Go is an overall superior game than Chess.

Thank you for your response, Four Trouble. Win or lose, the important thing is that I was able to promote the wonderful game of Go while going head-to-head with such a noble and intellectual debater.1. ComplexityThere was much on this point I was previously unable to say due to the character limit (despite it being 8,000).It's fair to say that in trying to convince members of the audience Go is more complex than Chess, I am fighting an uphill battle. Not because Chess is, indeed, more complex than Go, but because the audience already knows of Chess' complexity, at least somewhat, and you can never really understand how complex Go is without having played it beyond the level of a beginner. That being said, I will still try to explain in such a way that even someone who has never played Go can understand (as I've been doing).There are 361 moves for the first player to choose from, but what my opponent says is true (well, half true): there are far less plausible moves. But only 15? No way. The number is, at the very least, 60.But apparently, we must forget about how many variations a game can legally represent. My opponent says: "The question, then, is not which game has more possible positions. Both games have more than enough possible positions." I disagree. The number of variations do play a role in the complexity of the game.A 9x9 game of Go is much more comparable to a game of Chess. In a 9x9 game, there will be one major clash, one decisive battle, that will determine the winner. But in 19x19 Go (the standard), there will be four or five or six battles like the ones 9x9 Go and Chess are entirely comprised of, and they will be spread across all over the board, each effecting each other in ways you must be able to utilize. Some of these battles may run into each other and cause the kind of all-or-nothing blood-fest I was describing in my previous round.You have multiple battles happening on the board simultaneously, all interacting with each other either directly or indirectly. Yes, in Chess you have battles over multiple pieces or spaces on the board, but that is only comparable to one battle in a 19x19 Go, where you fight over certain key points and stones. But in Go, when the battle's over, you have another one just waiting to take its place, until they all finally connect with each other in the end game.So, why not increase the number to 31x31 or something higher? Because then the battles that ensue will be too spread apart and will barely interact with each other, if at all, even indirectly. Again, this is in contrast to 9x9 that's so cramped you'll only have room for one battle (like in Chess). 17x17 and 21x21 are not drastically different to a player of lower skill, but it's clear to see that the types of battles that naturally happen in Go are best suited for 19x19 (17x17 is a little too cramped and 21x21 is a little too spread apart). You can also play with even numbers, like 20x20, but then there's no tengen (middle point). It's fun for nonchalant matches, but there is no greater challenge than 19x19.My opponent makes a list of many kinds of tactics Chess is composed of. I could make a similar list for Go, but you'd hardly understand a word of it. In fact, just a kifu mapping joseki for taisha is enough to balance out anything Chess could have to offer. Tsumego for under-the-stone tesuji illustrates the foresight and creativity players must have in tight life-and-death situations. What that's? Not following what I'm saying? Like I said: an uphill battle.Let me compare the two games another way: in Chess, the setup is already laid out when you begin. Your second row is pawns, the two ends of your first is rooks (and so on and so forth). I can think of no other way to play Chess that would be fair. After all, it would be ridiculous if you could choose to switch your second and first rows (save the king, of course).But in Go, you get unimaginable complexity from simplicity, not only from the leniently simple rules of Go, but also the setup. The Go board is without any shape or form in the beginning, and you and your opponent are the catalysts for the Big Bang every match. You decide, in the opening few moves, what kind of match you are going to play: passive, bloody, influential, territorial, etc. There are countless openings to choose from in Go, but when you talk about "openings" in Chess, you are talking about something else entirely. The opening is always the same; there is no choosing. In Go, you decide the setup and the follow-through of the entire match.Importance of each move"Each move in Chess has more value relative to the entire game: 1/40 to 1/200 is barely a contest"This is simply looking at the issue the wrong way. As I've said, having more moves does not dilute the importance of each one. If you make a mistake in Chess, you lose (against someone of equal skill). If you make a mistake in Go, you lose (against someone of equal skill). Therefore, it can be said that the importance of making each move the best possible move is equal in Chess and Go. But in Go, you must make 200 moves the best possible move, compared to only 40-60 in Chess.Psychological WarfareI never said the best possible moves in Go were not psychological. Sometimes, the best moves are psychological, as I stated in the example of someone keeping initiative by forcing his opponent to defend something that was destined to die in the end anyway.What I said was that in addition to this, Go also has trick plays.Luck in GoMy opponent thus far has proven himself to be a debater of much integrity, so I will not accuse of him intentionally quote-mining. However, upon further review of his source, you will notice his quote is, indeed, incomplete. It should continue to read: "I think I am comparatively lucky in the Mingren title matches. I won a losing game over Pao Wen Yao at the last time. In this game, there was also a hopeless moment but I was lucky to win as Gu Lingyi fortunately made a small endgame mistake."His opponent made a small mistake in the final few moves of the game. This not only refutes the notion that Go has luck, but also strengthens the idea that every move carries high importance.FairnessBefore I say anything else on this subject, please note that there are many ways in which to incorporate the rule of komidashi into your games. If you feel it is too high or too low, or that it shouldn't have a ".5" at the end, then you and your opponent can agree to do use komidashi a different way. For instance, you and your opponent can simply agree on a different value, or one player can choose what the komi will be and the other player will choose which color to play.That being said, while Chess players can theorize what the result of a "perfect game" would be in Chess, Go players don't have that luxury. Go is simply a far deeper game; a "perfect game" just does not exist, and two people of perfectly equal skill do not exist. In fact, two people of perfectly equal skill in Chess probably don't exist either, but the games still result in a tie due its magnanimous rules. The rules of Go offer far more precision in determining the outcome of a game and, therefore, Go's spectrum of players' skill levels has a much wider diversity and visibility when applied in a match.Both games try to be as fair as their rulesets allow, but Go's rules simply allow for more equality than Chess.ConclusionI must use my final round to direct you to a very user-friendly and popular English server to play Go if this debate has at all piqued your interest: http://www.gokgs.com...I thank my opponent very much for debating this topic with me and the viewers for reading. Please carefully consider both of our arguments and vote accordingly.