Go, Chess, and other areas of ignorance
Posted by Rob Herman at September 7th, 2006
It’s happened a couple of times now that I’ve mentioned Go in an article and nefarious reader Fuleng has stepped in to offer a much better, deeper explanation and correct my misperceptions.
The truth is that I don’t know much about the game—the rules and a very little bit about the strategy and the culture—just enough to be dangerous, really. Still, it interests me and looks really pretty. It’s difficult for me to mention Chess without also mentioning Go, and clearly one or both are going to come up pretty often when I’m trying to think of examples of games that are familiar to the most readers possible.
I’m going to keep mentioning Go and hope my readers keep commenting with valuable information. One reason for this is that I like to learn and like hearing interesting things from you all. Another reason is that… well, I like Chess a lot. I’ve played it for a long time, it’s beautiful and fascinating, and it suits my aggressive, impatient personality better than Go. Here in the USA, Chess is vastly more popular. And yet, check out these quotes, all taken from the front page of the Google search for “chess go”
- “though, like Chess, it is a challenge to players’ analytical skills, there is far more scope in Go for intuition.”
- “Like chess go offers a player rating system. But unlike chess go offers a well balanced handicap system which allows a stronger player to play evenly against a weaker player and be fully challenged.”
- “Chess is a doddle compared to this ancient oriental game of strategy that has programmers and scientists scratching their heads.”
- “Despite [Go’s] simplicity it allows for more strategy.”
There’s definitely an underdog complex going on here—all these pages are Go pages, while Chess pages don’t tend to mention the lesser-known rival. I’m have little interest in determining which game offers more strategy—clearly, both offer way more than I can handle. Here I’m more interested in the flow of the games and the culture around them, which are very different.
A couple of the points touted as Go selling points are double-edged as well. The lack of computers means that good players can’t get a decent game against one; and despite the much-touted handicap system, running tournaments with cash prizes is apparently very difficult.
This comparison page, by the way, starts out snarky but eventually becomes thoughtful and reasonable.
Well, you’re right to point out that there is sometimes an underdog mentatility amongst some Go players. This is partially because a lot of Go players are converted Chess players, and there can be inappropriately bad attitudes on both sides. As a former scholastic Chess player, while I can say that I do prefer Go, Chess is obviously also a fine game, and in terms of complexity, depth, and beauty, the two games are both share a position at the pinnacle of all strategic games, along with a few select others like Shogi and Xiangqi. Also, in defense of American Go, the page you reference is the British Go Association home page; the American Go Association page leaves out the unnecessary Chess bashing.
What you say is true; and of course, therefore, the responsible page didn’t come up on my Google search.
While we are comparing the two I figure I would mention this ancedote. I had a “pen pal” (e-mail rather than snail mail) in highschool who was an avid go player. However he gave up the game for chess after he lost his sight in a car accident. Although he could still play Go the game took too much mental energy to keep track of and lost its appeal. Chess on the other hand was easier for him to keep track of due to it’s smaller board and fewer pieces, also a chess board is progressively easier to keep track of in the mid to end game since after a couple of bloody confrontations there are fewer things to keep track of where as in go the board seems to just get more and more complex.
Also, I have to say a few word in defense of the comparison page at http://senseis.xmp.net/?CompareGoToChess that you mention. While it’s true that the quotes are somewhat snarky and overly favorable to Go, the sources of some of them are notable enough to have them head this list. The first quote is by Edward Lasker, the founder of the American Go Association, cousin of Chess Grandmaster Emmanuel Lasker, and an International Master himself. If he is overly favorable to Go, at least he is certainly no enemy of Chess (he came second in the U.S. championships in 1923, but was eclipsed the next year by legendary talent including Capablanca and Alekhine).
The third quote is not particularly apropos, save that the “someone” who made the Western tactics = Chess, Eastern = Go metaphor was Henry Kissinger. They would have done better to stick with his quote:
“Chess has only two outcomes: draw and checkmate. The objective of the game . . . is total victory or defeat – and the battle is conducted head-on, in the center of the board. The aim of go is relative advantage; the game is played all over the board, and the objective is to increase one’s options and reduce those of the adversary. The goal is less victory than persistent strategic progress.”
– Dr. Henry Kissinger, quoted in Newsweek, 11/8/04
Now, as for the second quote, “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.” I can’t disagree too strongly with this one. The idea that Chess prowess equals intellectual ability is quite prevalent, but drastically overstated. There have been several GMs who have been, in Fred Waitzkin’s words, barely literate. In Go, there have been many pro players who achieved much of their strength in their teens, but never showed much academic promise or intellectual interest. They’re just awesome Go players. While related, talent in Chess or Go does not necessarily equate to great intelligence. The reason this comparison irritates me is that in scholastic tournament Chess, it’s quite common to see parent’s berating their children harshly after a defeat because of this belief that winning means the kid is smart, and losing means they’re dumb. Well, actually, they’re probably just not that good at chess… While I certainly want more people to play Go, I don’t want them to learn out of a sense of elitism, so I wish this quote was omitted from the list.
Fuleng: Your point of neither Chess nor Go being a good test of intellectual ability is well taken and will probably feature as an article in the not-too-distant future.