Just a lighter topic about strategy generally, and a question about Go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)) compared to Chess. I've been told that Go is ultimately far more "deep" (i.e. complex, massive problem space to solve) -- in part because it relies on fewer rules, and more visually intuitive gameplay mechanics, than Chess, which is I'd say far more "cerebral" and linear/memory based. An example a friend told me was that an AI cannot beat a high-level Go player (please verify/debunk this) but Chess has basically been solved since the 80s (is highly deterministic) and so relies more on memory and focus and less on tactical and strategic shifts. I've also read a lot of Josh Waitzkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)) who might counter argue that the psychology, stress, memorisation of "attack patterns" and overall tree-of-possibility memory recall that goes into Chess is itself part of the rich "meta-game" and thus adds a highly complex layer on top, but only when you have human v human (since only they are fallible). EDIT. Speculation: it seems to me that Chess is about crunching the rules -- axioms -- that structure the game very tightly; whereas Go has so few rules it opens up a huge problem space, that means the player's thoughts must become higher-level and visually guided, i.e. spacial/positional not axiom-based, and so on, which perhaps gives it its unique, rich depth.
You can find more information about Go and computers at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go It will take some more years for computers to win from human professional players. The nice thing about Go over Chess is that you can compensate the difference in player strength quite easily. Just give (a few) stones extra at start...
I have never played GO, so I am not really qualified, but I would say that GO just as chess in the end has a limited amount of possible games. It just happens that the amount of possible games is far bigger than in the case of chess (the field is bigger and has more pieces and it => more possible combinations) and therefore it is harder to brute-force it with a computer, which is basically what computers do to chess. Kind of the same reason why no Computer could brute-force win a game in an RTS like SC2 or FA. There are so many many possible games that it is pretty much impossible to simulate them all.
Go is an amazing game. I was taught it by a prodigy friend of mine. He was bored of playing Chess and was looking for an opponent. He was the number one chess player at our school (our high school had over 4000 students). He showed me the game and beat the living **** out of me over and over. I still love to play. Assuming we are talking about a tournament board 19x19. There is early, middle and late game play. Each phase of play has unique strategies that you employ. Early game is about map control if you will. Middle focuses on battles and solidifying your lines. Finally Late game is about making life and making sure your opponent does not. When I used to play all the time. I used to read entire books about subsets of gameplay. Go provides a much deeper strategy game with more possibilities in play. Lets put it this way there are not names for sequences of opening moves in Go.
Personally I enjoy Chess more. My dad taught me to play when I was 5 and we still have the occasional battle. I didn't learn Go until our main engine dude William introduced me to it back in the Cavedog days. I haven't played enough to form a real opinion about it. That probably won't ever happen because I don't feel to inclined to spend valuable time getting good at Go. Anyway this is probably off topic.
You hit it right on the dot. The problems of solving either game are trivial, it's just a matter of the possible moves. Chess has a fixed size board, Go can have a board of larger sizes. Using solvability as a way to determine which game is more "deep" is not really the correct way to think about it. In the end, I prefer Chess myself, as I find it provides enough variety for me to find it enjoyable. I'm sure if I played competitively, my view would change as I got better. But I still wouldn't find Go to be an acceptable solution, because it just revolves around the concept of pattern recognition and iteration. Sure there are a larger variety of situations you can find yourself in, but it really comes down to fitting the appropriate shapes to the situation. (I'm sure Go purists will have something to say about my interpretation, but I've played the game enough to know a decent amount. For me it's just not stimulating.) That said, Go and Chess do offer an interesting way of looking at strategy from an RTS perspective. Go is very much a zoomed out game of grand strategy, while chess is a mix of strategy and tactics. If the games were to be combined in such a way that each Go position represented a Chess battle being fought, it would be an interesting way of visualizing how a game such as PA might be fought. There are various levels of strategy that need to be taken into account, especially in a multi-planet RTS. It's a good abstraction of the potential gameplay.
Chess is as much pattern recognition as Go. The rather limited amount of board positions in Chess makes it even duller in comparison. The amount of possible situations in Go is believed (currently) to be higher than the estimated atom count in our observable universe. That and Go provides strategy on multiple layers, whereas Chess has one victory condition. There is no micro/macro balance going down, largely due to Chess being solved. Chess games always converge a familiar ending, the number of viable moves diminishes over time. It's the similar in Go but on a much more sophisticated level. I'm ranting or something.
Yeah, I've heard those arguments a million times from Go aficionados. My issue with Go is that the patterns are all very similar, despite the many different variations in positioning. While Chess may have a smaller set of patterns due to the limited board size, those patterns offer more variety due to the different movements of the pieces. People also argue that high level Chess requires memorization and study of a variety of the most common competitive moves and situations, but really, it's more about understanding why a certain solution is better than another, rather than memorizing the "correct" solution. That said, both games have their merits and attract their own audiences. I just wish Go fans would be a little less zealous in their love for the game. It seems that every time Chess gets mentioned, some Go enthusiast has to come in and say what is essentially "OMG Go is so much bettar! Let me list a million scientifically proven facts about why Go is so superior, topped off with the names of various pro Chess players that agree!" The point is, having played both games extensively for a number of years, I still find Chess to be the more enjoyable game, and for good reason. Come to think of it, I wonder if that's how we, the TA/FA/Spring enthusiasts, sound to the Starcraft community . . . :?
Yes, we do because it's true. "Any Idiot can understand Starcraft II, and it's ok to be an idiot." ~ TheLittleOne Try drinking the Go kool-aid, see how it taste. Then see if you then start to feel zealoust.
I already have. I was a 12 or 11 kyu player long ago. Nothing great, but enough to have a decent knowledge of the game, I think.
I prefere Go. An advantage of go is that you can easily add advantage/disadvantage to a player making game with stronger/weaker opponents interesting for the two parties event when the gap is quite large. I also found that progress (at least initially) is faster/easier with go.
Yeah its accessibility (learning curve) while remaining astoundingly complex (problem space) is unparalleled IMO in any non-digital game. I love that you can teach the rules, which are pretty intuitive and easy to visualize, in just a few minutes even to a child.
Nah, I feel the same way. Chess is easier to play at a fundamental level and still play strategically, so it is generally better. Go against other Go players can be much harder to get to "work" as a game, in the same way SMNC is hard to get to "work" as a game compared to Modern Warfare or something. That is my comparison. Go is SMNC, Chess is BlOps. Even though calling BlOps as good as Chess is an insult, it is a lot dumber. It is just same concept is all, SMNC feels vassly like nutcrushing and mindscrewing with a hair of difference in skill, and Go feels the same way. You can metaphorically go "0 kills - 27 deaths" easily with little experience in Go against someone with more experience. I still recommend getting a GUI program and learning to play Go well enough to hold points against it, that way you can say you are proficient at it at least, and it would hold interest enough for you at that point.
