[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]

StartingPoints
ReferenceSection
About


Paths
BadHabits

Referenced by
Chess
IntermediatePlays
ChessPlayersNewToGo
GoPlayersWhoAlsoP...
RefuseToTakeHandicap
WhereIsGoGoing
DescribeGoToNonPl...
GoAndTheRestOfThe...

Homepages
Duncan

 

Compare go to chess
Path: BadHabits   · Prev: RatingParanoia   · Next: PullingUpTheLadder
   

"While the Baroque rules of chess could only have been created by humans, the rules of go are so elegant, organic, and rigorously logical that if intelligent life forms exist elsewhere in the universe, they almost certainly play go."

-- Edward Lasker

"You don't have to be really good anymore to get good results. What's happening with Chess is that it's gradually losing its place as the par excellence of intellectual activity. Smart people in search of a challenging board game might try a game called Go."

-- [ext] Hans Berliner, former World Correspondence Chess Champion, Professor of [ext] Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University and [ext] Deep Blue developer. The New York Times, Feb 6, 2003.

(Actually didn't he develop Hitech? I don't think he worked on Deep Blue.)

PurpleHaze: Correct, Berliner developped Hitech and did not work on Deep Blue. However, the hardware developed at CMU by F-H Hsu before he joined IBM was part of Hitech and part of Deep Blue.


Whether comparing Go to chess is a BadHabit or not is in dispute (see below), but what isn't in dispute is that it's a bad habit to ridicule either game by comparing it to only the good qualities of the other game. Both games have their strengths and weaknesses. When you're in love, the mole on your beloved's nose becomes a beauty mark.

In the west, Go is a bit of an underdog to chess, in terms of popularity. One needn't disparage it in order to advocate Go, as Go can stand on its own. If you must compare or criticise (and it's very difficult not to), try to do it thoughtfully and academically and not as an act of proselytizing.


Discussion:

Dieter: It is a bad habit to compare Go to Chess. When trying to explain what Go is, comparing it to Chess, you don't do honour to the game of Go. When comparing Go to Chess, to show how infinitely much richer the game of Go is, you don't do honour to Chess.

I think people make this comparison because both games are full of strategy and deep thinking. And Chess is just much more popular in most areas. What would you compare it to? Jezzball meets Othello ...

Sbaguz: I totally disagree: I don't understand why it's a bad habit to compare Go to Chess. On the contrary I think it's a very interesting comparison between games with a strong cultural and historical importance for east and west. It's a way to compare east and west way of thinking too, with an excellent philosophical approach. For west players it's also the best way to diffuse Go: a Chess player can often appreciate Go more than other people. (I know about a lot of "conversions".) Yes, it may be a bad habit if you aren't impartial and you try to elect the best game between them. (I refer to the sentence "to show how infinitely much richer the game of Go is": this is very rude, because I can agree, but a Chess player ?...)

Duncan: I'd like to give my oppinion from the point of view of a newbie and a chess player. I've been playing chess on and off since I was little, and only just started playing go - and I've found I really like it. The two games are very much related, but very different, and that's part of the appeal. The only real bad habit is to compare chess to go in a way that suggests that either game is superior. O.K., a go board has more possibilites numerically, has simpler rules, is more strategic, can't be played well by computers and so on, but chess is good fun the way it is. Insulting a really good game that a lot of people enjoy, many of whom are the most likely go converts you'll ever find, is both foolish and very, very petty. They're just games, after all!


Chess and WeiQi both originated from the East (from China, to be more precise). So it really isn't so much a cultural comparison between East and West.

Benjamin Geiger: Yes, but Chess took off in the West, while Go didn't. I'm guessing that it's because people in the West saw their own style of battle reflected in Chess.

(Of course, in a wonderful case of what's-old-is-new-again, the guerilla warfare rediscovered between the 18th and 20th centuries is more accurately modeled by Go, at least in my humble opinion...)

Charles Matthews: Does anyone really believe Chess originated in China?[1] It is generally thought to have arisen in the area Iran? to the Punjab?. The area of diffusion of Go in the middle ages is close enough to the area of monastic Buddhist orders coming from China.

TimBrent: Exactly, Charles. Also, Benjamin, Chess spread from India? to Persia? and the Arab World, where we in the West came into contact with it through the Crusades.

Charles: I have seen web sites asserting a Chinese origin for Chess; I don't know any credible evidence.

EIKENHEIN: When I was first learning chess, I read an introductory book on its rules and history. It suggested Chess WAS originally from China. How they figured it out, I haven't the faintest idea.

GoStone: The best discussion about Chess/China I have seen is [ext] here. Unfortunately the 'colourful' character of its author will lead many people to dismiss the article out of hand. I would be very interested to hear what other people think about his theories as they stand.


Cornelius?: I both agree and disagree: As Sbaguz notes above, it's certainly bad form to dwell on the (perceived) superiority of one game over another, insulting to the traditions of both, and I suspect that this is what Dieter is referring to.

But there are, I feel, some useful, valid, value-free comparisons which can be made. While trying to explain the nuances of the game to an experienced Chess player, I've found it helpful to point out that the fact that Go is placement-based and Chess is movement-based reverses the value of locations on the board: in Chess, taking and holding the center is key, while in Go, it's corners first, then sides, then the center. Topologically, it's (to me) as though in Chess, the board had a single central hill, over which the conflict is fought, while in Go, it's as though the corners were hills, the sides lower ridges, and the center a low plain.

Also, while trying to explain the difficulties of programming Go to a fellow geek, it is impossible to avoid mentioning the difference in raw move combinatorics.


Stefan: I follow Cornelius? on this one - some good comparisons can be made. This is pretty obvious - it should be relatively easy to compare any mind game with Go. In the end most debaters on this page seem in violent agreement: Go and Chess can be compared, but it should be done in a respectful way for both.

While we're on the topic: there is some meta-level but nevertheless good advice on Go study contained in a Chess related article.


TimBrent: My one complaint on it is the Chess books and Go books which say for one reason or another, their game is superior to the other.

Malweth: I haven't studied Chess books extensively, but I find it hard to believe that many even make mention of Go, let alone belittle it. Do you have any references?


(discussion about chess history copied and pasted unedited to SL's chess page)


Jasonred: I would say that a big difference between Chess and Go is the "people are equal" factor. India? had their caste system, so they viewed some as inherently superior, and some as inferior. And all their decendants would, consequently, be just as superior or inferior, forever. In China, the Imperial Exams let anyone rise to a high position, if he could prove his worth.

Anyone else find the similiarities in Chess and Go? Chess, yeah, sometimes a pawn may turn the tide, but a Queen or some other piece there might work even better. And it's such a struggle to cross the board for the pawn. In Go, all pieces start equal, and a lot of them are super crucial.

There's also the, "kill the king to win". Versus the "there is no king, you want to win, you have to beat us all!". Or perhaps it's "there is no such thing as true victory, just being relatively better off".

The endgame is interesting to note that, it is considered polite for both players to pass in Go, instead of launching futile attacks, despite they wouldn't lose points and there's the hope the opponent screws up. In Chess, if there's the slightest doubt at all, Go for the jugular, always! Annihilate your enemy or die in the attempt! Diplomacy? Never!

Andre Engels: I don't think you have Chess right here. Annihilate your enemy or die in the attempt? Many games are ended at a draw proposal, sometimes quite early in the game. I have not been playing Chess seriously any recent, but I think that in Chess too it's considered impolite to play on when you do not have a serious chance of winning.

Andrew Walkingshaw: Indeed, extremely so; if one is in a clearly lost position, one is expected to resign. Also, the previous author seems to be unaware of the concept of the "grandmaster draw" (see Kramnik - Kasparov from Round 1 of the current (24/2/03) all-play-all in Linares; drawn in 18 moves (each: a move in Chess is composed of one play from each player, unlike in Go) in an interesting position...)

Mathaddict: I wholehartedly disagree with the statement that if one is in a clearly lost position that one shold resign in chess. Some of the most famous games of all time involve a game when a player in a lost position, forces a draw against a superior opponent (either by repitition of position, or the unavailability of any leagal move). I may add that such nuances are not found in Go.


Unorthodox, underestimated fuseki

Tamsin: When I am not playing Go, I enjoy whiling away the odd half-hour with fast games on Chess servers. Because I do not study Chess, I'd rather use my studytime for Go. I use a very offbeat opening, namely 1.h3 2.a3 3.g3 4.b3 5.e3 6.d3 7.Bg2 8.Bb2 9.Ne2 10. Nd2 and its variants, both as Black and as White. Weirdly enough, I do very well with this, because I know this system pretty well, and because my opponents regularly underestimate it. They attack in a stereotypical fashion, overlooking the fact that each of my moves, while unorthodox, has some value and point. Now, I know that at master level, Michael Basman does very well with this same system, even against grandmasters. Here is my question, then: is there any equivalent to this in Go? An opening that looks rubbishy, but actually has some real virtues. The one possible comparison that springs to mind is the Great Wall fuseki, but that seems quite normal compared with my Chess opening. Perhaps Go is not as tolerant of really unorthodox play? Opinions please!

Bill: The New Fuseki, which laid emphasis on the center, was considered very unorthodox at the time, and generated strong emotional reaction, at least among some amateurs. I think it parallels Hypermodernism in Chess. The Chinese Fuseki led to more rethinking of the opening. As a result, perhaps, of this recent history, my impression is that Go is so tolerant of unorthodox play that it hardly recognizes it as such. As for joseki, new ideas are tried all the time.

Andrew Walkingshaw: New ideas are tried in Chess: however, Tamsin's line is plainly not critical. It doesn't lose the game outright, but it definitely has more psychological than actual merit.

The thing about Shin Fuseki, or Hypermodernism, is that they had real, concrete merit - they had content, rather than just being a bluff. It was just that no-one had thought of playing like that - in that style, if you will. However, nowadays amateurs regularly play 4-4 points, and Chess amateurs regularly play the Nimzo-Indian, without thinking in some way they 're being at all unorthodox.

There are examples of critical new ideas in modern Chess thinking (the post-hypermodern rehabilitation of the Alekhine and Pirc defences, the whole early-e5 complex in the Sicilian due to the re-evaluation of the weakness of the d6 square - which gave rise to the popularity of the Najdorf and Sveshnikov/Kalashnikov complexes, probably the two most critical theoretical battlegrounds in the whole Sicilian, the early-g4 sacrificial lines in the Semi-Slav, the rehabilitation/fall-from-grace/re-rehabiliation of the King's Indian Defence): but they tend to be less "obviously" visible to amateurs, probably because Chess theory is much faster-moving than Go theory: a line goes from being the height of fashion to entirely discredited in the space of six hours, once the information gets onto the Chess servers and the game records are emailed around. Games have been decided at the very highest level, up to world championship level, because of one player obtaining an innovation played the previous day in a GM tournament on the other side of the planet: see the first Short-Speelman candidates match for an example of this phenomenon, and that was fifteen years ago.

Therefore, "unorthodox" play becomes "orthodox" overnight; the fact is that a slightly suboptimal opening in Go may lose you one or two points to best play, whereas in Chess it'll get you mated, so the orthodoxy in Chess is much more dynamic.


William Newman: I agree that it's not a good idea to get into slanging matches about which game is better. In matters of taste and black and white pieces, there's no arguing, not even about whether it's better for white or black to move first.:-) However, I think it can be interesting to think about differences between the games, without trying to interpret them as arguments for the relative superiority of one or the other. What are the effects of Go having no draws? Or of Go having a standard system for handicap play? Why is Go so much harder for computers than Chess is? Why is it that there's more intensive study and compilation of standard openings in Chess? Are skilled kids more competitive against adults in one game than the other? Etc.

Charles Yes, but on draws you'll always get Chess players arguing that a draw is 'fair', Go players saying of course jigo is something rather different ... not a recipe for a meeting of minds at all.

BobMcGuigan: It looks like draws are an essential part of Chess. Not necessarily the agreed draws, of course. But the possibility of stalemate seems to preclude any draw-elimination such as komi in Go. Historically there was no problem with jigo. The desirability of having no draws probably dates from the advent of tournaments. In present-day Japan the mushoubu is a draw in all but name.


Grauniad: Contributors might like to sit down, take a deep breath, and read the comparison between Chess and Go offered by a serious Chess player and author at [ext] Tim Krabbé's Chess Curiosities, entry 214.

Charles: Nice try - but the reference to 1961 takes us back to a time when the number of players in Europe as a whole stronger than current EGF 2 kyu was a handful.


amc: A question that seems better posed here in this page. Would it make sense to create a companion of sorts to the Beginner Study Section specifically to introduce the game to Chess players? No judgement of value or anything (which seems to be present, albeit in a minor way, even in this page), just something to point chess players too when they ask "why the hell should I learn that game?"


Shonle: I see the Go/Chess debate similar to the Scheme/C++ debate. The two programming languages are equally powerful, yet while Scheme is elegant and simple (it's based on lists and functions), C++ is kludy and complex (it's based on many styles and features). Both will be around for a long time and, in the right spirit, both are fun. A programmer might appreciate that comparision when hearing about Go.


uxs: Now for a somewhat inflammatory opinion: I like Go better than Chess, because you have to think more in Chess. In Go, you can play some moves on feeling, or because the pattern your move creates is prettier, or whatever. I find Chess to be almost exclusively calculation and trying to "outthink" your opponent, in the sense of "I can see further than you", while I try to play Go like "Even if you see what I'm trying to do, you can't stop me because my position is superior."

Also, Chess boards are so horribly small and feel terribly cramped, compared to Go boards. Following from this, it's much harder to come back from behind in Chess, because the board is so small. In Go, you can just Tenuki, build up some influence on the other side of the board, and use it to attack again on the side where you were behind.

Duncan: And you have a perfect right to think so! My point (see above) is that different people like different things, and that chess and go are different games. Neither is better than the other, and it's a Bad Habit to say so. I would, however, like to point out that chess is not all about calculating, and that you can become a very competent player by understanding a few key principles (none of which are of any relevence on a go web site!)

Grauniad: And you can't become strong at Go without becoming strong at calculation (called "reading" in Go).


[1]

Charles I now have learned that Joseph Needham has argued this case, from about 1962.



Path: BadHabits   · Prev: RatingParanoia   · Next: PullingUpTheLadder
This is a copy of the living page "Compare go to chess" at Sensei's Library.
(OC) 2004 the Authors, published under the OpenContent License V1.0.