Go versus Chess

Sort:
jtt96
calgary_rip_off wrote:

I use both these games because they are fun and they have utility value.  I find Go to be very very freeing and relaxing to play.  However I find that playing Go increases my perceptional ability so that I grow increasingly impatient with nonsense at work, and therefore I largely study chess on my lunch breaks simply to give me the energy to put up with the nonsense.  However if I had my way I would be studying go.  At my work(in a hospital) there is largely a lot of bs and nonsense that goes on during the day which is irrelevant to patient care.  I consider this to be similar to a constant fight or tactics.  So chess has the advantage here in terms of activating the left brain and dealing with bs.  With Go there is more of an appreciation of understanding of position and space and the almost unlimited possibilities.  This is why I play lots of correspondence games of Go, you really get to know yourself and the other player.

All this being said, I also notice with Go that because it is very fatiguing it impacts my weight workouts in a bad way.  Chess seems to increase my physical ability to perform work and gives me energy during the day, I actually study chess openings in books in between sets when lifting heavy weights.

In terms of time perception, I believe that because Go is largely a right brain activity, there is a feeling of escaping the world.  And yet because Go is so static, a lack of movement, after playing Go it seems that time seems to slow way down.  This is very problematic in a big city or at work, as annoyances seem to be more amplified.  With chess due to the large amount of movement, yang, if you will, time goes by quicker perceptually, so annoyances are less so.  

Both games are very interesting and have value for the reasons I listed above.

Very good reasons, but where do you play it correspondence? I play it live but have not found a correspondence site. Do you have to speak Japenese?

ChessSponge
ThePeanutMonster wrote:

What do we think? Go is infinitely more complex than chess and entirely unsolvable. Computers cannot really beat human players, and its unlikely they will ever beat Go masters. Go is a strategist's heaven: vast, yet intricate positions with each move having implications hundreds of moves later. And yet, chess allows for beautiful piece coordination and spectacular tactical motifs through elaborate variation calculations: sudden and rupturous annihilation with the deployment of entirely different forces, each filling its perfect role in the onslaught... Thoughts?


My first thought is I can guarantee you when someone wants to they will make a computer that can beat the masters at go.

 

People said the same thing about chess. Then they said the same thing about no-limit texas hold-em poker because they felt you needed to be able to read people and their emotions. Well they have a poker program they've been working on for a few years that they've put pro poker players up against and it beats them easily now.

 

Eventually someone will get interested enough in making the best GO AI and it will destroy people.

 

On the actual game side of it, some day I plan on trying it out. Hard enough trying to master one game at a time though :).

jtt96
brisket wrote:

But they do call it a knights jump when you put your stones in a L shape.

That sounds so funny in english. I've always heard it pronounced 'kiema' which means horse. (I think)

jtt96
GnosticMoron wrote:

Go Pros and Cons:

Pro: a pretty engaging manga turned anime series "Hikaru no Go"

Con: the challenge of even obtaining the supplies for traditional play

http://www.ymimports.com/

jtt96
beardogjones wrote:

Go sucks....

     It is just a variant of chess for people who can't remember how the pieces

move and what checkmate entails.

Did I hear right?

jtt96
mike_bike_kite wrote:

I play both games,  Chess at 1750 ELO and Go at 2 kyu. I also enjoy writing programs to play games (Connect 4, Othello, Checkers, Chess). So I felt in a good position to comment.

Chess is a great game. It suits our western philosophy where anything can be treated as a battle. Go on the other hand is more like world politics where it's perfectly acceptable to loose a local battle as long as you gain compensation that can be used elsewhere on the board. I actually think Go is a more beautiful game to look at but then a little understanding helps.

The advantage of chess in the West is that it's easy to find a decent oponent while finding any oponent in Go can be difficult. Obviously that reverses in the East. It's also quite an old game (1500yrs) that has stood the test of time. There are a few disadvantages to Chess - I personally don't like seeing draws (I think the number of drawn games practically killed of checkers) and it gives me an uneasy feeling knowing that computers play our "intellectual" game better than us.

The advantages of Go include a handicap system that allows me to have an equal game against players of widely different skills. Draws are very uncommon. It's also an ancient game most likely created around 4000 yrs ago. I can also easily beat any computer program even though a huge amount of work has gone into the programming the game. The big disadvantage is that just too few people play it over here.

Even taking More's law into account I don't feel either game is solveable and just creating a world champion program doesn't mean you've solved the game. So which game do I play when I go to the pub?

I prefer playing backgammon, preferably for money - go figure!

+1

jtt96
mike_bike_kite wrote:

This diagram shows shows the relative complexity and ease of programming for a variaty of games (including chess and go).

+1

TonyH

Both are great games
The differences in complexity of chess and go is irrlevent. for pragmatic human terms both are unsolvable. even if chess is solved computers would need to use databases to 'remember' their research to solve each position much like endgames.

Go has not been written about or reserached as much as chess. The attention given chess both in programming and in written term is just insane. (I have played both and finding teaching material for go is just crazy)

IMO GO will be solved in a similar way endgames have been in chess. They will create a database of "won" structures and then build outward.  

TonyH

hikaru no go is also a great anime, it was created becuase there was a massive drop in the number of young Go players in Japan so the Go organization sponcered it. It was massively successful!

TonyH

wow ya seems computer go has come a long way...

thats with 1/10th the energy and effort going into Go programming too.

(those that dont know 1-9dan is amateur) 1-9p is professional (there is a bit of overlap but not much at the  top of amateur and lower in pros) maybe 9 dan is = 1or 2p its not like chess with ratings but more match and tournament result based norm style

Zen matches against Ohashi Hirofumi and Takemiya Masaki were announced in February 2012[20] On March 17, 2012 Zen beats Takemiya 9p at 5 stones by eleven points followed by a stunning twenty point win at a 4 stone handicap. Takemiya remarked "I had no idea that computer go had come this far."

In March 2012, computer program Zen19D reached the rank of 6 dan on the KGS Go server, playing games of 15 seconds per move. The account which reached that rank uses a cluster version of Zen running on a 28-core machine.[21] The Zen version which achieved that rank is 9.2d10.

jtt96

Shogi is great.

jtt96
Estragon wrote:
jtt96 wrote:

Shogi is great.

Yeah, but the problem is the same as with Go - hard to find anyone to play.  I acquired a small wooden set and board back in the 1960s, a friend and I would play sometimes.  But other than demonstrating it to others a few times over the years, it hasn't been out of the box!

http://81dojo.com

Ukalli
melvinbluestone wrote:

The pieces (stones?) are boring. Look like a bunch of black and white m+ms. That's all I can comment on since I don't really know the rules. I checked Wikipedia's entry on the game....... The rules seem boring, too. There must be something to it, though, as 900 billion people play it worldwide.....

I have learnt more about you from your comment, than I have about the game of go.

(And what I have learnt is not good)

eehc

The guy wrote this 3 years ago so I am sure he doesn't really care.

KirbyCake

meanwhile real time chess is way more complicated than go

 

consider a function go(a,b) where a and b is the size of the go board and the output is the number of different positions

real time chess() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go(19,19)

GnrfFrtzl
KirbyCake írta:

meanwhile real time chess is way more complicated than go

 

consider a function go(a,b) where a and b is the size of the go board and the output is the number of different positions

real time chess() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go(19,19)

There is significant strategy involved in the game, and the number of possible games is vast (10761 compared, for example, to the 10120 possible in chess),[2] despite its relatively simple rules.
Wikipedia

Ukalli
Fiveofswords wrote:

meanwhile chess is simply more fun imo. Each peice has its own character, theres a sort of drama and story to how things unfold. Go is very aloof and 2 dimensional.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  I prefer Go to chess for a number of reasons, but mainly because it is more creative.  Chess is just an exercise in mutual destruction, whereas in Go we start with an empty board ("a blank canvas") and construct something.  Of course, the point of the game is to win, but there is a sense of coexistence with one's opponent (the business analogy is fighting for market share rather than just wanting to obliterate your opponent).  Superficially the pieces seem less 'interesting' than in chess, but actually this is a misunderstanding of Go.  In Go we actually create our own powerful 'pieces', which are the structures that are either 'alive' or 'dead'.  Some structures are more powerful and influential than others.  It is not for nothing that a powerful structure winding its way across the board is called a 'dragon'!  

Go of course appears to be very static compared to chess, because the pieces do not move.  But actually there is a huge amount of movement in Go.  The movement involves the creation of structures, and there is either fast or slow movement, depending on how skilled you are in marking territory before connecting everything up.  There is sacrifice, as in chess, and generally it is more strategic, whereas most chess sacrifices appear to be part of a series of forced moves.

As for calculation: this is an integral part of the game.  I simply cannot understand the comment that "calculation in go is pointless".  I understand that top pros think thirty moves ahead.

Chess is essentially a game of capture.  Such a concept is only one small part of Go.  Chess is one battle.  Go is a complete war.

davidklausa
ThePeanutMonster wrote:

Computers cannot really beat human players, and its unlikely they will ever beat Go masters. 

Wrong already!

stratoman

I've been playing Go for about a year now. I read some books and grasped some basic concepts. It's a great game and I do enjoy it, but while reading comments on people debating chess and go, one thing becomes very apparent; Go players often say, no, brag about how the complexity of go far exceeds that of chess. I get the impression that some people are attracted to that fact alone, as if liking go makes you part of an elite club. Oooh, big shiny numbers!

 

Meh. These numbers are meaningless in human terms. The number of possible chess game is about 10120, or if you want to be more conservative the number of "sensible" games is about 1040. Even that lesser number is unimaginably complex. A trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion etc etc. Are we expected to believe that Go is deeper because it's even bigger? Yes, big numbers are all very impressive, but let's not get overly excited. In human terms both games are limitless in possibilities.

Recently I've played some games of chess after about a month straight of Go. There's much in chess that I miss in Go. The subtle interplay between the pieces. I enjoy having two bishops and clearing the board of pawns to let them take maximum effect. Queen and knight are  a better team than queen and bishop. Rook and bishop are a  better team than rook and knight. That type of thing is missing in Go. Some people think chess relies too much on openings, but I personally enjoy trying out new openings.

The very objective of chess is for me more satisfying than Go. Go is about point scoring, and it took me a few weeks to even understand the scoring system. Chess  is much less abstract than that.

 

So I happen to enjoy Go, but it hasn't convinced me to abandon chess in favour of it.