1. Go is very much an Eastern Game. It takes a mental adjustment in order to play the game. What I mean by that is in Chess, one of the opening principles is Control the center. In Go, you want to control the corners and sides first. In Chess, one can be aggressive from the very first move, if it suits one's mood at the time. In Go, you have to be more patient. It's the Eastern vs. Western mindset.

To get a better picture of what you are trying to say, define inferior.

Let's take the USA as an example. I would be willing to bet money that everybody in the United States at least knows what chess is even if they don't know how to play. This is probably due to the fact that Bobby Fischer actually played in the match of the century in 1972. I'd say a lot of the enthusiasm about chess in the USA came from that and everyone knows about Bobby Fischer.

The USA has no well known professional Go players. Michael Redmond is American, but not well known. In fact, I had NEVER heard of any Go players professional or otherwise until I watched Hikaru No Go and started to become curious about the game and started researching it.

Why is Go not more popular in the USA? I think that there are a few reasons why.
1. Go is very much an Eastern Game. It takes a mental adjustment in order to play the game. What I mean by that is in Chess, one of the opening principles is Control the center. In Go, you want to control the corners and sides first. In Chess, one can be aggressive from the very first move, if it suits one's mood at the time. In Go, you have to be more patient. It's the Eastern vs. Western mindset.

2. Lack of professional system. Chess has a pretty big professional circuit in the USA. With Go, it is non-existent. If the USA had a professional Go circuit, it would be a lot more popular due to people trying to popularize the game in the schools, for example.

3. Lack of a World Champion. If Go had a World Champion, the game would be more popular since the World Champion could try to popularize the game in other countries, playing simuls, giving lectures, etc. Having a World Champion is not crucial or necessary, but it helps when there is someone who is considered "Best in the World" in a discipline.



This doesn't surprise me due to the fact that the USA had a chess boom when Bobby Fischer was playing for the World Championship and even after.

How to make Go more popular with competing games? I'm not sure. Japan may be lagging behind right now, but they'll be back. So will China. In fact, I'm willing to bet that all three countries will have their turn at the top. Why look at Chess, Shogi, Xiangqi, and Jang-gi as competitors to Go? They're all abstract strategy games, and they're all fairly deep. The skills that you gain in one are, roughly speaking, transferable to the others. Of course, there is going to be some sort of learning curve to learn each game and the specifics may change from game to game, but in all of them the general use of tactics and strategy is incredibly important. What makes Go better than Chess? Or Shogi, for that matter?

The use of television to broadcast Go to popularize the game is ingenious. Korea definitely deserves praise for this. That won't work for all countries, though.

I would be willing to bet money that everybody in the United States at least knows what chess is even if they don't know how to play.

Why look at Chess, Shogi, Xiangqi, and Jang-gi as competitors to Go? They're all abstract strategy games, and they're all fairly deep. The skills that you gain in one are, roughly speaking, transferable to the others.

If you mean boring to beginners, then I would agree. Actually I think Go is much more dynamic than Chess. It's just not as easy to see initially. Then again, maybe you are right. I started playing Go because the rules were the only ones in existence that met my "perfection" standards.

Something like that. Go appeals to me personally because it's so beautiful (not just the rules, but the gameplay), not because it's entertaining. I don't even like board games.

Although, similar views have been expressed about Chess. (Some nice thoughts at http://www.chessvibes.com/beauty/beauty-in-chess/ )

I think it's exciting, I watch professional games like some people watch football (but without the shouting and other physical gyrations).

By inferior I mean they all have severe rules flaws and do not quite match up to the quality of Go.

Because these games all compete for peoples time. In regard to the skill transference, that is only really true among Chess games. Garry Kasparov was estimated to be about 3 dan in Shogi after playing his first game. Compare that to a beginning player at my local club who had recently become a FIDE master and yet I could still give him 9 stones.

I do not think there is anything inherently Eastern about Go. I don't see how corners and sides vs center has anything to do with cultural differences, not that culture in the East or West is in any way homogenous in the first place.

I agree that Go's difference from Chess is a part of the reason. But that has nothing to do with any kind cultural difference.

Also, the fact that Go is "marketed" as an intellectual profound game will keep people away. Who want to "lose" intellectually? While I think losing is what makes you learn, the question is more important than the answer, other people might not like it.

I think that patience is a key factor here. The Oriental people who play go tend to be more patient than the Americans who play chess. I'd still say that Oriental people who play chess are more patient than Americans who play Go. They tend to have a completely different mindset than we Westerners do.
.

The fact that in the West Go is most popular with programmers and mathematicians (well, there's HnG fans, too) is related - we are the only people boring enough to tolerate such a dull game.


And some others: I'm a philosophy professor, and I've been interested in go for more than ten years now, since college. Perhaps if I were a mathematician, though, I'd be better by now!

The fact that in the West Go is most popular with programmers and mathematicians (well, there's HnG fans, too) is related - we are the only people boring enough to tolerate such a dull game.


And some others: I'm a philosophy professor, and I've been interested in go for more than ten years now, since college. Perhaps if I were a mathematician, though, I'd be better by now!

7.) There is a historical basis for go. Historically, Korea has a background of Confucianism. Perhaps among the most elite in society were "Seonbi" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seonbi). Seonbi did not typically work. Their lives were a quest for knowledge. As such, they are regarded with a lot of respect, I think, even today, looking back.

Seonbi played go, did calligraphy, and studied. People in Korea today, therefore, might have a positive image of this spirit - this pursuit of knowledge.

According to Peter Shotwell (in Go! More Than a Game, page 133), "Confucius called Go something that was only slightly better than 'doing nothing with a full stomach.'" Shotwell goes on to say that the (early Chinese) Confucians rejected Go for a variety of reasons, including it's addictive gambling qualities. This probably doesn't contradict your point, because the Seonbi are a Korean phenomena, but nonetheless I find this Confucian attitude amusing.

I'm with Monadology and Redundant.

Suggesting that 'westerners' lack some special go-enabling affectation of temperament that those 'orientals' get in spades with their mother's milk is a very bold, positive claim, that you probably shouldn't express just based on a gut feeling. Sorry if I'm a bit vehement, I see (not so often on this forum, I guess) a lot of unwarranted racism in many directions concerning various Chinese and western groups and it grinds my gears.

They may be most popular, but they are all fatally flawed at the moment because they have arbitrary rules, and it may not be possible to fix that. (But go ahead and try!)

I'm interested in what flaws they have. Go has several rule sets. Chinese, Japanese, New Zealand, AGA, and so forth. In Chess, ALL countries agree on the rules. Wouldn't disagreeing on the rule sets reduce the quality?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to know.

Though reading ability tends to transfer.

I think that patience is a key factor here. The Oriental people who play go tend to be more patient than the Americans who play chess. I'd still say that Oriental people who play chess are more patient than Americans who play Go. They tend to have a completely different mindset than we Westerners do. Hence more of them play Go, and more of us play chess.

This stabs at the heart of, I believe, nagano's question. Go IS an intellectual game, and how do we attract people to the game despite this? Chess is the same way. It's the same question all over again.