From: karttu@mits.mdata.fi (Antti Karttunen)
Subject: Re: Real world analogies to Go (& some comparison with Chess)
Organization: MITS, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 00:03:30 GMT

I'm crossposting this now also to rec.games.chess, to generate some heat...
(That's why here are also these excessive quotes, sorry.)

In article <1992Aug8.223056.836@bqnes74.bnr.ca> kowal@bcarhd1.bnr.ca (Andrew Kowal) writes:
>
>--->
>
>In article <1992Aug6.110816.16020@ctr.columbia.edu>, nik@csunb0.dcs.leeds.ac.uk (Nik Silver) writes:
>|> In article <1992Aug6.170704.198@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>, wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor) writes:
>|> >In article <1992Aug6.001918.11294@cc.uow.edu.au>, bernd@cc.uow.edu.au (Bernd Wechner) writes:
>|> >[...]
>|> >|> In chess he can picture more easily 
>|> >|> midieaval armies doing battle with each unit possessing it's own forte.
>|> >|> He is a player of Ancients by the way.
>|> >
>|> >He may be helped by what it said in a beginner's book that I once read.
>|> >The book said, that whereas chess corresponds (obviously) to medieval type
>|> >warfare, with its clearly-defined front-lines and commander-in-chief, go is 
>|> >more like modern guerilla-style war. [...]
>|> >
>|> 
>|> These are kinda unexpected analogies --- I rather doubt go was originally
>|> intended to represent guerilla war or helicopter attacks ;-)
>|> 
>|> But go is more abstract than chess and (in my mind) is superior for that
>|> reason. It is said (and I'm surprised no-one has mentioned it yet) that
>|> whereas chess is one battle, go is the whole war. So go could be considered
>|> to be an plan view of 361 chess games/battles in progress --- and it is a
>|> commander of higher rank who supervises the war, than one who takes care of
>|> the battle.
>|> 
>
>I'm curious to hear people's opinions on the complimentarity of strategy games.
>Admittedly I play most games quite poorly, and most of their subtleties (in 
>chess and go in particular) are lost on me, so don't think of me as having 
>any expert opinions.
>
>ie. Will playing go help my chess game? (or the reverse as well?)  Or is it
>possible they hinder each other?
>
>I would think mental "cross-training" would be different than the physical.
>Many people tell me that as a squash player I'll be a terrible tennis player
>because the strokes are different and playing both games would make me
>mediocre in both.  Could this sort of thing happen in strategy games?
>
>I've heard someone say (once at least a few months ago in this 
>newsgroup) that after playing go they've noticed their chess game has
>improved drastically.  Is it possible that training in a strategy game
>increases one's ability to think strategically and tactically, much in the
>same way as in-depth study in a technical field improves one's overall
>problem solving abilities?
>
>There must be certain technical similarities among these sorts of games.  The 
>old strategy/tactics split, reading/combinations, etc.  Also the fact that
>a person's personality shows through in these games, and that personality/
>attitude/approach weighs heavily in chess and go, not just pure high-octane
>I.Q. (IMHO).
>
>Sorry to have raised so many questions and offered no answers; but I'd like
>to hear what people think on this topic.

Shogi book I have been reading (Shogi for beginners, by John Fairbairn?)
claims that many Chess players have found that their Chess abilities
have improved after playing some Shogi. And in that same book it is told
that playing strategies/tactics on Shogi have been in turn inspired by Go.
(At least one thing which you learn with Shogi, is that initiative is _very_
important in that game.)

Shogi is Japanese chess with a 9x9 board and 'paratrooping' possibility,
i.e. pieces captured from enemy now work for your side, and can be later
dropped almost anywhere on the board, which makes game very dynamic, and
should I say 'dangerous'. I also like the game because the board is
more open (25% larger than in Chess, and pawns can't block each other,
because they also eat straight forward, not diagonally as in Chess).
With ordinary chess I nowadays get a kind of claustrophobic feeling.

>
>-Andrew

PS. It's also claimed that Emanuel Lasker has said something like this
(I'm trying to re-translate back to English): "Chess is limited to
inhabitants of this globe, but somehow Go extends out of this world.
If there's intelligent beings on some planet, they know Go."

-- 
Antti Karttunen       --  $B%"%s%C%F%#!!%+%k%C%H%%%M%s(J  (et{ty|t|n)
karttu@mits.mdata.fi  --  Apatheist, although not particularly proud of it.
Newsgroups: rec.games.go