-
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)]WRONG![/url]
-
This is unequivocally correct. Chess is the ultimate definition of a pure skill game with literally zero element of luck, chance, or fortune whatsoever.
-
Go is better.
-
Chess is all memorization... and white gets an advantage. I don't agree with either of you.
-
Изменено (FoMan123): 4/17/2013 5:01:35 AM[quote]Chess is all memorization... and white gets an advantage.[/quote]I see you are completely unfamiliar with chess. Allow me to enlighten you. After 1 move by each side in a game of chess, there are 400 possible positions. After 2 moves by each side, there are over 20,000 possible positions on the board. There are 10^120 possible games of chess. That's a 10 followed by [i]120 zeroes[/i]. There are not only trillions upon trillions of possible chess games that have never happened, there are trillions upon trillions of possible games that will never be played. Since 10^120 is hard to visualize, let me put it this way: if you played one entire unique chess game per second forever, the sun would burn out before you ever repeated a game. While there is, certainly, a first-move advantage for white, in a perfectly played game, that advantage has been calculated as a ratio of 1.00004, and regardless, over time, every player plays an equal number of games on both sides. I'm sorry, but this isn't really a matter of opinion; you're just wrong.
-
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game-tree_complexity#Complexities_of_some_well-known_games]Go has a game tree size of 10^360.[/url] Go is the winner.
-
Изменено (FoMan123): 4/17/2013 7:07:40 AMComplexity is not the only factor in competitiveness. If that were true, I'd simply make a Go board with twice as many spaces and call it even more "competitive." Or simply point to your link and say "Stratego wins." I only brought up the complexity of chess to disprove the idea that the game is "all memorization." That said, I would agree that all games of pure skill with no element of luck are equally competitive.
-
I know, it's just that time of evening when I feel like having childish arguments. Though fun fact: the reason why a standard Go Board is 19x19 is because it strikes the best balance of territory near the edge of the board versus territory near the center of the board. Boards that are smaller put too much of an emphasis on edge territory, boards that are larger put too much of an emphasis on center territory.
-
If it's so equally competitive then why the compensation points? Shouldn't need an external balance if it was truly competitive.
-
Изменено (Hylebos): 4/17/2013 2:56:20 PMWell somebody has to go first. That's just the nature of the beast that is turn based strategy games. Unlike the other strategy games though, Go at the very least has the Komi to balance out the fact that black takes the first turn and starts off with Sente. A lot of research and statistics at the highest level have been done and they found a Komi of 5.5 points is usually enough to make the end result between equally matched players roughly even. It's not like Komi is something they added on for shits and giggles, it's definitely part of the game.
-
I know that it's well researched and thought out. Just saying there are many competitive games that require no balancing rules. Chess doesn't dock the first player a pawn or anything. It's a silly argument but I'm just saying I think there are other games that provide more competitive balanced gameplay than Go.
-
Изменено (Hylebos): 4/17/2013 3:17:10 PMOf the two games though, it's nice that Go is at least designed to be able to address the "You have an advantage because you're going first!" problem. By virtue of the fact that the final objective is something as definite as "Who has more points?" rather than something more abstract like "Capture the King" make it very easy to compensate for that first move. As you mentioned, it would be Awkward to create a rule where you lose a pawn if you go first, and Chess ultimately ignores the advantage, figuring the better player will triumph in the end, and I really don't think it should be considered "more" competitive by virtue of it ignoring game flaws :) It's also nice because Go has no Stalemates thanks to the Komi Rule as well :) I don't see the Komi as a rule that they tagged on in the last minute because the game they designed wasn't competitive, in my mind "White gets 5.5 points to counteract Black going first" is just as neccessary and part of the game and balancing as "Both Chess Players have one Queen".
-
Acceptable points you make. But I would argue that the fact of no stalemates doesn't mean much in terms of competitiveness. I think that the fact that stalemate is a possibility is more of an argument for balanced competition. If I had actual statistics it would be nice to look at the win rates of equally matched chess players compared to those of equally matched Go players in comparison to their starting orders.
-
Well, let's just pretend the abuse of opening theory doesn't exist - which drove grandmasters to reinvent the game, yet these new variants still remain unpopular... because people like playing a memory game. There's not "20,000 possible" moves, because some don't make sense - there's far fewer logical moves to make, that won't lose you the game. Chess is flawed - it's not the pinnacle of a competitive game. It's just a fun strategy game. P.S. in a perfectly played game white always wins .
-
Изменено (FoMan123): 4/17/2013 5:41:09 AMStill wrong. 1 tempo is inherently not enough to win a chess game, and that is the advantage white has. Nearly anyone to actually analyze this issue, people far smarter than either of us, have agreed that a perfectly played game results in a draw. Also, I should point out that even if only 1 game out of 100,000 possible games is a "good" game, there are still quadrillions upon quadrillions of possible good games -- way too many possible "good" games to use rote memorization. Sorry, but as I said before, it's not really a matter of opinion.
-
Although chess is far more than memorization, it has been researched to the point that no matter how good of a strategic thinker you are, unless you know about tactics, you can never really beat someone who has learned all the different tactics. On the other hand, that's really what any competitive gaming is. Practice is all about memorizing move sets and understanding how they function. But it's not the memorization part where the skill comes from, but the understanding and ability to apply the move sets correctly. If we think about the problem with chess, the huge amount of memorization that goes behind it, it doesn't really stem from any inherent non-competitiveness as Cheesy assumes. Any game can theoretically be played perfectly if it's researched enough. And the problem with chess is that it's the most researched game in existence. Despite having orders of magnitude more depth than most other games, so much more research has went into developing tactics for chess than for any other game. It's deep, but not infinitely deep. Finally, where chess, and non-luck based board games in that matter, differs from other games is consistency. If you consider a single move, there is really no other way than one way to complete the move. If, on the other hand, we look at a game like soccer, and consider kicking the ball as a move, you can either kick it badly or you can kick it well or anything in between those two. There is no such mechanical level of execution in chess, no randomness, you can theoretically calculate a chess game from end to beginning, you can repeat a game exactly as it was played before. That level of consistency doesn't exist in games that have a complex level of technical execution. Competitiveness of a game is really difficult to quantize. You can tell when a game is clearly less competitive than another, but when there are only subtle differences, it becomes much more vague. And that's not even mentioning the difference between strategical execution and mechanical execution.