Go is an overall superior game than Chess.

IntroductionPro’s entire argument rests on a single difference between Go and Chess: a larger number of possible variations. This fact is not in contention. The raw number of candidate moves in Go is clearly higher than in Chess. But as I have said, this fact is not particularly noteworthy as far as the game’s value as a game goes. First off, keep in mind that the vast majority of moves in Go are moves that no serious player would ever consider. Pro gives the example of the opening, where Go has 361 potential starting moves and Chess only has 20. While this is true, in practical terms, there are only about 15 starting moves in Go that any player would seriously consider. What is evident is that the RELEVANT moves in Go are approximately equal to the RELEVANT moves in Chess. The key factor is the relevance of moves to a game’s strategic and tactical structure, to the game as a game. The issue of which game has more possible variations abstractly is just that, an abstraction that has very little to do with the game as it is played in practice. To make this clearer, I again pose the question from Round 2: why not double or triple the number of squares on the board, and you’ll have a game with more than twice the number of possible variations? Because a greater number of moves does not make the game any better or more interesting. This becomes clearer when we realize that both Chess and Go have more possible positions than atoms in the universe. Suffice it to say, Chess has more than enough possible moves and variations to make it competitive with Go. The question, then, is not which game has more possible positions. Both games have more than enough possible positions. The question is which game has greater depth strategically and tactically. And the answer to that question is clearly Chess. Pro barely contests it, and this is why. Tactical ThemesThe number of tactical themes in Chess far outweighs that of Go. According to Pro, the single tactical maneuver in Go is that of invading and capturing the opponent’s stones by surrounding them. Of course, the theme itself will have many variations, but the tactical objective is itself always the same. Chess is tactically more protean, as is evidence by the many tactical themes that emerge: multiple attack (the knight fork is the simplest), discovered attack, pinning, skewering, deflection, decoying, interference, clearance, blocking, brinkmate, x-ray (where pieces influence action “through” other pieces), overloading, zwischenzug (a counter-intuitive in-between move that forces unfavorable exchanges), pawn promotion, pursuit (perpetual attack), midgame stalemate, demolition (line-opening), trapping (the queen, for example). The list covers some of the more common ones, and in games, these tactical motifs can be blended and put together into beautiful combinations that result in truly artistic ends.Strategic ThemesAccording to Pro, the strategic objectives in Go are about “keeping sente (initiative),” “building” and “maintaining” territory, and “reducing your opponent’s.” Sometimes, “you must cooperate with your opponent by allowing him/her to get some territory in order to gain some for yourself.” Notice that each of these is interrelated, and closely related to the primary objective of having more territory than your opponent. Compare Pro’s list of strategic objectives of Go to my list in Round 2 of strategic objectives in Chess. Every relevant strategic objective in Go is also a plausible objective in Chess. Furthermore, the positional themes in Chess are far more diverse and unique. For example, a battle over making your bishop stronger than the opponent’s knight is the kind of strategic imbalance and objective that has no comparison in Go. Chess is filled with these kinds of strategic imbalances, which give the game superior possibilities strategically and conceptually.The importance of each moveEach move in Chess has more value relative to the entire game: 1/40 to 1/200 is barely a contest, Chess wins hands-down as the game with more valuable moves and positions considered invididually within the context of a whole game. Pro argues that because Go has more moves, it requires more concentration. That is false because, at the highest level of play, Chess and Go games last an equal quantity of time, which means sustained concentration is equal for both games.The relevant factor is that Chess has fewer moves. This makes each Chess position have more impact and meaning within the context of a game. Fewer moves also means that Chess is playable with lower time-controls. Hence, blitz/speed games are faster-paced in Chess, giving the game an exciting speed dynamic that is non-existent in Go. Psychological WarfarePro admits that in Go, trick plays are bluffs and not the best possible moves. This is what distinguishes Go from Chess, because in Chess, the best move is often a purely psychological move. Fischer and Kasparov, two of the greatest Chess players to ever live, were famous for their psychological play style. Pro states that psychological warfare is more potent in Go. How can that be if the psychological moves themselves are weaker than the best moves? In chess, the best moves are psychological moves… Fischer and Kasparov are evidence of this play style. By admitting that psychological warfare is not ideal in Go, Pro also implies that Chess has more “potent” psychological tactics. Luck in GoPro claims that anyone who knows anything about Go would know that luck plays no part. Pro also says that if luck did play a part in Go, Pro would cease to defend Go.I say luck has a part in Go because players cannot draw in Go. I explain this in the next section. For now, note that after defending the Mingren Title, Gu Li 9p (who won the international baduk championships three times), stated: “I am comparatively lucky in the Mingren title matches. I won a losing game over Pao Wen Yao… In this game, there was also a hopeless moment but I was lucky to win.” [1]Equality, Fairness, and DemocracyPro claims that Go is more equal and democratic. I argue to the opposite, that Chess is more equal and democratic.It is impossible to draw a game in Go. Even if both players play perfectly, or equally, one player will always win. Therefore, Go presupposes inequality between the players. Otherwise, the two players, as equals, would be able to attain draws.In Chess, a large number of games at the highest level are drawn. Chess, as a game, presupposes equality between the players. A difference in skill must be proven through a decisive and abosolute victory -- checkmate. Hence, Chess is clearly the more fair and democratic game. To me, this is a crucial factor in the debate between these two games. Go is a fun game, with great complexity, but Chess is a superior game. The key reason is because Chess is fair, Go is not.To make this clearer, consider Pro's reasoning. Pro states that Go is inherently unequal because black has an advantage. In Chess, however, the two sides are not inherently unequal. It is well known that the two sides are simply another strategic imbalance to take advantage of: white gets first move, black gets more information (by one move). Hence, by design, Go is inherently inferior to Chess.To correct for Go's inherent inequality, the game uses komidashi. The fatal problem with this rule is that it removes the possibility of a draw. So while the game in theory becomes fairer, in practice it remains less fair than Chess because in Go two equally skilled players will never be able to prove their equality. Notice, also, how this is another example of the way luck comes into play: in a match between two equally skilled players, the winner will only win because of luck, not skill.ConclusionChess is strategically, tactically, and psychologically deeper than Go. Chess is more skill-based (in Go there are "lucky wins"), and Chess is more equal, fair, and democratic. In sum, Chess is superior to Go. [1] http://tinyurl.com...