|
On April 16 2009 04:45 Gnojfatelob wrote:
how does this game even compare to chess? I dont mean about more different patterns, etc ... it are always the same round tiles, no variation, no different ways to move for different pieces. Situations do require a very complex several steps ahead thinking, but are nonetheless very linear (there is only one possible move: place a tile). In chess different pieces have different rules, which makes the thinking proces multidimensional and more fun/challenging/difficult/outside the box/...
Just rambling though after my first 19x19 game.
Dude, Go has way more basic tactical variations than chess. I don't just mean mathematically--it's a trivial point that Go is more computationally intractable. I mean that *basic* chess tactics generally boil down to pins, forks, skewers, and discovered attacks. In Go, the list of basic tactics--usually called "tesuji"--is much longer, and it is possible to become pretty strong without even being aware of all of them.
One basic example is the two-stone edge squeeze. It achieves a capture through a two-stage sacrifice that an absolute beginner could probably not read out in an hour. The reason I call it a "basic" tesuji is that it occurs as a kind of irreducible unit in many technical situations. I once played a 9x9 game that was entirely determined by a two-stone edge squeeze that was never played. Every move had to do with activating (or deactivating) potential that would have allowed this sequence to be profitably played out.
By the way, this is not a "linear" sequence by any means. A slight change in surrounding stones can make this sequence fail for at least half a dozen different reasons (for example, your opponent might have the chance to give up a few stones and escape with the rest) or cause another tesuji to become viable. (actually, there's a certain tesuji that players around my level mess up all the time, because it *looks* like a two-stone edge squeeze)
And don't even get me started on ko.
Go also has a level of full-board strategy that is simply not possible on a (small) chessboard. I hope nobody thinks I'm badmouthing chess here--I think it's a fantastic game--but "it has different kinds of pieces" is hardly the right way to argue that it's somehow deeper than Go.
|
On April 16 2009 10:49 threepool wrote:
Go also has a level of full-board strategy that is simply not possible on a (small) chessboard. I hope nobody thinks I'm badmouthing chess here--I think it's a fantastic game--but "it has different kinds of pieces" is hardly the right way to argue that it's somehow deeper than Go.
You aren't badmouthing chess and yet your post is simply tearing down chess in favor of go at every point lol. You simplified all of chess tactics to three broad categories and yet you can pull the same trick with go tactics, they all boil down to either making eyes or winning capture races right?
That being said i enjoy go more, but i don't think that is because chess is somehow less complex to me, a mortal man. you could spend as much time as you wanted to on either game and not reach perfect play so the complexity issue is a complete irrelevance.
So here is my short and sweet and hopefully less bias breakdown between chess and go having actually played both at at least a an intermediate amount of skill.
Chess generally relies on more tactics then go in the average game, although this will vary between games (ie closed chess positions have lots of long term large scale strategy, and likewise a whole board large avalanche fight will be very tactic heavy).
Go strategy usually involves some sort of compromise (ie tit for tat type strategies) and chess generally involves trying to impose your will on the foe.
go is an additive game, chess a subtractive one.
in go you can win without engaging enemy peices in fights really, just by surrounding enough. in chess you fight by definition.
that's it. unless you are a computer one is not "harder" then the other. one is not better beacuse it's based on more abstract qualities. Both can be said to be artistic, both are played by millions, and both are so deep that only computers really have a chance at attaining anything close to perfect play, us humans can try all we like but not get there, that's why we play the games.
All that being said i'd like to invite anyone thinking of trying out Go to head on to gokgs.com and join the teamliquid room under social, stop in and say hi and we'll definately show you what you need to know to get started. If you have only played chess you owe it to yourself to give the "other" board game a try (likewise to all the go only players lol).
|
Shymon, I'm seriously not tearing down chess. I was making a point about complexity--which you claim, ironically enough, is irrelevant--and you didn't really respond to it except to make this silly point about making eyes. I'll respond to that: the goal of a tactic is not the same as the tactic itself. But if you want to list goals of Go tactics/tesuji, you left out cutting, connecting, and (lol) taking territory.
You're welcome to disagree with my point about forks, pins, skewers, and discovered attacks, but I've heard quite a number of expert-level chess players make exactly my same point. So what? It doesn't mean anything is better than anything else.
|
On April 16 2009 12:06 Shymon wrote:
That being said i enjoy go more, but i don't think that is because chess is somehow less complex to me, a mortal man. you could spend as much time as you wanted to on either game and not reach perfect play so the complexity issue is a complete irrelevance.
this is the best way to look at it imo and if i was a chess player it'd piss me off badly that us go players keep pointing out how our game is "more complex" so annoyingly often when it doesnt even matter... i seriously think it's out of jealousy cause chess has so much prestige and stuff whereas when you tell people you play go they're like "you play what now?"
anyway it's pointless and sad to keep telling these chess players that their game is somehow inferior, it's their passion ffs let them enjoy it as much as they can
|
but yeah threepool you are good about it at least but seriously i've heard a lot of go players talk down on chess when they really had no business doing so at all
|
|
|
On April 17 2009 22:00 GroT wrote:
but yeah threepool you are good about it at least but seriously i've heard a lot of go players talk down on chess when they really had no business doing so at all
threepool was responding to someone that claimed that go doesn't compare to chess. I myself fall into the trap of trying to talk down chess and pump up go, but I often find that it is due to the fact that go gets so little respect in the west when compared to chess. I agree with your general point that it is kinda childish to disrespect another game, especially one that is of a quality of chess. But the fact remains that go has a depth of strategy that is arguably deeper than that of chess and yet, in the west, it gets put on the same level as othello while chess is recognized as the pinnacle of strategy games. I feel as though this is the main reason why go players often defend the game of go while playing down chess.
|
Glad I'm not getting flamed too much (phew!) but to make amends I'll point out another aspect of the game in which chess is more complex: full-board interactions. (recall that the post I was responding to was specifically about basic tactical variations, or at least that's how I chose to interpret it for some reason)
In Go, the only *tactical* mechanism that connects distant parts of the board is the ladder, which is common but not ubiquitous. But in chess, since there are many pieces that can move across the board, it is often necessary to take every piece on the board into account when making tactical decisions. In Go, it is often possible to make several decisions independently, and sometimes a situation in some part of the board can remain unchanged for even hundreds of moves, while in chess you don't have this luxury.
Actually, this computational "weakness" of Go was featured prominently in an article (in Wired maybe?) in which one of the key people behind Deep Blue was discussing how he thought that computers could beat humans at Go using certain types of caching algorithms that had failed for chess.
|
On April 18 2009 02:02 threepool wrote:
Glad I'm not getting flamed too much (phew!) but to make amends I'll point out another aspect of the game in which chess is more complex: full-board interactions. (recall that the post I was responding to was specifically about basic tactical variations, or at least that's how I chose to interpret it for some reason)
In Go, the only *tactical* mechanism that connects distant parts of the board is the ladder, which is common but not ubiquitous. But in chess, since there are many pieces that can move across the board, it is often necessary to take every piece on the board into account when making tactical decisions. In Go, it is often possible to make several decisions independently, and sometimes a situation in some part of the board can remain unchanged for even hundreds of moves, while in chess you don't have this luxury.
Actually, this computational "weakness" of Go was featured prominently in an article (in Wired maybe?) in which one of the key people behind Deep Blue was discussing how he thought that computers could beat humans at Go using certain types of caching algorithms that had failed for chess.
r u srs
i don't know wether i should try to refute ur claim or try to convince u that it doesn't matter which game is more complex
anyway you seem to know that positions in go have a huge impact on other positions far away even if there are no ladders involved, because you included the word "tactical" in ur line as if everything else somehow "doesnt count".. what's even the point of making arguments like that?
go players do the same thing btw.. they mention completely irrelevant crap like "our board is bigger than yours" or "there's more different possible board positions"...
who cares??
|
On April 17 2009 23:24 tenbagger wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 22:00 GroT wrote:
but yeah threepool you are good about it at least but seriously i've heard a lot of go players talk down on chess when they really had no business doing so at all threepool was responding to someone that claimed that go doesn't compare to chess. I myself fall into the trap of trying to talk down chess and pump up go, but I often find that it is due to the fact that go gets so little respect in the west when compared to chess. I agree with your general point that it is kinda childish to disrespect another game, especially one that is of a quality of chess. But the fact remains that go has a depth of strategy that is arguably deeper than that of chess and yet, in the west, it gets put on the same level as othello while chess is recognized as the pinnacle of strategy games. I feel as though this is the main reason why go players often defend the game of go while playing down chess.
i don't think so i think most chess players realise almost instantly just how impossible it must be to master go.. after all their own game is exactly the same in that respect
i think its mostly random people who dont play either and haven't ever heard of go that give chess tremendous credit while saying "go where?", which is what causes frustration but this isn't at all the fault of the chess players, they are just getting the credit they deserve.. instead of bashing on them maybe go players could focus that energy on enlightening other people that go is pretty damn sick also and that there are amazing grandmasters just like in chess
I compare a lot of this stuff to situations in poker by the way
- no limit (go) players telling limit (chess) players their game is less "deep" while neither can master either
- general public giving the top tournament players (chess players) who are on tv insane credit and the top cash game players (go players) often feel slighted because of this.. you can really find a lot of frustration in top online players when they have to hear about "the greatest players in the world" over and over again on tv
|
On April 18 2009 12:59 GroT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 23:24 tenbagger wrote:On April 17 2009 22:00 GroT wrote:
but yeah threepool you are good about it at least but seriously i've heard a lot of go players talk down on chess when they really had no business doing so at all threepool was responding to someone that claimed that go doesn't compare to chess. I myself fall into the trap of trying to talk down chess and pump up go, but I often find that it is due to the fact that go gets so little respect in the west when compared to chess. I agree with your general point that it is kinda childish to disrespect another game, especially one that is of a quality of chess. But the fact remains that go has a depth of strategy that is arguably deeper than that of chess and yet, in the west, it gets put on the same level as othello while chess is recognized as the pinnacle of strategy games. I feel as though this is the main reason why go players often defend the game of go while playing down chess. i don't think so i think most chess players realise almost instantly just how impossible it must be to master go.. after all their own game is exactly the same in that respect i think its mostly random people who dont play either and haven't ever heard of go that give chess tremendous credit while saying "go where?", which is what causes frustration but this isn't at all the fault of the chess players, they are just getting the credit they deserve.. instead of bashing on them maybe go players could focus that energy on enlightening other people that go is pretty damn sick also and that there are amazing grandmasters just like in chess I compare a lot of this stuff to situations in poker by the way - no limit (go) players telling limit (chess) players their game is less "deep" while neither can master either - general public giving the top tournament players (chess players) who are on tv insane credit and the top cash game players (go players) often feel slighted because of this.. you can really find a lot of frustration in top online players when they have to hear about "the greatest players in the world" over and over again on tv
your comparisons to poker are spot on. and yeah, I was referring more to the general public than hardcore chess players when I said that go doesnt get much respect.
|
cool =) btw tenbagger im on an UNREAL heater on kgs, 14 wins straight!
|
what's your nick on KGS grot? and why don't you lurk our room? (or if you do heh....)
|
Where is everyone? every time i joined the irc or KGS... no one is avaiable to play...
i'm Rillanon btw.
|
On April 18 2009 16:30 Shymon wrote:
what's your nick on KGS grot? and why don't you lurk our room? (or if you do heh....)
osoraku.. i didn't know you guys had a room! i'll take a look and get in there when i'm on
edit: found it 
|
On April 18 2009 12:48 GroT wrote:i don't know wether i should try to refute ur claim or try to convince u that it doesn't matter which game is more complex
If you'd been paying attention to the discussion, you'd know that I agree--it doesn't matter. I tried to demonstrate this by arguing for both sides in succession, but that seems to have gone over your head.
On April 18 2009 12:48 GroT wrote:anyway you seem to know that positions in go have a huge impact on other positions far away even if there are no ladders involved, because you included the word "tactical" in ur line as if everything else somehow "doesnt count".. what's even the point of making arguments like that?
No, it's not that strategy doesn't count, it's that the discussion was originally about tactics, and the claim that the rules of Go force sequences to be very linear. (which I disagreed with) In Go it is possible to read out one part of the board, then come back to it a hundred moves later and find it unchanged. This situation is obviously impossible in chess. This has many implications both on the way people approach the two games, and on the kinds of algorithms programmers use in making game engines.
These are not arbitrary terms--strategy and tactics are really quite different. One common criticism of invasion-style moves in Go, for example, is that they are "too early". What this means is that the tactical situation (locally) may have been played out correctly, but that the sequence itself was not optimal given the strategic (global) situation. As the global situation changes, the same sequence of moves may become closer to optimal, but the sequence itself may remain unchanged for quite some time.
Ladders and ko are *completely* different--you have tactical lines on different parts of the board directly interfering with each other. Of course you see this at every move in chess, as long as even a single rook, bishop, or queen is in play.
By the way, it's pretty silly to end an angry post with "who cares?" Clearly you do, or you'd just ignore what I'm writing.
|
u completely missed my point =(
my fault for sucking at putting thoughts into words
|
I recently started learning how to play Go so I got excited when I noticed this thread. However, you guys have spent the entire last page bashing Chess as a response to one guy's (uneducated) opinion. Since I learned how to play chess first, I'm apprehensive about playing with you guys.
Basically I'm just trying to get this to a new page so other people don't get turned off by the Go group for the same reason. I'll still consider it.
|
On April 19 2009 14:15 Durak wrote:
However, you guys have spent the entire last page bashing Chess
Come again?
On April 16 2009 10:49 threepool wrote:
I hope nobody thinks I'm badmouthing chess here--I think it's a fantastic game
On April 16 2009 12:06 Shymon wrote:
That being said i enjoy go more, but i don't think that is because chess is somehow less complex to me, a mortal man. you could spend as much time as you wanted to on either game and not reach perfect play so the complexity issue is a complete irrelevance.
On April 17 2009 22:00 GroT wrote:
..the chess players, they are just getting the credit they deserve.
On April 17 2009 23:24 tenbagger wrote:
...especially one that is of a quality of chess.
that's all from the last page and everyone who had anything to say about chess is included
|
Edit: ^
Taking small chunks of posts doesn't do justice to the mood behind them. I said that it is "thinly veiled." If you read through the posts objectivally you'll notice it. For comparison to your quotes, I'll do the same thing with the same posts.
On April 17 2009 21:58 GroT wrote:
anyway it's pointless and sad to keep telling these chess players that their game is somehow inferior, it's their passion ffs let them enjoy it as much as they can
On April 16 2009 10:49 threepool wrote:
Dude, Go has way more basic tactical variations than chess. I don't just mean mathematically--it's a trivial point that Go is more computationally intractable. I mean that *basic* chess tactics generally boil down to pins, forks, skewers, and discovered attacks.
On April 16 2009 10:49 threepool wrote:
Go also has a level of full-board strategy that is simply not possible on a (small) chessboard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
