I think I've noticed a pattern where chess players I know that play go focus more on capture battles and aggressive play than making their own territory. Has anyone else noticed anything like this? It could just be a false generalization on my part. I started to wonder to myself if chess perhaps effected the personality of the player to make them think in more active and aggressive terms or perhaps allowed them an advantage in reading out fights due to the strong need in chess to read moves ahead or perish (as opposed to go where you can lose the battle but win the war so there is somewhat less pressure to have all your bases covered)

When I first played go a few years ago I had been playing and studying chess. My style of play was definately more tactically oriented and focused on capture fights than it is now. I also put a lot of focus on trying to learn Joseki by rote memorization and had little flexibility in my responses to my opponents moves. I believe that this was a result of the way chess players learn openings and correct responses in this phase of the game. There is a lot more at stake in a chess opening since there are fewer possible moves-in my opinion.

I would figure that that would happen.

edit: I also thought that one of the advantages of playing chess is that it would enhance your peripheral vision. In go it's easy to loose track of your surroundings and zoom in on a fight because it's less likely you'll be punished for it than t is in chess. In chess something from the other side of the board can instantly kill you.

Ever lose a fight because you didn't have the ladder? (=

Also 10x10 is often the span of a middle game fight, so in chess tearms you are looking at the entire board ^^ (okay I did bend it a little to make it work ).

I've noticed the impact long ago. Mine solution is to keep in mind the differences between them.

We have a guy in our club who is now 4 kyu aga. This guy is primarily a chess player, and after this school year he is going to travel and become a chess pro(he is around uscf 2000). I haven't played the guy much, but his exact problem is trying to kill everything, and then he gets greedy when ever you take around 150 points in exchange for a few stones(he doesn't realize he gave me the points). A 1d played him, and 8 kyu, and I in a simul giving the guy 2 stones(I asked for 2-3 stones but he wouldn't let me because he says it would be to easy for me.... sob....sob, I had to play even I was scared because I normally took 3 stones from him ). The club member ended up taking a giant moyo, and the 1d tricked him into letting 50+ stones die in a fire(by tempting him to play greedy).

_________________
“I’m here to play go and chew bubble gum, and I’m all out of gum”- misquoted duke nukem

Chess and Go are very very different in terms of mindset at the start and the mindset gained from the game. While I respect and like chess I find that it has very little utility in my life. It teaches you to worry about every little thing and it is hard to let any mistake go. In living a normal life a person would be a total nutcase if they worried about every little thing. And the constant tactics reminds me of two women fighting-very similar to some of the petty stuff I see at my work-I work in a hospital. I also question how realistic chess is in terms of an actual war. Most fights dont reward you for attacking so easily. The opponent will just back away mostly or recruit more forces-more like Go. The standard fixed openings are also very very boring. The way some of the pieces move and their role isnt realistic. The queen is pretty much the most powerful piece on the board. The Italians in 1497 did everyone a disservice by making the queen such a piece. And the far range of the Bishops is ridiculous. All these far reaching pieces just arent that realistic in battle. It's like the pieces are hockey players on ice, they are too lazy to run so they buy skates and slide. Again, goofy. And now you have the head general, the king, and he decides to abandon his troops and castle? How is that like an actual battle? So the way the board is initially set up leads to a lot of trying to gain material and petty nonsense. If a person wants to play chess they should play xiangqi-the chinese form of chess which is ruled by blocking primarily and punishes severely indiscriminate taking of material. But all said and done unless you live in an age where you can act as if you are living separate on an island I just dont think chess has that much utility value other than helping you to push through barriers and rewarding you for being aggressive. You can create far more damage generally by acting overall aggressive in life than practicing restraint and calculating benefit vs. risk. In fact I credit the game of Go in helping me to buy my first mortgage on a house: The discipline and patience to satisfy my wife and daughters needs, my needs, and deal with all the subtle nuances of timing, negotiating, mortgage broker, I learned it all from Go. Dont think that Go wont reward you financially. It will. Far more than poker or chess. While I still play chess, I still view at as a highly juvenile activity. Many of the matches that I win in chess I dont even get satisfaction in winning because the mistakes of the other player are just so obvious. This all or none bs is nonexistent in Go.