3 ms·

The fact that computers have such a hard time is a reason it is worth playing and makes Go attractive. The fact that chess can be reduced just makes chess unap

by amalag 15y ago

The fact that computers have such a hard time is a reason it is worth playing and makes Go attractive. The fact that chess can be reduced just makes chess unappealing.

fusiongyro 15y ago
This isn't the first time I've seen this sentiment about Go from (I presume) a programmer, and I have always found it puzzling. It seems like the opposite of the Seneca quote, "Men love their country, not because it is great, but because it is their own." Loving Go because it is hard for a computer seems like a scornful reason to love it compared to loving it because it is Go. Like loving your wife because she is beautiful, it is intrinsically temporary. There are better places to search for mystical appreciation for human cognition, specifically places that lack definitions like starting, ending and success. What I find attractive about Go is that it emphasizes subtle influences over outright attacks. Everything is vague, slowly coming into focus. You feel more like you're trying to secretly drive a Ouija board than trying to eliminate the opponent. I seldom feel like, this is the move that ruined my game, whereas with chess I can almost always immediately identify the move that costs me the game. Then again, I am terrible at Go and I hardly ever play, but I have a sense, possibly illegitimate, that getting better at Go would make my whole life better, whereas getting better at chess would simply make me a better conniver, and I'm already pretty good.
- amalag 15y ago
  It is not a scornful sentiment, it is the same appreciation that you are referring to. Just like computing 2+2 is not the same as theoretical mathematics and creativity in mathematics, finding a game that is not computer reducible is an aspect of beauty in the game that is not present in chess because it is reducible. edit: seems that go programs are quite advanced and may overtake human players as well, though the methods are a bit different from chess
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
asynchrony 15y ago
I find this adversarial personification of computers curious. Does the fact that computers can drive cars make driving unappealing? At any rate, the computer never "has a hard time" -- It's us poor humans that have been having a hard time writing programs that play go.

by amalag 15y ago

The fact that computers have such a hard time is a reason it is worth playing and makes Go attractive. The fact that chess can be reduced just makes chess unappealing.

fusiongyro 15y ago

This isn't the first time I've seen this sentiment about Go from (I presume) a programmer, and I have always found it puzzling. It seems like the opposite of the Seneca quote, "Men love their country, not because it is great, but because it is their own." Loving Go because it is hard for a computer seems like a scornful reason to love it compared to loving it because it is Go. Like loving your wife because she is beautiful, it is intrinsically temporary. There are better places to search for mystical appreciation for human cognition, specifically places that lack definitions like starting, ending and success. What I find attractive about Go is that it emphasizes subtle influences over outright attacks. Everything is vague, slowly coming into focus. You feel more like you're trying to secretly drive a Ouija board than trying to eliminate the opponent. I seldom feel like, this is the move that ruined my game, whereas with chess I can almost always immediately identify the move that costs me the game. Then again, I am terrible at Go and I hardly ever play, but I have a sense, possibly illegitimate, that getting better at Go would make my whole life better, whereas getting better at chess would simply make me a better conniver, and I'm already pretty good.

amalag 15y ago
It is not a scornful sentiment, it is the same appreciation that you are referring to. Just like computing 2+2 is not the same as theoretical mathematics and creativity in mathematics, finding a game that is not computer reducible is an aspect of beauty in the game that is not present in chess because it is reducible. edit: seems that go programs are quite advanced and may overtake human players as well, though the methods are a bit different from chess

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

asynchrony 15y ago

I find this adversarial personification of computers curious. Does the fact that computers can drive cars make driving unappealing? At any rate, the computer never "has a hard time" -- It's us poor humans that have been having a hard time writing programs that play go.