Chess vs. Go Which is the better board game.

[lorb]

Chess also has a handicap system. usually it's done by removing one of the rooks of the better player from the board (or even the queen)

Yeah, but that's a terrible handicap system. It changes the character of the game entirely.

A better handicap is that the weaker player gets more time on his clock, but I would spray even that is pretty clearly inferior to the go system.

Could you elaborate the highlighted part? I do not see it.

[notzeb]

Chess also has a handicap system. usually it's done by removing one of the rooks of the better player from the board (or even the queen)

Yeah, but that's a terrible handicap system. It changes the character of the game entirely.

A better handicap is that the weaker player gets more time on his clock, but I would spray even that is pretty clearly inferior to the go system.

To be fair, the handicap system in go also changes the game's flavor entirely. Weak players might not realize what a huge advantage it is to get that one extra move at the beginning, but at the higher levels of play handicap go just doesn't feel like the same game anymore. (Insistence on handicap stones is one of my gripes with the KGS Go Server...)

[Proginoskes]

Go pieces look like M&Ms.

M&Ms are candy.

Candy is for babies.

Therefore, Go is for babies.

'Nuff said.

[ahammel]

Chess also has a handicap system. usually it's done by removing one of the rooks of the better player from the board (or even the queen)

Yeah, but that's a terrible handicap system. It changes the character of the game entirely.

A better handicap is that the weaker player gets more time on his clock, but I would spray even that is pretty clearly inferior to the go system.

Could you elaborate the highlighted part? I do not see it.

My problem is that the player giving queen or rook odds is in a clearly losing position from the first move. The handicapped player needs the other to make what would normally be a game-losing blunder just to be on level terms again. I'm not especially good, but I don't think I would lose to Kramnik at queen or rook odds and normal time controls. I would say the only time when it's a reasonable handicap is when playing against an extreme beginner, it's no good at all for moderately experienced player vs. expert.

I don't play go, so maybe Lee Sedol vs. itermediate player with two stones turns into the "wait for a huge blunder" game as well, but it was my impression that it's a little more balanced than that, even if it does change the flavor qutie a bit.

[moiraemachy]

The thing is, that soon as you get a big material advantage over your foe in chess, you can go berserk into trading pieces, since this material advantage gets scarier when there are fewer pieces on the board. That will make any kind of recovery hard: the player at disadvantage will also have to be careful to not position his pieces at any position that would allow pieces to be traded.

Yeah, handicap ruins pretty much any game at higher levels of play, but the system go uses remains passable for a much larger part of the skill continuum.

[Iranon]

Starting a rook down can work surprisingly well in the right context, it just makes the game less open-ended. The stronger player is encouraged to play sharp, forcing an early mate (or at least forcing the weaker player into serious concessions to avoid one). Lacking the queen's rook doesn't really hamper this until way into the midgame, so we have real chess played.

Yes, wild offensive play became less and less popular in the last century as theory improved, and purists will frown on swindles... but some of the greatest games by the greatest players had nothing to do with solid theory and everything with playing the opponent. I think we can still go quite high before this style of odds runs into its limitations.

[lorb]

Chess also has a handicap system. usually it's done by removing one of the rooks of the better player from the board (or even the queen)

Yeah, but that's a terrible handicap system. It changes the character of the game entirely.

A better handicap is that the weaker player gets more time on his clock, but I would spray even that is pretty clearly inferior to the go system.

Could you elaborate the highlighted part? I do not see it.

My problem is that the player giving queen or rook odds is in a clearly losing position from the first move. The handicapped player needs the other to make what would normally be a game-losing blunder just to be on level terms again. I'm not especially good, but I don't think I would lose to Kramnik at queen or rook odds and normal time controls. I would say the only time when it's a reasonable handicap is when playing against an extreme beginner, it's no good at all for moderately experienced player vs. expert.
[...]

I think you greatly overestimate the role of material over tempo and position(al play) I challenge you to win against any chess engine with a playing strength comparable to Kramnik (of which there are some) with a queens advantage. Also the whole purpose of a handicap is to give the weaker player an advantage because if they both had the same amount of material they would _not_ be on level terms.

[ahammel]

I think you greatly overestimate the role of material over tempo and position(al play).

I don't maintain that the player with an extra rook is always winning, but the opening position is roughly balanced in terms of tempo (call it +=), and it's exactly balanced positionally. I think I'm justified in saying that a position that is roughly balanced except that one side has an extra queen is an easy win for the material advantage.

I challenge you to win against any chess engine with a playing strength comparable to Kramnik (of which there are some) with a queens advantage.

I will attempt this and report back here.

Also the whole purpose of a handicap is to give the weaker player an advantage because if they both had the same amount of material they would _not_ be on level terms.

By "level terms" I mean that the position is objectively balanced, not that both players have an equal chance of winning.

[WarDaft]

Personally, I think a handicap (one which does not fundamentally change the nature of the game) is a very good thing. If I was a grandmaster, I would much rather give another player (within at least reasonably close skill level) an advantage which made it a close to even odds of winning at the start... because I would rather winning > 1 out of 2 games on average be a proper demonstration of skill as opposed to having to win say, > 4 out of 5.

In something like Go, I'd say it would probably be best to have just a basic point bonus based on the deviation in rank.

[Iranon]

For reasonably close skill levels, unequal time allotment would work.

But really, any handicap distorts the game if both play to win. If the above leaves the stronger player with very little time, the weaker player is encouraged to force complications rather than make objectively good moves. If it's score-based as in go, the aim is to be "less than x points down" rather than "be ahead" which may likewise alter decisions.

Still, material odds that are unlikely to affect the early game (like rook odds) are usually better at creating fun and educational games than less intrusive variants. The stronger player is encouraged to be aggressive and creative, the weaker player just needs precise play to win.

If the opposite is desired, the weaker player can be given free moves at the beginning of the game, but this is even more intrusive.

[careyhammer]

There is a team chess variant being played in our Nomic game. Come join in!

[lorb]

I think you greatly overestimate the role of material over tempo and position(al play).

I don't maintain that the player with an extra rook is always winning, but the opening position is roughly balanced in terms of tempo (call it +=), and it's exactly balanced positionally. I think I'm justified in saying that a position that is roughly balanced except that one side has an extra queen is an easy win for the material advantage.

You are right. The point i try to make is as follows: A rook (or queen) handicap does not change the nature of the game much because the stronger player will even out his disadvantage in material by gaining the upper hand in position and tempo by virtue of better play. (if he does not achieve material equality by tactical maneuvers) It's like playing a gambit in a regular game.

I challenge you to win against any chess engine with a playing strength comparable to Kramnik (of which there are some) with a queens advantage.

I will attempt this and report back here.

I eagerly anticipate your report.

Also the whole purpose of a handicap is to give the weaker player an advantage because if they both had the same amount of material they would _not_ be on level terms.

By "level terms" I mean that the position is objectively balanced, not that both players have an equal chance of winning.

The way i see it any in-game handicap will obviously result in a position that is not objectively balanced. I don't see a difference to go here.

[Lenoxus]

For almost any game, the counterpart to elegance will be flavor/variability.

Consider this: there isn't just Western chess, but a number of other widely-played chess-type games: the Chinese game xiangqi, Japanese shogi, and thousands of variants thereof, all descended from Shatranj. It's not too difficult to come up with a simple change to chess, like "What if each player started without knights and could drop them anywhere as a move?" (that's called "Pocket Knight Chess") or "What if, after every move, you had to advance an enemy pawn?" (that's called "Avalanche Chess"). Shogi and Xiangqi invite other possibilities to consider, such as giving pieces their own unique promotions (like the rook becoming a "dragon king" in shogi), or modifying the terrain (like the palace in xiangqi which the king can't escape).

In that particular respect, go is a bit more limited; there are only a few changes you could make which amateur or professional go players would be happy to try out during casual play. Meanwhile, two different grandmasters have invented their own versions, one by introducing new pieces (Capablanca Chess) and one by randomizing the opening (the better-known Fischer Random Chess). This could, of course, be seen as a sign that chess has "hit a wall" in contrast to the continuing explorations in go, but, hey, whatever. I actually prefer designing games, and even just reading their rules, to playing them. Because of this quirk, I would have to answer this not-terribly-important question with "chess".

Come to think of it, there's much more important criterion to consider — which game plays better on a rollercoaster. In terms of how it looks, the answer is once again chess.

[Metaphysician]

Both are amazing games. Personally I enjoy Go more. I don't think one can be classified as fundamentally better than the other. It really just depends on what you're looking for.

[lynkyn]

clearly go is better.</sarcasm>

[blueeyedlion]

Between the two, Go is much more complex and therefore better. On the other hand, chess just doesn't go far enough, unlike chu shogi which is the best game ever.