Teringventje, so chess is simultaneously fast paced warfare and long never ending bullshit arguments? I'm assuming in your second sentence you meant go instead of chess.
There was an old professor I played with in my Go club (in USA) , and he told me this years ago, that when he was younger and watching the war unfold, he could tell the Vietnamese general was a Go player because of some of his strategy and maneuvers.
The moment you learn and understand the real soul and principle behind the game of Go believe me you entire belief system and principle about life itself - will be force to change. Thats what happen to me and Im thankfull that Go came across in my life.
Simply put, if you focus on capturing stones, you'll lose. While you'll be busy capturing groups of stones, your opponent will be playing elsewhere, capturing territory and raising an impenetrable wall. Likewise if you focus too much on capturing too big of a space, if your structure is weak, the opponent will sweep in and kill you. It's a "sharing" game. It teaches you when to attack and when to defend. Which places to play best, and which places will waste your move. Fun game, really.
I always found that Shogi works best as far as game comparisons go. You have a hierarchy that is also found in games like chess, but you also have more manoeuvrability. You can, in certain circumstances ‘drop’ or ‘promote’ pieces, which can and quite often changes the strategies and tactics a player might utilize. Much like how in war, new information is always there. A general might utilize another of Sun Tzu’s tactics, “When you are close make you’re enemy believe you a far away....”, and suddenly there’s something that threatens your position where you weren’t expecting. I never understood the chess analogy for war. If you lose pieces in chess they’re gone for good, in war you’d find someone to replace them. If the Lt dies then I guess it’s up to the next poor bastard in rank to pick up the slack until a replacements found or promoted. Shogi to some extent allows for alternatives in a way the rigid game of chess does not. I think Go is a fair comparison to a sort of broad view/big picture kind of outlook to war in that the end game is a set of conditions that allow for goal to be met. But doesn’t really compare well if you want the boots on the ground sort of perspective. To use the USA as most people have a thorough understanding of their structure. Go would be like how the president might look at it, whereas Shogi would be how someone in charge of getting shit done might look at a war but the rank and file soldier would have a narrower, chess like perspective. If that makes any sense
@狐 - Thank you. I look at Go as more of a political influence perspective rather than a war game perspective like Shogi. Units also vary in ability and can "drop" anywhere at any time considering that this has occurred numerous times in war itself. I was trying to determine whether I should play either Shogi or Go because I wanted to develop an understanding of strategy for warfare in a more simpler way. You have made up my mind, again thank you and God Bless.
Also, related to your point of piece captures, the state of a chess game can change drastically as it moves along, to where the endgame is incredibly different from the opening/mid-game. But even the piece hierarchy doesn't translate well to real life (is the queen an expensive fighter plane? ...then the king is...the country's government buildings??). At the end of the day, none of the games are perfect metaphors. Every strategy game requires intelligence and planning, just like strategy in war.
I think Shogi or any chess chess varient really is more game like than go is. Go is so simple to the core that it can just connect with the real world very easily
@@theoritikossaksi5493 but it also teaches that once a resource is captured it's lost for good. It's a very linear game in that you have to live with your commitments without the ability to truely adapt and overcome. It's a game where unless you can pull off a spectacular save, once you start losing more then a few important pieces it's just a matter of how much you want to fight a losing battle. It's why a good game of chess usually *has* to be played with players of almost the same skill level, otherwise it's a slaughter. I love shogi for its requirement of taking the unplanned into consideration rather then what's just on the board now and the next best move to fit the opponent's strategy. It's a game of attack and defense, adapt and overcome. I absolutely love Go because even a complete novice player against a decently skilled one can win if they can out think and out manouver their opponent. It's a game of perspective and mindset. "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." It is a weighing of perspective and observations, of seeing strength even in a percieved weakness. But I also find it a better game for the political side then the physical side. Chess is a game of the enlisted, where you must follow your orders no matter what they are. There is no retreat from the enemy, you are committed to action. Shogi is the game of the officer. They must make due with what they have available to them, both in Intel and resources. It is adapt or be overwhelmed. Go is the game of the general, politicians, and of the state. Your strategy changes like water to account for sudden variables. It ebbs and flows like a tide. Always circling the other, probing and poking for any weakness. Some strategies die even as they begin and that too gives you information on your opponent. Some can be adapted, coming at the opponent from an unexpected place. Joining with other forces, encircling and decimating. Where numbers and experience are not necessarily the deciding factor (though they certainly help) and where an oversight can have massive game changing consequences. A single piece can be the difference between defeat and victory.
I will never forget the very well put phrase: "If there is intelligent live elsewhere in the universe, it is very likely that they will play go." This is not even a joke, the game is so fundamentally the ultimate game, one can spend a lifetime to play and will not master.
for two games that are so often compared, go and chess are just incredibly different. there aren't many overlapping themes, except perhaps the ability to visualize several moves ahead. go, when first starting out, does seem entirely material. as you progress through the ranks though, it becomes quite clear that it's the opposite -- even though the end score is a simple tally. but if you play go in a highly material way, you'll lose almost every time.
Chess attrition strategy is fantastic if u play for a win, at least u get a draw (if u blunder) just like in korea, but in vietnam, they play for a draw, with a goal of keeping the place divided, they blundered heavily & lost everything...
2:48 The AK-47 was also superior to our M16, Many guys Nam complained that it was unreliable which due to the tropic conditions of that country and AKs are also being heavily used by both sides in the current war in Ukraine
3 rules in go. Two players take turns, placing one stone on the board at a time. A stone must be placed on the intersection of the vertical and horizontal lines. Once a stone is placed, you can't move it, although under some conditions it may be removed. The reasons for where you place the stones is where the strategy is. Like the video said, efficiency is how you win. Since every stone represents 1 turn, you must effectively surround territory while simultaneously denying your enemy.
it doesn't move, but stones have influence over the whole board. I mentioned it was played from an empty board, so you play the game by putting on fixed stones.
Chess has strategical-political view on warfare, Go is like capturing resources and surrounding the enemy by unconventional way just before conventional attack begins. Both has manouvere and attrition type aproach. Go is more fun and Chess is harder in my point of view.
multipurpose101 the object of chess is to checkmate the king (capture) then you create a strategy to do that but in Go its just a local battle (tactics) cuz the object is to control the whole board - it take's a longterm campaign (strategically).
Actually since Go and Chess are both abstract strategy and thus don't deal with deception. Better comparisons would be Stratego or Game of the Generals.
@@markescalera7440 really? it's an abstract strategy game. i really don't see any deception in abstract strategy games. or maybe what multipurpose101 meant was something like games of perfect information. do players not have perfect information in go the way chess players do? Edit: This says both chess and go are games of perfect information en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information
@@markescalera7440 Deception is not the main factor to win in Go. To lower ranks it may be, but not higher. It’s a battle of wits, reading further ahead, making trades and agreements that your wisdom tells you slightly favors you. A good Go match never involves pulling the wool over the opponent’s eyes.
I play chess but am not familiar with go, though I am interested in go. One of the different themes of chess is "quality and time verses material" where the objective of checkmate is either pursued or put off. To any go enthusiasts, is there an equivalent theme in go? because it seems an entirely material game to me. The only thing I could think of is pursuing capturing stones verses capturing territory, but because I'm not familiar with it, I'm not sure how big of a factor that theme is.
The analogy you are looking for is territory vs. moyo, where moyo is the Japanese word for the abstract concept of influence. Grabbing the cash on the board vs. building strong, influential groups that bears latent territories which may or may not convert into cash. How big is this factor in Go? Huge. It's what this game is about, to some extent.
I think all these military analogies, while impressive and thought-provoking, are much of a stretch... for a start, go and chess are complete information games. Both players know the exact positions (and number) of all the "troops". Generals don't have this luxury, and that's a very big element in every conflict. Even in the era of electronic communication and surveillance there's still a lot of bluff and gamble involved, not unlike in a card game such as bridge. A lot of tricks and strategies adviced by Sun Tzu belong exactly to that category, eg. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_Fort_Strategy - more likely to look familiar to a poker player rather than a chess player
yeah, I've always thought that strategy games such as chess, Chinese chess, go, shogi, etc don't represent war games, they lack so many aspects of reality.
@@1986BNick i think of those as like basketball: there are physical and random aspects to it. chess, go, shogi, xiangqi, etc are abstract strategy games and perfect information games (not sure if complete information game though! maybe vibovitold is wrong)
the best game with an empty board where you put fixed stones on is "go", it's a perfect trade off of territory surrounding and capturing stones. Although stones r fixed, their influence over the whole board is represented the best in this game. It is very scientific. The best game with moving pieces on the board is chess. Its different pieces moving with different paths reviews its complex logic. It is also highly scientific. why some ppl just can't appreciate both?
@aker1993 I play chess. I am not very good; My ELO is around 1500 while my Glicko is around 1300. However, I know enough to say that it is not attrition-based. There are cases where you should or shouldn't capture/recapture/trade. For example, some players will avoid trading to avoid a losing endgame.
I rewatched The Wrath of Khan the other day. Spock referenced Khan's thinking as "2-Dimensional" and they were able to outmanuever him in the nebula. Literally the exact same lesson. Chess players are looking for a fight, Go players are looking to win. You saw this theme throughout the entire movie and you see it over and over when watching an Empire vs City States.
Well, they are 2 types of chess style positional chess and tactical chess if you play tactical chess your main focus is to eliminate the opponent's pieces and to checkmate the king. If you play positional chess your main focus is to take the center and gain more space or territory so your enemy have less mobility and you have a higher chances of tactical shots like forking and trapping a minor or major pieces
@@theoritikossaksi5493 i play both That's called a stalemate .. No winners or losers.. Chess has rules and time limits.. GO has no rules no time limits. You can't win a Go tournament your opponent has to surrender to you..
I like both games, but this metaphor totally oversimplifies chess. There absolutely exists "guerrilla tactics," blockades, intelligent use of occupied/unoccupied spaces. You don't charge forward and see whose pieces are stronger, like an outdated video game; it just may appear that way visually, due to the start position and inexperience. The moves are of course restricted in a different way than go, but there is the additional variable of piece variety as well.
@TheSUBGAMER Pro go player can't defeat a pro chess player, and vice versa. This tells us something about human ability, doesn't matter what board game is more complex, you can only become relatively good at it, but you can never master it.
@TheSUBGAMER Thats true, however chess enjoys a larger fan base and there have been many more chess programs written beacuse you can make more money from them. I think both games are great.
@TheSUBGAMER I am in school and do not do drugs. The idea I wast trying to convey was that since a company can make more of a profit selling chess software, there are more reasons for said companies to write and evolve their chess programs. Go does not enjoy as much popularity,especially in countries like th US, Britian ect, that have consumers that buy software frequently. The reason why I stated that Chess and Go are both great is to show that I am not biased towards either. Peace
To compare chess to go is like comparing oranges with fish. And for the record, the goal in chess is to threaten the other players king with no escape, not to gain territory.
That is a ridiculous analogy. Go and chess have been compared for centuries, and for good reason. They are both board games that simulate battle and require skill to win vs luck, hardly an apples to fish comparison. The comparison is apt. More like red delicious apple to golden delicious apple comparison, if we want to use tired analogies.
I always thought that Chess makes use of key players and their pawns against another, and see how well you can make the most of their unique abilities to force a checkmate. Feels more like a political conflict than actual warfare thanks to the hierarchy in place. On the other hand: Since there's no hierarchy in Go, Go applies to direct conflict between two opponents of equal ability in an attempt to rout the other by means of controlling territory and encircling their ranks to achieve military dominance. This applies universally in direct (and indirect) warfare. The common ground they share is they both requires tactics, deception, and proper deployment of the set pieces in order to achieve absolute victory. Aside from that, they are both different games, each with their own unique merits.
every piece on the chess board could represent a stadard under which platoons are regemented - this is how i over came the seemingly rigid structure of chess.
I remember reading about this and Robert Greene's book The 33 strategies of war. That was the first time I ever heard of Chinese go. And I'm so sick of this bull crap myth with Vietnam. Vietnam was not meant to be won it was a giant military experiment for the US to test out its weaponry. You can go read the Phoenix project
@TheSUBGAMER Think what you want, its difficult for me to lower my level of intelect to match someone elses. I was hoping we would be ableto come to some sort of an understanding, however I see now that that will not be possible. Have a nice life.
This name has nothing to do with the English word go…… It came from Japanese "Igo" (nothing to do with the English word ego, of course) which is basically the name of the game. The Chinese call this game weiqi (围棋, where 围→"to encircle" and 棋→"board game")
multipurpose101 i have not seen a checkmate without capturing some of your opponent pieces cuz it need so its attrition. in Go you can win even without capturing enemys stone.
Oh wow multipurpose101 is indeed a chess / #9LX player! Been a fan for over a decade now. Well 2 ways to look at it I guess. 1 - It's attrition-based in the sense that the start of the endgame is sometimes defined by 6 pieces remaining except kings and pawns. Arguably endgame is the very heart of chess / #9LX (but of course it's the opening that separates chess from 9LX). 2 - It's not attrition-based in the sense that trading isn't always good and that a game can end (by checkmate) without reaching endgame. I think the video is kinda wrong in comparing go and chess in a way like as if chess isn't about winning with the fewest resources possible or something like you can see an immediate counterexample in say the opera game of Paul Morphy vs Duke Karl and Count Isouard where Morphy sacs pieces instead of trading into an endgame. Maybe something like chess IS attrition-based in terms of its endgame phase but ISN'T attrition-based in the way this video thinks. Idk.
This video doesn't take into account the fact that the US forced the North Vietnamese into a peace treaty (Paris Peace Accords) with how badly the North Vietnamese were being beaten, and only took Southern Vietnam after the US had them sign the treaty and then left. It's why the US suffered one tenth of the casualties they inflicted.
The narrator mentions a certain false claim about Go when he says the goal of "Chinese game of Go" (Go is Japanese, WeiQi is Chinese, because rules are actually different). In Chinese rules the goal is not to get most territory with "as few stones as possible. In fact the Chinese rules do count the stones of the player as territory, so in Chinese rules the mores stones you play the better. It is in Japanese rules where they only count the territory that it makes sense to use as few stones as possible.
+StopFear You are wrong about the differences between Japanese and Chinese rules - the diff is in the counting of territory/area. The diff is minor and both usually end up giving similar results (who wins who & with how many stones). Both sides take turns to play, each side has similar number of stones to place on board. So it is correct to say "to get most territory with as few stones as possible". You simply cannot have "the mores stones you play the better". You obviously do not play Go.
Go, weiqi, igo, baduk are all names for the same game (occidental name, chinese, japanese and korean). And while there are two different rulesets, they are practically identical, and the objective of getting territory is the same. It is quite rare to see a game where chinese rules and japanese rules give different difference of points. In fact I can only think of a couple of pro games where the victor would be different under a different ruleset. To say "the mores stones you play the better" is quite irrelevant, because in no point of the game will any color have more stones in game than the other except if the last stone is black's, which would create a difference of only one point.
Another very debatable claim the documentary makes is tha the Vietnamese won with strategy and not greater firepower or resources. It is factually not true because the Vietcong actually had some of the latest technology in the 2nd part of the war. Technology they were given by USSR.
These war-game analogies are always sensationalized, having tons of exceptions and shortcomings. Also, let's be real: Sun Tzu's writings are often vague and/or oversimplified. I would hardly consider 'The Art of War' any sort of guide to victory; it's just war/military rhetoric.
Completely agreed. It’s still definitely worth a read, but it’s not an amazing “guide on how to win war.” Most of the “key” things it says are already so widespread in our modern culture as just common sense to us now. In addition, I hate this idea that people who don’t play Go get about Go, that it’s a “great simulation of real war”. It’s an abstract game that has the theme of war, but in no way does it actually emulate it. What is the real life equivalent of liberties? 2 eyes? A hane? A keima? It may touch upon basic concepts of coming to agreements with the enemy and having aji but in no way would I ever describe it as a “simulation”.
Go is like a war in its entirity, whilst Chess is more like the individual battles.
Teringventje, so chess is simultaneously fast paced warfare and long never ending bullshit arguments? I'm assuming in your second sentence you meant go instead of chess.
Teringventje fucking check ur comment before entering
Chess is more like special ops
Exactly, GO is whole election
There was an old professor I played with in my Go club (in USA) , and he told me this years ago, that when he was younger and watching the war unfold, he could tell the Vietnamese general was a Go player because of some of his strategy and maneuvers.
Great. Did he play Chinese chess too
guerilla warefare, thats it
Vo Ngyuen Giap
I got into Go form watching and reading Hikaru no Go.
Chess is like battlefield / frontline tactics.
Go is like war strategies
go is territorial
The moment you learn and understand the real soul and principle behind the game of Go believe me you entire belief system and principle about life itself - will be force to change. Thats what happen to me and Im thankfull that Go came across in my life.
Ironically.. This is happening today
When the 3D artist has no idea how go works, and just places the stones "on the board" as instructed
Simply put, if you focus on capturing stones, you'll lose. While you'll be busy capturing groups of stones, your opponent will be playing elsewhere, capturing territory and raising an impenetrable wall. Likewise if you focus too much on capturing too big of a space, if your structure is weak, the opponent will sweep in and kill you. It's a "sharing" game. It teaches you when to attack and when to defend. Which places to play best, and which places will waste your move. Fun game, really.
Go is about taking more spaces and surround the enemy
I always found that Shogi works best as far as game comparisons go. You have a hierarchy that is also found in games like chess, but you also have more manoeuvrability. You can, in certain circumstances ‘drop’ or ‘promote’ pieces, which can and quite often changes the strategies and tactics a player might utilize. Much like how in war, new information is always there. A general might utilize another of Sun Tzu’s tactics, “When you are close make you’re enemy believe you a far away....”, and suddenly there’s something that threatens your position where you weren’t expecting. I never understood the chess analogy for war. If you lose pieces in chess they’re gone for good, in war you’d find someone to replace them. If the Lt dies then I guess it’s up to the next poor bastard in rank to pick up the slack until a replacements found or promoted. Shogi to some extent allows for alternatives in a way the rigid game of chess does not.
I think Go is a fair comparison to a sort of broad view/big picture kind of outlook to war in that the end game is a set of conditions that allow for goal to be met. But doesn’t really compare well if you want the boots on the ground sort of perspective. To use the USA as most people have a thorough understanding of their structure. Go would be like how the president might look at it, whereas Shogi would be how someone in charge of getting shit done might look at a war but the rank and file soldier would have a narrower, chess like perspective. If that makes any sense
@狐
- Thank you. I look at Go as more of a political influence perspective rather than a war game perspective like Shogi. Units also vary in ability and can "drop" anywhere at any time considering that this has occurred numerous times in war itself. I was trying to determine whether I should play either Shogi or Go because I wanted to develop an understanding of strategy for warfare in a more simpler way. You have made up my mind, again thank you and God Bless.
Also, related to your point of piece captures, the state of a chess game can change drastically as it moves along, to where the endgame is incredibly different from the opening/mid-game. But even the piece hierarchy doesn't translate well to real life (is the queen an expensive fighter plane? ...then the king is...the country's government buildings??). At the end of the day, none of the games are perfect metaphors. Every strategy game requires intelligence and planning, just like strategy in war.
I think Shogi or any chess chess varient really is more game like than go is. Go is so simple to the core that it can just connect with the real world very easily
Chess teachers that quality is better than quantity
@@theoritikossaksi5493 but it also teaches that once a resource is captured it's lost for good. It's a very linear game in that you have to live with your commitments without the ability to truely adapt and overcome. It's a game where unless you can pull off a spectacular save, once you start losing more then a few important pieces it's just a matter of how much you want to fight a losing battle. It's why a good game of chess usually *has* to be played with players of almost the same skill level, otherwise it's a slaughter.
I love shogi for its requirement of taking the unplanned into consideration rather then what's just on the board now and the next best move to fit the opponent's strategy. It's a game of attack and defense, adapt and overcome.
I absolutely love Go because even a complete novice player against a decently skilled one can win if they can out think and out manouver their opponent. It's a game of perspective and mindset. "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." It is a weighing of perspective and observations, of seeing strength even in a percieved weakness. But I also find it a better game for the political side then the physical side.
Chess is a game of the enlisted, where you must follow your orders no matter what they are. There is no retreat from the enemy, you are committed to action.
Shogi is the game of the officer. They must make due with what they have available to them, both in Intel and resources. It is adapt or be overwhelmed.
Go is the game of the general, politicians, and of the state. Your strategy changes like water to account for sudden variables. It ebbs and flows like a tide. Always circling the other, probing and poking for any weakness. Some strategies die even as they begin and that too gives you information on your opponent. Some can be adapted, coming at the opponent from an unexpected place. Joining with other forces, encircling and decimating. Where numbers and experience are not necessarily the deciding factor (though they certainly help) and where an oversight can have massive game changing consequences. A single piece can be the difference between defeat and victory.
I will never forget the very well put phrase: "If there is intelligent live elsewhere in the universe, it is very likely that they will play go." This is not even a joke, the game is so fundamentally the ultimate game, one can spend a lifetime to play and will not master.
Shogi
AI's already beat the best Go player in the world.
@@evpamatian shogi is just a varient of ancient chess, sry buddy
Amazing documentary! Too bad the original, full length version had been taken down.
for two games that are so often compared, go and chess are just incredibly different. there aren't many overlapping themes, except perhaps the ability to visualize several moves ahead.
go, when first starting out, does seem entirely material. as you progress through the ranks though, it becomes quite clear that it's the opposite -- even though the end score is a simple tally. but if you play go in a highly material way, you'll lose almost every time.
the goal of go is to conquer as much territory as possible without using a lot of stones
Chess attrition strategy is fantastic if u play for a win, at least u get a draw (if u blunder) just like in korea, but in vietnam, they play for a draw, with a goal of keeping the place divided, they blundered heavily & lost everything...
That's why I'm very interested in chess because of it's strategy and chess theory.
man over a decade ago. good times. good times.
I saw you in botez's video apologizing
@@theoritikossaksi5493 Comment on youtube video? Or in a youtube video? Or in a twitch stream? Or what?
@@nicbentulan well I saw your profile in botez's UA-cam video
@@theoritikossaksi5493 video ID please?
2:48 The AK-47 was also superior to our M16, Many guys Nam complained that it was unreliable which due to the tropic conditions of that country and AKs are also being heavily used by both sides in the current war in Ukraine
3 rules in go. Two players take turns, placing one stone on the board at a time. A stone must be placed on the intersection of the vertical and horizontal lines. Once a stone is placed, you can't move it, although under some conditions it may be removed.
The reasons for where you place the stones is where the strategy is. Like the video said, efficiency is how you win. Since every stone represents 1 turn, you must effectively surround territory while simultaneously denying your enemy.
it doesn't move, but stones have influence over the whole board. I mentioned it was played from an empty board, so you play the game by putting on fixed stones.
Chess has strategical-political view on warfare, Go is like capturing resources and surrounding the enemy by unconventional way just before
conventional attack begins. Both has manouvere and attrition type aproach.
Go is more fun and Chess is harder in my point of view.
Thing i don't like about chess is Kings are shown Godly like an idol (Doesn't die, one and only in the army).
take a closer look and you will notice that the stones are moving in like soldiers closing in rather than it is like in the board game
yea I played it online since last month.
Just wanted someone to explain it to me personally.
Thanks
Whoa, this was the scene I was looking for...I was kinda lazy to look through those 9 parts uploaded by TitusLabienus so thanks!
multipurpose101 the object of chess is to checkmate the king (capture) then you create a strategy to do that but in Go its just a local battle (tactics) cuz the object is to control the whole board - it take's a longterm campaign (strategically).
Actually since Go and Chess are both abstract strategy and thus don't deal with deception. Better comparisons would be Stratego or Game of the Generals.
multipurpose101 deception is one big factor to win in Go.
@@markescalera7440 really? it's an abstract strategy game. i really don't see any deception in abstract strategy games. or maybe what multipurpose101 meant was something like games of perfect information. do players not have perfect information in go the way chess players do?
Edit: This says both chess and go are games of perfect information en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information
@@markescalera7440 but deception can't be applied to A.I
@@theoritikossaksi5493 well there is a poker AI...?
@@markescalera7440 Deception is not the main factor to win in Go. To lower ranks it may be, but not higher. It’s a battle of wits, reading further ahead, making trades and agreements that your wisdom tells you slightly favors you. A good Go match never involves pulling the wool over the opponent’s eyes.
I play chess but am not familiar with go, though I am interested in go. One of the different themes of chess is "quality and time verses material" where the objective of checkmate is either pursued or put off.
To any go enthusiasts, is there an equivalent theme in go? because it seems an entirely material game to me. The only thing I could think of is pursuing capturing stones verses capturing territory, but because I'm not familiar with it, I'm not sure how big of a factor that theme is.
Influence vs territory, capturing stones gains little points. It's all about balance. Time is usually not a factor.
The analogy you are looking for is territory vs. moyo, where moyo is the Japanese word for the abstract concept of influence. Grabbing the cash on the board vs. building strong, influential groups that bears latent territories which may or may not convert into cash.
How big is this factor in Go? Huge. It's what this game is about, to some extent.
Eliminating of enemy's stone is just a child play, where as the ultimate goal of Go is to aquire more share of territory than your opponent.
@@merledaria7630 wow that is extremely mature....
I think all these military analogies, while impressive and thought-provoking, are much of a stretch... for a start, go and chess are complete information games. Both players know the exact positions (and number) of all the "troops". Generals don't have this luxury, and that's a very big element in every conflict. Even in the era of electronic communication and surveillance there's still a lot of bluff and gamble involved, not unlike in a card game such as bridge. A lot of tricks and strategies adviced by Sun Tzu belong exactly to that category, eg. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_Fort_Strategy - more likely to look familiar to a poker player rather than a chess player
I developed some ideas to modify the game of chess to address some of these issues: ua-cam.com/video/5jOV0i-LOHs/v-deo.html
yeah, I've always thought that strategy games such as chess, Chinese chess, go, shogi, etc don't represent war games, they lack so many aspects of reality.
So, what is your take on nine-ball pool and snooker?... Someone told me that was like war strategizing a little bit. Although, I don't know how.
@@1986BNick i think of those as like basketball: there are physical and random aspects to it. chess, go, shogi, xiangqi, etc are abstract strategy games and perfect information games (not sure if complete information game though! maybe vibovitold is wrong)
wait vibovitold, are you sure they are COMPLETE information games rather than PERFECT information games?
Risk depends to much on chance in my opinion. The strategy is so simple, mass your troops where you can most easily defend and hope you get lucky.
Lmao no way, go has strict ways to play. Think like that and lose to the one who knows nothing is impossible..
Less pieces can win through tactics in chess
“If chess is brutal, go is unforgiving”
- me
the best game with an empty board where you put fixed stones on is "go", it's a perfect trade off of territory surrounding and capturing stones. Although stones r fixed, their influence over the whole board is represented the best in this game. It is very scientific. The best game with moving pieces on the board is chess. Its different pieces moving with different paths reviews its complex logic. It is also highly scientific. why some ppl just can't appreciate both?
amen to that!
Oops, chess board is set up wrong. Great clip though. Thanks!
AncientChess lmao
@aker1993 I play chess. I am not very good; My ELO is around 1500 while my Glicko is around 1300. However, I know enough to say that it is not attrition-based. There are cases where you should or shouldn't capture/recapture/trade. For example, some players will avoid trading to avoid a losing endgame.
Yes, that is a very important point that makes this video's comparison pretty poor.
I rewatched The Wrath of Khan the other day. Spock referenced Khan's thinking as "2-Dimensional" and they were able to outmanuever him in the nebula. Literally the exact same lesson.
Chess players are looking for a fight, Go players are looking to win. You saw this theme throughout the entire movie and you see it over and over when watching an Empire vs City States.
Add the Afghan war to that list...
"Chess moves don't work in a Go tournament. " -Aaron Kuntze
Well, they are 2 types of chess style positional chess and tactical chess if you play tactical chess your main focus is to eliminate the opponent's pieces and to checkmate the king. If you play positional chess your main focus is to take the center and gain more space or territory so your enemy have less mobility and you have a higher chances of tactical shots like forking and trapping a minor or major pieces
@@theoritikossaksi5493 i play both
That's called a stalemate ..
No winners or losers..
Chess has rules and time limits..
GO has no rules no time limits.
You can't win a Go tournament your opponent has to surrender to you..
I like both games, but this metaphor totally oversimplifies chess. There absolutely exists "guerrilla tactics," blockades, intelligent use of occupied/unoccupied spaces. You don't charge forward and see whose pieces are stronger, like an outdated video game; it just may appear that way visually, due to the start position and inexperience. The moves are of course restricted in a different way than go, but there is the additional variable of piece variety as well.
amen to that!
Stones don't move in go~
World's greatest superpower fights bunch of rice pickers and lost 🤣
Thanks
Yankees lost in Vietnam
@TheSUBGAMER Pro go player can't defeat a pro chess player, and vice versa. This tells us something about human ability, doesn't matter what board game is more complex, you can only become relatively good at it, but you can never master it.
what i learn from school 10% what i learn from youtube 90%
@TheSUBGAMER Thats true, however chess enjoys a larger fan base and there have been many more chess programs written beacuse you can make more money from them. I think both games are great.
@TheSUBGAMER I am in school and do not do drugs. The idea I wast trying to convey was that since a company can make more of a profit selling chess software, there are more reasons for said companies to write and evolve their chess programs. Go does not enjoy as much popularity,especially in countries like th US, Britian ect, that have consumers that buy software frequently. The reason why I stated that Chess and Go are both great is to show that I am not biased towards either.
Peace
To compare chess to go is like comparing oranges with fish. And for the record, the goal in chess is to threaten the other players king with no escape, not to gain territory.
That is a ridiculous analogy. Go and chess have been compared for centuries, and for good reason. They are both board games that simulate battle and require skill to win vs luck, hardly an apples to fish comparison. The comparison is apt. More like red delicious apple to golden delicious apple comparison, if we want to use tired analogies.
I always thought that Chess makes use of key players and their pawns against another, and see how well you can make the most of their unique abilities to force a checkmate. Feels more like a political conflict than actual warfare thanks to the hierarchy in place.
On the other hand: Since there's no hierarchy in Go, Go applies to direct conflict between two opponents of equal ability in an attempt to rout the other by means of controlling territory and encircling their ranks to achieve military dominance. This applies universally in direct (and indirect) warfare.
The common ground they share is they both requires tactics, deception, and proper deployment of the set pieces in order to achieve absolute victory. Aside from that, they are both different games, each with their own unique merits.
every piece on the chess board could represent a stadard under which platoons are regemented - this is how i over came the seemingly rigid structure of chess.
absolute victory? In chess yeah. but in Go you can win without killing all the enemy
Where is the full video for this
what part you don't agree on?
@TheSUBGAMER Stop calling me son and kiddo. You were the one who started throwing insults.
See??? End of the day....i told u so!!!
I remember reading about this and Robert Greene's book The 33 strategies of war. That was the first time I ever heard of Chinese go.
And I'm so sick of this bull crap myth with Vietnam. Vietnam was not meant to be won it was a giant military experiment for the US to test out its weaponry. You can go read the Phoenix project
Not kill capture the king -- in chess
I don't think any chess player would use that term.
Technically it's to put the king in an inescapable position. The king is never taken, just put into checkmate.
@@tcphll Yeah, but capturing/killing the king I guess is a pretty good heuristic to describe chess in a video like this.
바둑은 '판전체'를 보며, 장기는 '각개결투'와 같다고나 할까.. entirety vs individual
So what's moving?
And no I'm not going to Google it LoL
Be a friend and tell me.
Thanks.
What's the name of the song played from 1:33?
did you ever figure it out?
@@nicbentulan Afraid not, think it might just be some non descript rock music made for the documentary?
@@20thcentury94 i guess XD
@TheSUBGAMER Think what you want, its difficult for me to lower my level of intelect to match someone elses. I was hoping we would be ableto come to some sort of an understanding, however I see now that that will not be possible. Have a nice life.
Fixed stones?
I thought the stones move in the game of 'Go'? Only they have a different objective.
This name has nothing to do with the English word go…… It came from Japanese "Igo" (nothing to do with the English word ego, of course) which is basically the name of the game. The Chinese call this game weiqi (围棋, where 围→"to encircle" and 棋→"board game")
Jingchuan Shi what does igo / weiqi mean?
@@JFCotman Both means "the board game of encirclement".
Go >>>>>> Chess
LOL, chess is not attrition based.
multipurpose101 i have not seen a checkmate without capturing some of your opponent pieces cuz it need so its attrition.
in Go you can win even without capturing enemys stone.
it is , less pieces can win by tactics
Oh wow multipurpose101 is indeed a chess / #9LX player! Been a fan for over a decade now.
Well 2 ways to look at it I guess.
1 - It's attrition-based in the sense that the start of the endgame is sometimes defined by 6 pieces remaining except kings and pawns. Arguably endgame is the very heart of chess / #9LX (but of course it's the opening that separates chess from 9LX).
2 - It's not attrition-based in the sense that trading isn't always good and that a game can end (by checkmate) without reaching endgame.
I think the video is kinda wrong in comparing go and chess in a way like as if chess isn't about winning with the fewest resources possible or something like you can see an immediate counterexample in say the opera game of Paul Morphy vs Duke Karl and Count Isouard where Morphy sacs pieces instead of trading into an endgame.
Maybe something like chess IS attrition-based in terms of its endgame phase but ISN'T attrition-based in the way this video thinks. Idk.
@TheSUBGAMER Thank you. I just did. By the way you act, it is apparent that yours was either horrible or you had none.
@TheSUBGAMER Thanks father
Ukraine offensive lol
Vietnam didn’t need a war
This video doesn't take into account the fact that the US forced the North Vietnamese into a peace treaty (Paris Peace Accords) with how badly the North Vietnamese were being beaten, and only took Southern Vietnam after the US had them sign the treaty and then left. It's why the US suffered one tenth of the casualties they inflicted.
1) Nixon sued for peace, thats called "America quit"
2) it was 50 years ago, get over it
Yankees lost. Bunch of sore losers
What about 90% of battles where chess players would win?
Like what?
The narrator mentions a certain false claim about Go when he says the goal of "Chinese game of Go" (Go is Japanese, WeiQi is Chinese, because rules are actually different). In Chinese rules the goal is not to get most territory with "as few stones as possible. In fact the Chinese rules do count the stones of the player as territory, so in Chinese rules the mores stones you play the better. It is in Japanese rules where they only count the territory that it makes sense to use as few stones as possible.
+StopFear You are wrong about the differences between Japanese and Chinese rules - the diff is in the counting of territory/area. The diff is minor and both usually end up giving similar results (who wins who & with how many stones).
Both sides take turns to play, each side has similar number of stones to place on board. So it is correct to say "to get most territory with as few stones as possible". You simply cannot have "the mores stones you play the better".
You obviously do not play Go.
Go, weiqi, igo, baduk are all names for the same game (occidental name, chinese, japanese and korean). And while there are two different rulesets, they are practically identical, and the objective of getting territory is the same. It is quite rare to see a game where chinese rules and japanese rules give different difference of points. In fact I can only think of a couple of pro games where the victor would be different under a different ruleset.
To say "the mores stones you play the better" is quite irrelevant, because in no point of the game will any color have more stones in game than the other except if the last stone is black's, which would create a difference of only one point.
StopLying
Another very debatable claim the documentary makes is tha the Vietnamese won with strategy and not greater firepower or resources. It is factually not true because the Vietcong actually had some of the latest technology in the 2nd part of the war. Technology they were given by USSR.
StopFear show your proof and we will examine
These war-game analogies are always sensationalized, having tons of exceptions and shortcomings. Also, let's be real: Sun Tzu's writings are often vague and/or oversimplified. I would hardly consider 'The Art of War' any sort of guide to victory; it's just war/military rhetoric.
Completely agreed. It’s still definitely worth a read, but it’s not an amazing “guide on how to win war.” Most of the “key” things it says are already so widespread in our modern culture as just common sense to us now.
In addition, I hate this idea that people who don’t play Go get about Go, that it’s a “great simulation of real war”. It’s an abstract game that has the theme of war, but in no way does it actually emulate it. What is the real life equivalent of liberties? 2 eyes? A hane? A keima? It may touch upon basic concepts of coming to agreements with the enemy and having aji but in no way would I ever describe it as a “simulation”.
Terrible and untrue as well as invalid description of chess
I learn go I think