"The antagonistic nature of chess is much easier to grasp than the cold, crystalline-like beauty of Go's patterns." Sure, but are the long term structural patt

"The antagonistic nature of chess is much easier to grasp than the cold, crystalline-like beauty of Go's patterns." Sure, but are the long term structural patterns in Chess easier to grasp? I'm at a disadvantage here because I'm honestly not good enough at either game to really know. I read that Bobby Fischer once snapped to a journalist who congratulated him on a well played chess match: "how would you know?" I don't know. My casual dabbling in chess and go gives me as much in common with Go or Chess masters as my BA in Math gives me with Euler. What I do isn't a weaker version of what they do, it isn't related at all. Now, my 5 year old loves the antagonistic nature of chess, it's about taking the other guy's pieces. Kabam, got you! But c'mon, even I know that's not meaningful chess. And these comparisons of Kasparov's genius to "accountants and merchants?" Kind or reminds me of that scene in "A Beautiful Mind" where Nash loses a go game and claims "the game is flawed." It's not flawed, you just don't get it.