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
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

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.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

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

(I'm just messing with you )

_________________
be immersed

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

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

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.

_________________
be immersed

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.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

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.

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.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

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.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

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:

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.

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.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

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.

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

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.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

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.

_________________
be immersed