Which game is more subtle and complex? After studying and playing both, I feel like Go is by far. I only bother to obsess about this comparison because i find both games to be fascinating and yet have fundamentally different rule structure that may seem hard to compare at first glance.

Does the dynamic movement of the multiple chess pieces make up for the smaller size and complex shapes of Go? Many think its simply illogical to compare the two different styles of rule sets, one in which the pieces make shape and progress dynamically through the game, and another where pieces are placed to be create static shape that can never be moved. Some prefer the movement of the chess pieces, feeling that the homogeneity of the go stones, the fact that there is only "one kind of piece" and the fact that there is no movement, makes the game boring and its shape simple to think about. But when one takes into account the fact that the go stones form chains of larger shapes that share liberties and have intertwined relationships with enemy chains that cut one another, and one sees the tesuji that can result, the shapes made by go seem to have more possibilities and more complexity than the constantly changing movement of the chess pieces. One also has to consider making two eyes and nakade shapes, and ko patterns. Chess has no analogue to making two eyes, nor ko fights. Ko fights in particular add a dimension of challenging and unpredictable situations which must be faced by any go player, and force him to think about the situation of the entire board simultaneously. The rule of ko acts on the entire board, which means that slight flaws in shape ANYWHERE could be taken advantage of, regardless of distance and direction from the ko, such as in the case of ladders. Even when one loses a ko fight, one can make up for it with some compensation from a smaller flaw in your opponents shape anywhere on the board. This can lead to complex exchanges and judgement of the value of groups which doesnt seem to be matched by the movement of the chess pieces. The game of chess has no analogue to the rule of ko. Because chess moves are reversible and piece positions change throughout the course of the game, there is an aspect of chess which is unpredictable in a sense that the building go board doesnt have. However, a game of chess still has a sort of irreversble direction, as pulled forward by the pawns and how open they the rest of the pieces. I also feel that in general building territory and shape is much more subtle goal than checkmating one moving piece. Games of go cannot end abruptly just because of one particular flaw in a players shape, as in a suddenly opened checkmate, perhaps even before the end game. Rather, the shapes of go represent a sort of homogenous, subtle structure that involves the entire board at once (in making territory) throughout the progression of the whole game, rather than the simple binary objective of capturing the king that could happen unpredictably. Every single detail of making shape in go goes on to effect the territory and influence a player has, which will effect all of the moves that follow irrreversibly, and so it is more mathematically precise at each point and you never can get a break just because you found a hidden checkmate somewhere. The mathematical flow is everywhere, the game cannot end prematurely, until the whole board has been tested by both players, and the slightest flaw in understanding will put you a point of territory behind at the end of the game. This to me makes go a more subtle and deep game overall. I also find the mathematically simplicity of the definition and rules of the game, and the single action of placing static stones giving rise to this complex and beautiful game is more elegant and attractive than the baroque, engineered rules of chess with all its unique pieces with specific (maybe arbitrary) starting places and movement. There are hundreds of variants of chess with different pieces and rule sets, some being larger and more complex than orthodox western chess. Go, on the other hand, is the expression of a single beautiful mathematical idea.

A suggestion:

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

ramanujan wrote:

Which game is more subtle and complex? After studying and playing both, I feel like Go is by far. I only bother to obsess about this comparison because i find both games to be fascinating and yet have fundamentally different rule structure that may seem hard to compare at first glance.

Does the dynamic movement of the multiple chess pieces make up for the smaller size and complex shapes of Go? Many think it's simply illogical to compare the two different styles of rule sets, one in which the pieces make shape and progress dynamically through the game, and another where pieces are placed to create static shape that can never be moved.

Some prefer the movement of the chess pieces, feeling that the homogeneity of the go stones, the fact that there is only "one kind of piece" and the fact that there is no movement, makes the game boring and its shape simple to think about.

But when one takes into account the fact that the go stones form chains of larger shapes that share liberties and have intertwined relationships with enemy chains that cut one another, and one sees the tesuji that can result, the shapes made by go seem to have more possibilities and more complexity than the constantly changing movement of the chess pieces.

One also has to consider making two eyes and nakade shapes, and ko patterns. Chess has no analogue to making two eyes, nor ko fights. Ko fights in particular add a dimension of challenging and unpredictable situations which must be faced by any go player, and force him to think about the situation of the entire board simultaneously. The rule of ko acts on the entire board, which means that slight flaws in shape ANYWHERE could be taken advantage of, regardless of distance and direction from the ko, such as in the case of ladders. Even when one loses a ko fight, one can make up for it with some compensation from a smaller flaw in your opponent's shape anywhere on the board. This can lead to complex exchanges and judgement of the value of groups which doesnt seem to be matched by the movement of the chess pieces. The game of chess has no analogue to the rule of ko.

Because chess moves are reversible and piece positions change throughout the course of the game, there is an aspect of chess which is unpredictable in a sense that the building go board doesnt have. However, a game of chess still has a sort of irreversble direction, as pulled forward by the pawns and how they open the rest of the pieces.

I also feel that, in general, building territory and shape is a much more subtle goal than checkmating one moving piece. Games of go cannot end abruptly just because of one particular flaw in a player's shape, as in a suddenly opened checkmate, perhaps even before the end game. Rather, the shapes of go represent a sort of homogenous, subtle structure that involves the entire board at once (in making territory) throughout the progression of the whole game, rather than the simple binary objective of capturing the king that could happen unpredictably.

Every single detail of making shape in go goes on to effect the territory and influence a player has, which will effect all of the moves that follow irrreversibly, and so it is more mathematically precise at each point and you never can get a break just because you found a hidden checkmate somewhere. The mathematical flow is everywhere, the game cannot end prematurely, until the whole board has been tested by both players, and the slightest flaw in understanding will put you a point of territory behind at the end of the game. This to me makes go a more subtle and deep game overall.

I also find the mathematical simplicity of the definition and rules of the game, and the single action of placing static stones giving rise to this complex and beautiful game is more elegant and attractive than the baroque, engineered rules of chess with all its unique pieces with specific (maybe arbitrary) starting places and movement. There are hundreds of variants of chess with different pieces and rule sets, some being larger and more complex than orthodox western chess.

Go, on the other hand, is the expression of a single beautiful mathematical idea.

It is possible to define subtlety measurement functions that would give either game the advantage. The same is probably true of complexity, though the obvious measurements (like number of possible games) probably favour Go so you'd have to try harder.

You need to define 'make up'. As I said above, Go is objectively more 'complex' on the level of number of possibilities, though it is not necessarily obvious that this is meaningful in the way you seem to want to measure them.

You seem to be taking the human approach, in which case, they are both equally hard, or not, depending on who you ask.

Is this wall of text a long rambling attempt to conclude that Go is harder/stronger/faster/better than chess? This topic has been done to death. If you want to prove it to yourself, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity and quote the figures at people you want to annoy.


You haven't actually shown that irreversible direction (if it exists) is a bad thing. If we want to follow this meandering chain, perhaps go is worse because there is more room to maneuver, but in chess you fail quickly if you fall off the knife edge of tactical to and fro.



So? This is a statement, but it has nothing to measure itself against. Yes, chess beginners will open up easy checkmates because they aren't very good. Does this mean anything in the comparison of chess with go? Yes, if you want it to, because the comparison is subjective. But no for almost everyone



Congratulations, you like go better. Though I think I might take issue about the way you are using maths as a wishy washy hand wavy tool rather than actually measuring anything.

ramanujan:

you are taking it too seriously . most of us would agree that we like go better and i am no exception, in my opinion go is best game i know and has the smallest ratio time_to_learn / time_to_master (simplicity / depth), but luckily, both go and chess are games, not political parties, so you don't have to choose only one.

i don't think there is much a point in enumerating reasons why go is better than chess, because go players know them and chess players won't admit them (and because it is truth that go and chess are not directly comparable). i am also pretty sure you could find something nice and unique in chess, what go lacks, just as chess lacks ko. and if you unintentionaly let your group die (or make another tactical mistake), it can be very similar to checkmate

otherwise i can pretty much agree, go is great.

PS: try to follow the Joaz's tip about making paragraphs
PPS: post the same text as here also on some lifein8x8 forum and tell us about the replies there

_________________
Spilling gasoline feels good.

I might be wrong, but probably not.

Since you are so interested in the comparison, I think you may find my story quite interesting. Unlike others who have concluded Go was better after they started playing it, I concluded the same before I started playing, and without any bias for or against it.

_________________
"Those who calculate greatly will win; those who calculate only a little will lose, but what of those who don't make any calculations at all!? This is why everything must be calculated, in order to foresee victory and defeat."-The Art of War

Go is better than chess because there are no knights.

I think it's time for another XKCD reference
http://xkcd.com/839/

"Odyous of olde been comparisonis, And of comparisonis engendyrd is haterede."

- John Lydgate, 1440 A.D.


Go is not better than chess.

Chess is not better than go.

They are different.

Both games have more complexity and depth than any human being is likely to ever master.

Sorry, you are wrong. Go is Fun...Chess is Not. End of discussion.

i second that!

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Chess and go are both fun, casually, but I found it uninspiring that "better" chess players simply know the first ten (or more) moves of all the major openings. Joseki are both less important and less oppressive. Go has been getting more and more enjoyable as I improve.

There's also something beautiful about complexity arising from simplicity. Sure, there are surprising chess games and neat chess problems, but they have 9 different kinds of pieces to work with. If you had 90 pieces, you could make a game that was downright bewildering (if you don't believe me, see: Avalon Hill). What makes Go so beautiful is that the rules are so darn simple, and nonetheless strategic interaction between skilled players leads to such complex and unpredictable results.

Go handicaps also make the game much more fun. If you have a smart, competitive friend who you want to play chess with, and one of you is a moderately better player, one person will win almost every game and the loser will start to feel stupid and angry. With go that can never happen; if one person is winning, you change the handicap and carry on.

Handicap stones are the item in Go that so many of the people I would like to play complain about the most. Every casual beginner I know (in real life) wants to play an even game against every other player they meet. They don't want to start with stones on the board, and they get frustrated when they can't play as well as their opponent on an even board, despite a drastic difference in experience and skill.

These aren't players who want to study and learn the game ... they just want to play. They don't care about evening the odds with handicaps, or reducing their handicap ... they want to play the game "the way it should be played" without handicap. They then get frustrated and play the game less and less until they stop because they find the game "boring and repetitive".

As to Chess vs Go, I love them both. I find it's easier to play Chess casually, though. Don't know why ... I never really thought about it.

Interesting, that's the reverse of what I find. Beginners always seem delighted the handicap system means they have a decent chance of beating me, despite my knowing the game much better than they.

I think it depends. If you've taught beginners from the beginning, then you will have influenced them to understand and agree on the benefits of handicaps. What I find with self-taught players (but who are still largely beginners, and have had limited or no experience of go servers) is that they find the idea of handicaps repellent. I know a few of these. Of course, I can still play teaching games, but even with teaching games a handicap of some kind is preferable so that I don't have to play too softly in order to make it interesting.

I've seen this both ways. This is also why many beginners are hesitant to play on boards smaller than 19x19. They think that the smaller boards are not "proper Go". I usually get around this by explaining that different board sizes and handicaps ARE proper ways to play the game and stressing that they are not playing a "kiddie" version of Go with a 13x13 board and 5 stone handicap.

Bridge is more complex: it's not a game of complete information.