Chess inferiority.

Since all games of the non-solved games mentioned are deeper than a human can master, or measure the exact complexity, how can there be such statements as one being "deeper" than the other? As if it could be argued, rationally.

It can be a survey of opinions though. or serve as pretext to compare the types of difficulties, or aesthetic preferences. but no real answer otherwise. We have no clue.

It is possible that chess requires more rote memory skills. or pure look-ahead endurance or storage space, but all such games being beyond human logical understanding all the way to end of games, for ever, individually, they all require training the intuition to recognize patterns beyond their logical perfect play depth (strict ply steps), and make intuitive predictions at plan levels. I only know how to play chess though.

@sparowe14 I play GO sometimes. I started more or less when I started playing chess in 2019; however, I had not much time to dedicate to GO since chess (and university) took all my attention. I know it's hard to find opponents OTB, but If you are interested in GO I suggest you play online. There are two wonderful sites: one is OGS GO, the other is (via the client) GoPanda2. They are very well done, free, and you can play with people all around the world.

About the thread itself, I believe it is just stupid.

I love Chess as a Queen is present. And there can be more Queens by promotion 👸👸👸

Why are you comparing these 3,
I don't know what you like, but my favourite is CHESS

yes Chancellor

#22 thanks for the go suggestion. I have looked at the first. and there is no pedagogical material there, but a good resource page with some of those. I was wondering if there was a well rounded open source equivalent to lichess for go.

i will try the panda way, and a look at a few other ones from the learning suggestions on the OGS GO resource page.

www.pandanet.co.jp/English/introduction_of_go/00-05.htm

There is an interesting distinction type. It seems that adult newcomers to Go will adopt a attitude called logical, while those who experienced GO from young age, are officially aware of using mainly intuition.

But even in science, while logic is important it is not sufficient, and is used with parsimony, a lot of intuition is hiding under many rational discourses. It is not bad, and does not have to be conflicting.

I think self-awareness of one type of thinking over the other, may be a matter of proportion and how much the culture values one type over the other, possibly blinding one to the other which, in my opinion, in humans, are in a constant interaction. The intuition part and its influence may be more difficult to consciously (and hence logically) describe or communicate.

In chess, from reading many threads (not all posts, not all very well), I think a lot of people have no self-awareness of their whole coginitive processes. For example, when asked how many moves ahead one is looking (already room to imprecision, but still room for pretense of pure logic), some people here seriously think they can look, I don't know, 5 moves ahead.. 6, 11? (that would be 22 what stocfish does). But SF is systematically exploring what it considers worthy of exploring but has to consider non-perfect moves anyways systematically.

How systematic is a human candidate selection with depth. isn't one making a judgment increasingle as depth increases. Alreay at my opponent reply candidate (ply1, or ply2, depending on whether mine is 0, or 1), I suspect myself to not be as thorough as I have been with my own move candidates, i am lazy or have limite short term storage space, but I suspect everybody has some limit is that it is of gradual nature with depth. The fact that there are some wild variation is self-estimates of horizon distance, suggest this lack of perception of the intuition proportion that mingles with logical computation.... I think GO has been lucky to have a cultural backing acknowldging of valuing intuition from the top of society down (to nowadays). 400 years? Sure intuition alone need experimental guidance, and i don't oppose logical to intuition. if the game is logical, intuition will converge to its logic, and emergent consequences, even those that our limitation can't verbalise, those that a machine can verbalize as sub-tree, but that we can only express by playing a game, or building theories... with boundaries of application in perpetual need for experimental verification..