explained me that they evaluate material and space, mobility, controlled squares and so on, but I don't know precisely how they do).
I just remember that a long time ago any Emmanuel Lasker, it seems that he was not so bad as chess player , when he learned to play Go, then he said that if somewhere in the Universe there are evolved aliens, necessarily they have to know the Go.
He said Go, not chess... I find it very surprising.
Right, of course, the quote every go player saying their game is better than chess uses, though that was never the intent. Still, Lasker was right, and if you know the rules of go, it's clear why: they're very simple and natural.
Take a square grid of lines and two players. Have them place stones of different colors on the intersections, taking turns. If a stone has no connection through stones of the same color to an open point, it is removed. Positions cannot be directly repeated. When no more meaningful moves are possible, the winner is the player to control more territory, defined as the sum of occupied and surrounded points.
Everything follows from that, with a few tweaks, like komi and some scoring issues. It's easy to imagine aliens stumbling on the same construction, almost mathematical in its clarity, and discovering what we call go. (Well, those of us that don't call it weichi or baduk.)
19x19 Go is objectively more difficult than orthodox Chess. This can be measured by the rating difference between a top player and a beginner. For Chess this is something like 2000, for Go it would be more like 10,000.
There has been a lot of effort in computer Go the past decade, now that Chess is considered a solved problem by the AI research community. But the problem is that it is completely unclear how to evaluate Go positions. In Chess there is the simple heuristic of 'counting wood' (Q=9, R=5, etc.) which already gives you >90% of the truth in quiet positions. In Go the number of stones is almost meaningless, as large chains can be doomed in th elong term. The 'poor man's approach' of using mobility (number of moves) when you really have no idea of what to evaluate, which works well in Reversi/Othello, also does not work in Go, as the number of moves you have is simply a function of turn number, no matter what you move.
Most of what you said is wrong. How well do you play both games? Do you know how chess engines work? Do you know how well programs play Go? And 2000 vs 10,000? This is a silly number. Maybe more like 2500 vs 3000. I'm interested with how you thought up 10,000.