Go is an overall superior game than Chess.

Thank you, Four Trouble, for your response. I should explain that I used to play Chess quite fervently (along with Risk, Stratego, and any other strategy board game I could get my hands on), but my passions for all those took a backseat when I learned of Go.Chess is far more dynamicI grant that Chess is more dynamic in the sense that the individual pieces have the ability to move about the board. It's true, after all, what my opponent says: once you place a stone in Go, it cannot move from its position (unless it's captured). That is the weight of every decision.Of course, Chess would be unplayable if the pieces could not move. And likewise, Go would be unplayable if the pieces could move. Having a ruleset that requires the pieces to move about the board should not necessarily be considered a good attribute (let alone a superior attribute) unless Con can explain why. He offers two primary reasons, which I will address individually:1. Inherent sense of complexityCon says because different pieces carry different capabilities, Chess has an inherent sense of complexity. I agree with this to a certain degree. There are more rules in Chess than in Go and, therefore, the game is more difficult to learn how to play.However, the complexity of a game's ruleset and the complexity of said game's actual play do not always necessarily share a direct relationship. The game of Risk, for example, has an overall more complicated ruleset than Chess, but doesn't have as deep or complicated play.Therefore, I would say that Go is actually better than Chess in this respect: it is quicker and easier for beginners to learn the rules and start playing, but once they do start playing, they will be met with the biggest challenge of their lives.2. Greater aesthetic possibilitiesI must wholeheartedly disagree with this point. Firstly, as I've already stated, the number of different setups the goban can legally represent far outweigh that of the chessboard.Secondly, I would assert that nothing in the world is as aesthetically pleasing (aside from a certain someone whom I'm dating and shall be reading this), and rewardingly so, as the blossoming of a Go game from start to finish. In Chess, all of the pieces you will ever be able to use during the course of the game are available to you from the beginning and gradually dwindle as your opponent captures them. But in Go, the board is initially empty and births a completely unique liaison of shapes each and every time, like snowflakes if snowflakes could command armies and clash wits. Only someone who has never witnessed the blooming of shapes on the goban would say it lacks artistic value.But thirdly, and most importantly, this debate is not about who can portray their respective game more poetically (though if it was, I would win hands down, am I right?). Aesthetics are undoubtedly subjective and, therefore, this point is unsubstantiated.Chess is strategically deeper and more complex/Chess is more tactical, exciting, and fun/Chess is more difficultCon says that to summarize the play of Chess as merely the goal of capturing the opponent's king is too simplistic, and I would agree. Respectively, though, to summarize the play of Go as merely the goal of surrounding territory is too simplistic as well.You must keep your own groups connected and safe while attacking your opponent's when possible. You must constantly build and maintain your own framework of territory while reducing your opponent's, and even invading your opponent's when necessary (not too deep or it will be cut off and killed, but not too shallow or it will be ineffective). You must cooperate with you opponent by allowing him/her to get some territory in order to gain some for yourself, while still trying to end up with the better deal and without being too greedy. And you must do all of this while keeping sente (initiative), because once you lose that you may never get it back.Sometimes the conflict on the goban results in a full-board, all-or-nothing war where one side will be entirely slaughtered. Other games can be more passive where the player who more cleverly utilizes thickness will win.Con doesn't seem to understand how Go stones can fight each other without the ability to move, but rest assured: the goban is an unrelenting battlefield. If a group of your stones becomes entirely surrounded by your opponents' stones, it is captured. So while surrounding territory is the ultimate goal, the threat of bloodshed (or bloodshed itself) is the driving force that allows you to reach this goal (if you are ever too greedy or too charitable, too headstrong or too hesitant at any time, you will be severely punished).The importance of each moveCon is correct by saying that a game of Go lasts many more moves than Chess, but this does not equate to any sort of homeopathic effect where each move is somehow diluted to mean less. In very low-level matches (matches involving two beginners) then yes, they can afford to make many mistakes and still somehow win.But when you gain enough strength and understanding, a single wrong move out of 200 or 300 moves can (and most likely will) cost you the entire match. Therefore, Go requires even more concentration than Chess as you must play at least about 150 moves without making a mistake (as opposed to about 60 in Chess).Psychological warfareGo players experience something very similar to Chess' dramaturgy of "Because I played A, you must respond with B. Now I will play C, forcing you to play D. And now I will play E" where A, C, and E all coordinate together to kill the opponent, despite the purely defensive B and D moves. Sente moves (moves that necessitate a response from the opponent) serve a big role in Go.Furthermore, Go has a myriad of trick plays: moves that serve to confuse the opponent with unique positions that seem to have weaknesses, but when responded to incorrectly become strengths. Of course, most trick plays are bluffs in the sense that they are not the best moves possible, so they are double-edged swords; when responded to incorrectly, they can be deadly, but when responded to correctly, they can be self-defeating.Therefore, I assert that psychological warfare is not only present in Go, but is actually more potent than in Chess.No luck in ChessThis is an argument that could only have been forth seriously by one who does not know enough about Go.Mark my words, ladies and gentlemen of the audience, if luck played any part in Go, I would not be defending it so adamantly (or at all). Sensei's Library (my opponent's source on this point) is a reliable place to learn about Go terms, strategies, history, etc. But it serves as more than just an encyclopedia of Go; it also serves as a forum for players to discuss things which do not necessarily have any grounding in objectivity. This is one such thing. If you take a look at the source, you will notice it is one guy asserting different reasons why luck could possibly play a role in Go, and being subsequently refuted.The closest thing to luck in Go is dumb mistakes (which is still ultimately the fault of the player).VictoryMy opponent confuses the purpose of Komidashi. He seems to think it presupposes inequality in the players when it doesn't; it presupposes inequality in the two colors, black and white (playing first and playing second). Komidashi serves to give white an advantage (of automatically added points) equal to the advantage black gets by playing first.Let me explain more clearly. Black has the advantage of going first. If white gets nothing to compensate this, it would be unfair (as it is in Chess). White's compensation is automatically winning ties (getting an automatic .5 points added to his/her score). But .5 isn't enough to compensate black's advantage, so white get's more: traditionally 6.5.Therefore, Go is actually more democratic; it evens the terms to a perfectly level playing field so neither player has an advantage and must win on skill alone.