Author: Gareth McCaughan
Date: 15:15:09 06/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 08, 2002 at 15:31:31, Russell Reagan wrote: [I said:] >> No. Russell has every right to think what he pleases and say what he >> pleases. However, if he doesn't know much about the games he's >> comparing, I see no reason to take any notice of his opinion about >> which game is more difficult or deeper. > > My statements that the game of go is not more "difficult" or "deeper" > than chess are based not on the difficulty in evaluating a position. > In that respect, go is more difficult. My point is that go is scalable, > and since it is, the size of the board does not matter. So the fact > that go is more popularly played on a 19x19 board (and thus creates > a ridiculous branching factor) has no bearing on the difficulty of > the game. In other words, go played on a 2x2 board is still > go. With the differences in rule sets aside, 2x2 go is certaily > not more complex than chess. I don't see why "go played on a 2x2 board is still go" is any truer than "chess played with only kings is still chess". Yes, go is scalable: you can play it on a larger or a smaller board if you want. The further down you scale it, the more important features you lose. If "scalable" means "however far down you scale, nothing important is lost", then go is not scalable and nor is any other interesting game. > These beliefs require no more knowledge about the game than the basic rules. > I don't even need to know about ko or differences in super-ko or position > repetition between the different rule sets. All I needed to know to form this > opinion was that go is scalable, and that go played on smaller boards is not > complex. It sounds to me as if you're saying "My opinion is based on very little evidence, so it must be good". I find this strange. -- g
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.