What do strong chessplayers think of more complex games than chess, for example Go?

[Pargat Perrer]

I am wondering what strong chessplayers around the world think of the game of Go.

The reason I wonder is because Go is widely considered much more complex and hard to master than chess. Go is mostly popular in Asian nations, where it has its history. In North America, it is not nearly as popular as chess, except among Asians I suppose.

Mathematically speaking, Go is indeed much more complex. I tend to think one must be a lifelong practitioner, since childhood, to really appreciate the subtleties behind the strategy.

I am asking about this because I have created several chess variants that are much more complex than standard chess, even though the board is still 8 x 8. Are strong chess players afraid of higher complexity? Is chess about as complex as they can stand?

I have even invented a "quantum" type of chess, in which pieces are not defined until they move like a chess piece. That is to say, they can move just like a King,but only in a forward or sideways direction, not backward, without capturing or threatening to capture, and if they do that, they are still undefined. Only the King itself and the Pawns are not one of these quantum pieces.

The quantum pieces only become an actual chess piece if and when they move like that piece, i.e. they are "observed". So eventually you have to allow observation, because otherwise you don't progress and your opponent can progress ahead of you.

(edit: this game becomes chess if you move out your pieces in regular fashion. You can only have 2 of each minor piece and 1 Queen. But since you aren't required to move the pieces out as you would in chess, you can instead move them out in King-move fashion and keep their realization potential going until the 'optimal' moment ... just when that moment IS is the key question!)

Even if this game is not more complex than Go (it might be), I think I have others that are. So I am basically asking strong chessplayers, what do you think about MORE complexity on an 8 x 8 chessboard?

I have seen very complex chess variants on huge chessboards, and it doesn't appeal to me. I love the 8x8 chessboard. It really is the perfect size, and only 10 x 10 is a reasonable alternative, but to me not quite as good as 8 x 8.

Go has much simpler movement than chess, but on a much bigger 19 x 19 board. I was reading about the world human Go champion playing against the AlphaGo (?) program some years ago, and in the first game, the program played a piece on a certain location very early in the game, and the human World Champion already realized he was playing from way behind. How that can be determined on such a large board so early in the game struck me as .... incredible.

[Pargat Perrer]

I am wondering what strong chessplayers around the world think of the game of Go.

......

Ok, looks like I have my answer. The question itself is too complex, so chessplayers can't handle more complexity.

Go players must be a different breed entirely ... an order of magnitude above chessplayers???

[Kerry Liles]

Ok, looks like I have my answer. The question itself is too complex, so chess players can't handle more complexity.

Go players must be a different breed entirely ... an order of magnitude above chess players???

I'm curious how you got your perceived answer? Was it because no strong chess players posted their answer here?

Comparing chess to Chinese chess (Xiangqi) might be more interesting since the games are more similar than Chess and Go...

[Francis Rodriguez]

Ok, looks like I have my answer. The question itself is too complex, so chessplayers can't handle more complexity.

Go players must be a different breed entirely ... an order of magnitude above chessplayers???

Perhaps, ask Mario MV! Go player and teacher, former President of the Go Association!
Also known to play chess:) Way to Go!

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

The question is on the level: what soccer players think about football.

[Pargat Perrer]

The question is on the level: what soccer players think about football.

But those are physical sports, and in those sports, you are thinking mostly "in the moment" and not strategizing nearly as much as in chess or Go.

My question, maybe not worded well, is more to do with complexity in general in a primarily strategizing environment.

We can see from computer engine domination that chess complexity is not high enough to prevent numerical calculations from overcoming human alternatives such as "feeling" or "intuition". For several years Go was seen as the vanguard of defence for the human mind. Too complex for even computer engines, that was the refrain for years. Now that is cast aside as AlphaGo defeated the human world champion some years ago.

The search is on imo for a more life-like game, where numbers can't calculate everything. We admire most highly the athletes that can make the "imaginitive" plays ... Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr ... but there's nobody doing that in chess. Carlson is often mentioned as playing very much like a computer, going into many long endgames. We had Paul Morphy, but in today's chess, he wouldn't get far.

I guess I'm wondering ... if we increase the complexity of chess .... specifically where we try and keep future possibilities alive for as long as possible, as in my quantum idea .... will that inspire a more "creative" approach that can at least match number-crunching?

[Pargat Perrer]

I'm curious how you got your perceived answer? Was it because no strong chess players posted their answer here?

Comparing chess to Chinese chess (Xiangqi) might be more interesting since the games are more similar than Chess and Go...

thanks Kerry, I just read up on Xiangqi .... some say it is more complex, about 10 times more complex I saw in one posting on chess.com.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

.. if we increase the complexity of chess ....

Do you even still play chess?
So many people wanted to change something in chess. I forgot when and what was the last major change in actual chess. Maybe introduction of chess clocks :)
Fischer random -- came like some kind of a revolution. Seems a cookie was too hard for many people.

[Pargat Perrer]

Do you even still play chess?
So many people wanted to change something in chess. I forgot when and what was the last major change in actual chess. Maybe introduction of chess clocks :)
Fischer random -- came like some kind of a revolution. Seems a cookie was too hard for many people.

You might be barking up the wrong tree, but I'll try to address it.

I myself never played tournament chess, but I took my wife's 2 kids to clubs in Ontario (their last name is not Perrer, so their privacy is maintained). We stopped when they complained that the pressure of competition was becoming uncomfortable for them, because they didn't really enjoy the game so much. I think in retrospect it was a good decision we made for them.

You are barking up the tree of "change chess" when I am not in that tree. I have no interest in what happens with tournament chess. As you mention, it doesn't change, run by FIDE and kept as status quo as possible. None of it matters to me. You can all grow old together and still play your drawish endgames as much as you like. I don't criticize -- you obviously like it, and good for you.

I am in the tree of "games that can defeat AI" and since chess is a great starting point, that is what I use. I create variants with the intention of challenging AI, including the Alpha-XXX so-called "self-learning" programs. Yes, they self-learn, but I think it is only with game like chess and even the vaunted Go where number-crunching is supreme. If they were really so great, we would HAVE self-driving cars and trucks and buses by now. BUT no, and the auto companies are giving up on that very idea .... it's too much. The AI simple cannot handle the real world of random unexpected events.

I have read all the Asimov robot novels, dealing with the fictional "positronic brain" idea, which of course is left undefined. Fantastic reading .... and fantastic conjecturing, can it ever happen? I am hoping my research helps with that question.

Complexity and randomness, 2 things that define our existence and challenge our AI efforts. Where will it all end up? None of us will probably live long enough to find out.