As a chess player (1800-1900) I find these arguments, especially on a Go page, somewhat biased. However I also play Go (just attained 14 kyu). Personally I feel the games, depth-wise, are equal. Or nearly so, I do acknowledge that there is going to be a difference in depth although this difference is infintesimal to a human. Unless you are speaking in some mathmatical terms which I probably, am ignorant of. The draw will throw people off who are advocates of Go. Likewise the protracted nature of Go will similarly confuse Chess players, which I believe is the reason you see high win ratios amongst people of only one rank difference in Go (the sum of accumulated advantages is different these games). That's what I think anyway.
I think it is inherent that in a discussion about a comparision (depth of Go vs. Chess), the resp. arguments itself are biased (although, perhaps I do not fully understand the meaning of that word). I think the order could be:
Subjective - biased - pre-disposed, pre-judiced.
I think it is nothing wrong with being subjective, I even like people who know where they stand and take a (consequent & consistent) position. Instant dogmaticians (Germ.: Augenblicksdogmatiker) are differentiated by the word consistent.
A fact cannot be biased:
In example if I had the two (true) arguments
then just stating the (carefully selected) facts seems not pre-disposition to me (ok, spin doctors will smilingly disagree).
However any deriving conclusion from there in style of "M is better than N, because of A" or even "because of A and B" can easily be biased, because the conclusion better is an opinion.
That is the difference between facts and opinions.
(Quote: "The problems with opinions is - that everyone has one.")
(I honestly do not know) Do you think that (apart from Blitz etc.) Go games take 3 times longer? Will chess player not like Go because they had to play 3 times more moves, play longer or why would they be confused?