My issue with amatuer chess would be that once above 1500 (maybe even lower) it’s basically waiting to see who makes the first mistake then the other player simplifies and liquidates from there. A game of Go is more forgiving of an isolated mistake (excluding 9x9).
2 Likes
I don’t think so with the forgiving part. Have you seen pro or really strong Go players play? 1 mistake could cause you the entire game.
Look at this game:
At move 155, White is leading by 37 points according to AI.
At move 188, B+0.2
At move 189, W+16.
At move 194, B+10.
In very complex fights, strong players can make many big mistakes. The one who makes the last mistake loses the game.
So yes, 1 (big) mistake can cost you the game, but doesn’t always cost you the game.
2 Likes
Nope.. You’re a Dan I’m 22k, we live in different worlds. I’ll take your word for it though. Things is with chess, there are many times where you have to play to optimal move or you lose, sometimes instantly. Mid level amateur players will resign once down a single piece. It’s a battle, where GO is a war. Which is why I think GO is better.
Question: do high level go players resign if they lose a KO?
3 Likes
In my perspective, if you don’t have many Ko threats, you won’t start a Ko, because you will lose the Ko. So here is when high level players would start a Ko in my opinion:
-If you don’t start a Ko, you lose.
-If the Ko is too big in your favor.
-If you have more Ko threats than your opponent.
-Your opponent’s Ko threats are small.
Some might argue winning a Ko is luck, but it’s not.
And to answer your question: No, because they would probably gain something in return.
1 Like
I agree with you. However, there are also situations where if you make that mistake, you would lose control of the entire game. For example, letting your opponent build a huge influence.
1 Like
Technically, Chess is also a War. But I see your point. I agree with you, about the back and forth part.
PS: Chess players won’t resign if down a piece? I personally don’t know, I am not a chess player 
1 Like
That’s still very true for SDK and DDK
1 Like
Caveat: I don’t watch videos, so I don’t know if this is relevant to Carlsen’s talk.
The problem in chess is not that engines exist or that they beat everyone. And I don’t even think the pros trying to play like engines is a problem. The problem is that everyone, including my patzer opponents on lichess, tries to play like engines, which means: zero risk, zero adventure, zero aesthetics, no fun for a skilled amateur like me - it’s all about winning, or more accurately for chess, not losing.
And this last part is why I have some hope that Go might not travel the same path: the absence of draws means that in the end, you have to take at least a bit of risk just to not lose.
3 Likes
There is an interesting difference here because AI seems to have induced more risks and difficulty in the way we play now. More tenuki, more incomplete shapes, more adventurous fights…
Through this it becomes even more difficult to teach fondamentals and I’m more afraid of the increased complexity as of a simplification of the game!
4 Likes
I disagree with that, I’ve reviewed many games with AI Sensei, and most of the time it points out that I didn’t respect fundamentals because I didn’t see a weakness, either in my group or in my opponent’s.
Example 1, Black to play:
Answer
C14. White has a big weak group, attacking it is more urgent. In addition, C14 protects against the atari D14.
Example 2, White to play:
Answer
M2. Yes, Black is threatening to capture the two stones Q3. That’s not small in terms of points, but Black is already safe in the corner. On the other hand, M2 defends White’s group while attacking Black’s eyespace, this is more valuale than defending Q3.
Example 3, White to play:
Answer
Cover at G5, or pincer around C10. Later if Black captures at P3, then White can extend at O4 and won’t be in great danger.
I’s true however that AI play may appear wild. But how many times did I watch a high dan or pro game, thought that a group was dead, and saw one player save it? We may overestimate the risk because we don’t see all weaknesses. Perhaps the AI thinks the game is perfectly under control.
6 Likes
It’s not because AI detects your failures with fondamentals that the way the AI plays is not more risky.
How I feel it more risky if you ask me? Tense new josekis, to be more active letting approaching stones alone and tenuki being satisfied with the influence created, not fearing to shoulder hit a 4th line stones, and more… This things were not allowed before AI came in.
AI broke some postulates we were sitting on them and pushed to reconsider them.
Any time we can be more concerned by our usual failures as by where the AI is driving us, but only to some limits because AI is inspiring the way people play with you.
3 Likes
Looking at those examples, I’d think it’s not so much a matter of you being unable to spot those potential counterattacks, but more a tendency you have to play defensive and reactive, following your opponent’s moves (a.k.a. puppy go).
3 Likes
Hmm I don’t know if I would describe amateur chess as a game decided by a single mistake. Certainly not at the 2000 - 2200 level (which is around where I am), and probably not even in games between stronger players (e.g., FMs).
It may be a matter of style. Years ago I used to play in very solid style and that led to positions where if you blunder a single pawn, that may be enough to end the game. But now I aim for dynamic positions and play in more adventurous positions, so that the games have more ebb-and-flow, it is more difficult to find the best moves, and therefore it is harder for a single mistake to be game-defining.
I also found that as I was climbing up the rankings, advantages that seemed decisive at lower levels were much harder to convert against stronger players. Stronger players tend to find ways to complicate the position and not simply allow you to simplify and liquidate away a material advantage.
3 Likes
The pattern you describe here reminds me of how go players (should) play when giving a handicap. This more speculative style of playing is sometimes even called “handicap style”.
1 Like
Welcome @nahimzahur congratulations on your first post.
I’m definitely speaking from that lower ELO level.
@jlt I agree with you.
Why do I feel like that youtube video is AI generated @NightSnare ? 
I don’t get why people call games “AI games” just because there is AI. Stockfish existed since the 1980’s and Chess didn’t die. The problem with chess is, that the format they play it in is not popular anymore, the fun stuff is playing Chess variations like Chess69 and blitz, not traditional.
Chess is far from dead just because AI exists or because Carlson is bored of the game.
Same with Go. The game is what you make of it. And just because AI exists, it won’t die.
2 Likes
Very interesting.
I have once learned: “When behind, complicate the game” – i.e. not only when giving Handicap (which is against a weaker player, and yes, at the beginning the stronger player is actually behind with the number of stones) but generally when behind, wjhich included playing against a stronger player … the dan player who told me so said that at some point of chaos even strong players cannot read deep enough …
3 Likes