I recently had a friend say that chess was way better than go, and i want to prove him wrong the next time be go in to “Battle”
I could only think of, its more complicated, and you focus more.
I recently had a friend say that chess was way better than go, and i want to prove him wrong the next time be go in to “Battle”
I could only think of, its more complicated, and you focus more.
It’s better for me 'cause I like it better. Don’t you know the only way to win an argument is to make it about yourself?
Haha solid advice.
Step 1: both of you agree on what makes a game “good”.
Step 2: you work out together which of the games gets closer to “goodity”.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: you agree that Backgammon is crap.
Eh, I like backgammon, it’s uni years and nostalgia.
It is more elegant (combines a minimum of rules with a maximum of emergent depth). It is “wider”: There are more things to choose between each move. It has more of a focus on strategy over tactics than chess has.
Of course you do, you’re Greek.
I started to object, but then… It is kind of a national past-time.
…it took AI 20+ years longer to destroy the game.
Mark Walker in the Baduk group in facebook took my list of why Go is so good/useful and turned it into a very nice poster. So, instead of writting all that again, I can laze of and just drop the image
Now does chess do all that? On some level yes. Go just does most - if not all - of that better than chess due to the board being bigger, which changes the scope of quite a lot of things in this list.
Let me link my reply to a similar question. It seems appropriate.
In a certain way this footnote summarize what is my opinion. Be aware that I loved chess when I was young and still consider it a nice board game but far (really far) from the elegance and the deepness of Go.
I’ve seen twice now “elegance” used.
I don’t disagree, but I find it a personal feeling, not an actual assessment.
I don’t think it belongs in the same breath with actual characteristics, as in size, number of moves, simplicity of rules (eh, there’s kind of a thread about that alone, but I’ll allow).
My 2 cents? When people start these types of “apples vs oranges” philosophical debates - they don’t want to change their mind.
They might want to engage in a spirited debate, but - regardless of the quality or quantity of your rhetorical arguments - you should probably go in with very low expectations of this person seeing it your way.
If your goal is to “prove him wrong” - you may walk away frustrated. See if you can come at this interaction with another goal, and you might have a more satisfying interaction.
Good luck.
I agree.
However, oranges are obviously better.
Although I have to allow apples might save some recipes in a pinch.
Probably is a different way to say: “I like it”. What it means “like”… is a bulk of things.
But I don’t think you can weight the “beauty” of a game only with rational or measurable quantities.
@Half_is_less_than_1 probably the best thing you can do is trying to teach him some go basics and if this open a door in his mind, … well, you have augmented by one the number of Go players (and won your personal challenge about the original debate).
Thanks for the response and insight.
Why not just enjoy both games without trying to prove one is better?
I’d bet my chocolate cake there’s a poll in this forum with the question “which is better?” and the answers are “go, chess”.
Other than that, we’re civilized on the matter.
The main point is convenience. It’s much less a trouble to lose a pawn in go. Well I mean from the game set somewhere in the grass.