PDA

View Full Version : Go



Kurtz
06-19-2009, 07:23 PM
Go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_%28game%29) is like chess, but for people who want to actually think for themselves rather than remember a series of opening moves.

Kurtz
06-19-2009, 09:00 PM
Okay, that first post was quite brief. So here is a detailed breakdown of why Go is the greatest game on earth.

Go has hardly any rules. Players take turns of placing stones on the intersections of the board. If a stone or groups of stones is totally surrounded and has no free intersections left the group is removed from play. No board position can be repeated twice (this avoids endless repitition). The winner at the end depends on which scoring rules are adhered to, it's either the amount of territory ones stones control, or the amount of territory + the number of stones taken, I think, I'm still a little fuzzy on the difference.

Go can be taught to 4 year olds, but don't think that makes it a simple game. In fact it is ridiculously complicated, there are volumes of volumes of theory explaining abstract theoretical concepts. Chess programs can beat pretty much any player on earth. However, Go works differently (there are simply too many possible moves for the computer to work out), so the strongest computer Go program can be beaten by a strong amateur.

Ultimatley the reason why I am attracted to Go is that it is a much more "natural" game than chess. Chess is a very human game, we have cleary invented it ourselves, but Go is so organic and fluid that humanity could be described as discovering rather than inventing it. In chess there are very specific patterns of moves that have to be adhered to in order to get a favourable result, Go is much more reliant on natural, almost instinctive decisions in what move is 'right'. That is not to say that planning strategies is not the way to play, but they allow a much larger scope for flexibility.

I was also a little repulsed by the sheer antagonism of chess. The world of a chess board is a world of total war. Every piece is honed on the enemy king, that is their whole purpose and they can be thrown away without a second thought, as long as they bring one player closer to the king. Go for a start is more egalitarian. Stones are stones. Secondly, the game is not just a battle for total supremacy. It is possible to play the game as aggressivley as chess, but against a good player you will quickly find that, in being so aggressive you've sacrificed the time to build a fortress on a failed strategy. It's more a game of give and take, of mutual decisions to abandon parts of the board to the other player.

To be a Go master one must be constantly balance decisions, whether to be aggressive or to build, to develop territory or expand over more. Extreme decisions always fail.

alleycat
06-19-2009, 09:15 PM
I used to play Go years ago. Now I suspect it would be hard for me to find someone willing to play.

I still have my Go board. Mine is just a cheap one with plastic pieces. Back when I was playing I wanted one of those with pieces made of black stones and white shell.

Kayley
06-19-2009, 10:11 PM
I've always wanted to learn how to play Go, but I haven't had the time. I'm thinking that I might start in college, as a college that I'm highly considering has a Go club. :)

dclary
06-20-2009, 01:39 AM
Your first post is egregious in its snootery.



a) There is far more to chess than simply memorizing opening moves.

b) Opening move strategy is just as important in go as it is in chess.

http://www.amazon.com/Strong-Opening-Beginner-Elementary-Books/dp/4906574513

http://www.amazon.com/Opening-Theory-Made-Easy-Principles/dp/4871870367

http://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Sure-Win-Strategy-Intermediate-Advanced/dp/4906574335

c) To insinuate (or even flat-out declare) that go requires more thinking, or that chess requires less thinking than go is asinine. Both are time-tested, highly difficult games of ever-changing strategy and tactics.

d) Go-playing computers are only a few years behind chess-playing computers in ability to consistently beat professionals. This is more a function of the additive nature of the game and doubled size of the board than anything relating to "organicness" or "antagonism."

SharkGelli
06-20-2009, 07:08 AM
Go can be taught to 4 year olds, but don't think that makes it a simple game. In fact it is ridiculously complicated, there are volumes of volumes of theory explaining abstract theoretical concepts. Chess programs can beat pretty much any player on earth. However, Go works differently (there are simply too many possible moves for the computer to work out), so the strongest computer Go program can be beaten by a strong amateur.
Please disregard such matches as Kasparov v. Deep Blue, Kramnik v. Fritz, etc. wherein human players have defeated computer players. Also, computers can very easily calculate every possible move.


Chess is a very human game, we have cleary invented it ourselves, but Go is so organic and fluid that humanity could be described as discovering rather than inventing it. In chess there are very specific patterns of moves that have to be adhered to in order to get a favourable result, Go is much more reliant on natural, almost instinctive decisions in what move is 'right'. That is not to say that planning strategies is not the way to play, but they allow a much larger scope for flexibility.Disregard that players each have a distinct playing style, that Paul Morphy was much more "artistic" and perhaps "intuitive" and that Fischer was versatile, able to win out in the middle- or endgame from sheer calculation. Disregard how some people open with the e-pawn for an open game, d-pawn for a closed game, wing pawn for a defensive game, gambit for gains of tempo, etc.


I was also a little repulsed by the sheer antagonism of chess. The world of a chess board is a world of total war. Every piece is honed on the enemy king, that is their whole purpose and they can be thrown away without a second thought, as long as they bring one player closer to the king. Go for a start is more egalitarian. Stones are stones. Secondly, the game is not just a battle for total supremacy. It is possible to play the game as aggressivley as chess, but against a good player you will quickly find that, in being so aggressive you've sacrificed the time to build a fortress on a failed strategy. It's more a game of give and take, of mutual decisions to abandon parts of the board to the other player.See: defensive strategies vs. offensive strategies. Some good players throw their pieces at the king, some good players keep their pieces to themselves, but the best players know when to use either strategy.

Also, pay no mind to how detailed chessplayers get when discussing who has control over queenside squares in the Benko Gambit after black is able to clog up the center as a positional strategy. There's no such thing as a battle for squares in chess.

And just to take a second shot at the whole "opening moves" remark, please disregard the "modern systems". 1... g7 and 1... b7 have always been accepted as good openings. Also, 1. e4 is not coming under question about whether 1. d4 is more effective in actually winning a game as opposed to coming out as a draw.

dnic
06-20-2009, 08:49 AM
I'm pretty fond of Go and shogi, mostly because they're the first board games that I learned to play (...if nothing else, I liked Go because I didn't need to memorize how the pieces should be set up...I was a lazy kid). I've always wanted to learn chess though, but it seems pretty complicated. I'm still trying to memorize the individual pieces' moves.

Seriously though, they're both games that require a good level of skill and strategy to play (granted, different forms of it). It's like comparing orange to apple!

"You know, the root of the word Miller is a Greek word. Miller come from the Greek word
'milo,' which is mean 'apple,' so there you go. As many of you know, our name, Portokalos, is come from the Greek word 'portokali,' which mean 'orange.' So, okay? Here tonight, we have, ah, apple and orange. We all different, but in the end, we all fruit."

:D Brownie points to those that can figure out where that quote came from without looking it up.