Compare Go to Chess
Path: TeachingMethods · Prev: DescribeGoToNonPlayers · Next: CompareGoToChess/Discussion
Table of contents |
Quotes
"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."
"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."
- --
Hans Berliner, The New York Times, Feb 6, 2003.
"We have no intel. We can't find the insurgents. When they bomb something, we only know about it afterward. We can't figure them out. Someone said, 'We play chess, they play Go.'[6] All we can do is lose. All we can do is bomb."
- --
Seymour Hersh quoted on
Common Dreams
Similarities
- It is a strategic game, with no random chance
- It is an abstract wargame
- You need a logical mind and the ability to look several moves ahead
- 9x9 go is more like chess than 19x19 (less strategy, one tactical clash settles the game, material more important), and it can even be played on a chess board!
Differences
- Go has fewer rules. (Yet this allowed for all sorts of moves to be played, so Go can be a more intellectually challenging game than the other two types of chess - there are between factorial(361) and 361^(3^361) possible games of Go without repeating positions.)
- And yet: "I think this is the only weakness of go, that starting period in which beginners get the rules explained but can't really do anything with them at all. The two months it took me to get a grasp of what really was the general idea, are no exception. Only people slightly obsessed with the game will come out on the other end of this. In that respect chess players are a lot better off, there may be more rules but the goal and the way of playing become clear much sooner than with go." --Catalin Taranu +
- Go has a point-based scoring system. Chess does not.
- Strategy is much more important than in chess...
- ...because the board is much bigger.
- Focusing too much on tactics will win you one fight, but lose you the game.
- Taking pieces isn't as important. In chess, a one pawn advantage is decisive at higher levels. In Go, the focus is more on territory and influence.[0]
- Go has an excellent handicap system that allows players of different strength to enjoy a real game not a crippled version of it. [1] It's possible to compensate not only for differing skill levels but also for the advantage of the first move[2], in a very fine-grained way.[4]
- Draws are extremely rare.[3]
- Once a move is made it is always there to stay, so every move is as critical as a pawn move in chess.
- Go is always dynamic, so you cannot "sit" on a position and press a positional advantage in safety, as you can in chess.
- You can get much further in go without memorising many openings (though this is no longer true if you want to go beyond shodan level roughly equivalent to 2000 rating).[5]
- No computers to make years of study and effort seem futile -- in go, you can beat the best programs as an amateur player.
- In general, a game of go takes longer than a game of chess and casual club games are usually played without a clock (though "blitz go" is quite popular on internet servers).
- In Go, players build up their positions - there are more stones on the board with each move.
- In Go, games will generally have the appropriate handicap, so there are no "easy games," even against weaker players.
- In Chess, always getting tactics right gives you the best chance of winning a game. Chess players who do this in Go can end up focussing on tactics involving a clever sequence of moves capturing material, but which win very few points, while their opponents take the truly big points without making any fuss. In Go, such tactics are most important during a fight or in the endgame, but can lead you astray elsewhere. Go tactics = tesuji can sometimes incur a material loss for other considerations, such as influence.
Should we Compare the two Games at All?
Whether comparing Go to chess is a BadHabit or not is in dispute (see /discussion), 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 Chess 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.
One good reason to compare Go to Chess is to give it context. It is natural to explain the native context of Go, i.e. its history, popularity and cultural framework in the Far East, but if it is to grow in the West it also needs a western context, i.e. what is it like? Where does it fit into the scheme of things? Why would anyone want to spend an hour putting little stones on a board? There is only one other thing like it in the West, and that is chess. It makes a natural point of reference. Highlighting the ways that Go is more attractive than chess (higher strategy, humans v. computers, etc.) is a simple way of 'selling' the game. [7]
I'm not a very good chess player, but I do believe that chess is every bit as worthwhile as igo (or both are a complete waste of time). A few comments:
- I don't understand how the lack of good computer players for igo can be considered a positive thing. Personally, I would love a strong computer player to analyse my game whenever I wanted, and to play against when human opponents aren't available. I'm sure that strong computer players will be developed eventually, although perhaps it may take 20 years or even more. When that happens, will igo cease to be an interesting game?
- I think it's important to bear in mind that chess is not one game but a family of games. Conclusions about one variant are probably not applicable to all others. If you think the board is too cramped in FIDE, try Grand Chess. If you want a more strategic game, try Shogi. The world of chess is very rich.
- Many people seem to think that igo is more popular than chess in Asia. As far as I know, that's only true in Korea... and part of the reason for that may be a lack of international interest in Changgi (Korean chess). In China, xiangqi is massively more popular than weiqi. In Vietnam, most people have never even heard of igo. In Japan, there is more balance but still shogi seems to be most popular, at least among the young. Of course, none of this necessarily reflects the virtue of the games in question.
- There are tons of great board games, and no law that you choose only one. Why not enjoy as many as you can?
See Also
Footnotes
[0] The typical territory versus influence exchange in go has an analogy in chess, namely a sacrifice of material for the initiative. The difference is that essentially every go game features such exchanges. ilanpi
[1] The weaker player is given a handicap; he starts with a number of stones already on the board, before the first move. This is equivalent to the stronger player passing several times, which is possible because the goal is not focussed on a single figure but on gaining overall territory and because the Go board is initially empty.
[2] Points are customarily given to the player taking the white stones. This is called "komi", and is usually 6.5 points.
[3] When komi is given, a fractional point is usually added. This makes it impossible to have an equal result. (Draws are still possible in other ways, but they're very rare.)
[4] For agreement and disagreement with this statement see the headline "Handicap" on the /discussion page.
[6] This might recall the John F. Kennedy Cold War statement: "We play poker, they play chess."
[7] how about following nowaday analogy as I read it once somewhere long ago. When comparing Go to chess, Go is closer to modern warfare: whereas in chess horses and towers jump around, in Go a stone can be seen as the equivalent of the army unit dropped in the field, trying to connect with other units, and with everybody trying to conquer the land. --axd
About this Page
Path: TeachingMethods · Prev: DescribeGoToNonPlayers · Next: CompareGoToChess/Discussion