Newsgroups: rec.games.go,rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Real world analogies to Go (& some comparison
From: wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor)
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:01:27 +1200
 <1992Aug16.175721.20148@ists.ists.ca> <1992Aug16.183807.24429@cco.caltech.edu>
Distribution: world 
Organization: Department of Mathematics, University of Canterbury
Keywords: go analogy life power chess 

Just a few more words on the comparison of go and chess.

Both games are similar in their depth of combination; the overwhelming importance
of reading; the vital concept of sente; the relative nature of opening, middle
game and endgame; the concepts of kikashi, zwichtenzug, aji and many others.

But I think there are two areas where go has an extra feature not found in chess,
which adds enormously to the pleasure and depth of the game.

One, as has been observed, is the far larger size of board, with consequent
increase in very broad strategical ideas. We all know that constant feeling of
amazement that one little result in one place can have an enormous effect far
away; often by an intricate chain of neighboring effects. On the smaller board
there is not nearly such a remarkable effect. (In fairness to chess, one should
mention that this is partly offset by the increase in strategic concerns of
time as opposed to space, especially in endgame considerations; but IMHO these
nowhere near compensate).

The other area where go has a great advantage, is in the concept of good shape.
Chess really has no similar feature. Good and bad features in a chess position
are mostly determined by reading alone, there are few aspects in which one
can say a move is good with little regard to the rest of the board. Pawn
structure is perhaps the nearest exception. But in go this is a crucial aspect
of the whole game. There is nothing like the satisfaction involved in gradually
coming to recognize "shapely" structures, and coming to make them more and more 
automatically. Nothing like the amazement at how this ability can add heaps
to your rating with very little in the way of extra effort. Nothing like the joy
of seeing how much shapliness pays off unexpectedly later in the game. 

These then, are the two big areas where go wins over chess.


A few words about shogi. I have always quite wanted to learn this game. I've
read the rules of course; and there are many unique features which look
fascinating. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any decent book on it for
Westerners. 

I did see one book by the Ishi press; possibly by Davies or Boluzich, even. 
I picked it up with keen anticipation, fuelled by the knowledge of how
well Ishi had brought go to Westerners, Anglicising the terms and concepts
where possible. But Oh what a dissappointment it was, to find that the authors 
used Japanese characters still for the pieces. This totally destroyed all the
use of the book, IMHO. It would have been so easy to make up little chess-like
icons to use, with two distinct colors in the diagrams and so forth. Of course
they needn't be kinglike or knightlike icons; just little arrowy figures to
remind one of how the pieces moved, would be good enough. But characters ? 
Never ! As long as Oriental characters are used, the game will remain
inaccessible to most Westerners, to the impoverishment of both cultures. 

I wish I could be optimistic that we will eventually see Western books on
shogi, using Western-style symbols as I've suggested; but I fear it is a
hopeless dream.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Bill Taylor              wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course I'm not cheating my employer by spending 3 hours a day on the net.
 I'm just using the time I would have spent on solitaire, and go problems !
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.go