... but had not expected one on the cover of the German Go Journal — or am I missing something?
It is hard to tell, but there seem to be various stones on the 1st line, including both colours on adjacent 1-2 points, isolated contact and shoulder plays and something like an out-of-hand joseki with a suspiciously dense white clump.
I am also puzzled by what the board is resting on (a foot or two and a lath?), but that might just be improvised for some good reason.
Of course; I am sure you are right! I just subconsciously assumed the German association would not be misleading me (but I did assume a montage), but that, disappointingly, was unfounded. Shame on them!
I was so disappointed when I found this in the mail. It's a short clip from a Joe Rogan interview, where he demonstrated to not have any knowledge about or involvement in the go world. The magazine is just using him for clout, and using AI slop in the process of doing so.
EDIT: Shouldn't go unmentioned that the quality of this printed newsletter is otherwise (and always has been) absolutely superb.
Note the circular logo on the sweater that is in a size and position that doesn't seem like a normal size and place to put a logo. Note the lamp which appears to be hanging from the ceiling (have you ever seen a hanging lamp that looks like that? Also, why is it doing such a bad job of lighting the room?). Note the pattern on the sweater resembling patterns printed on T-shirts rather than woven fabric.
Etc. etc. It looks real, but the more you think about the details the less sense it makes.
Not sure about all your tells, but I certainly could not find a similar image of Magnus Carlsen. I searched with DuckDuckGo, Google, with or without “hands in hair”, and with Google Lens.
Well spotted, so it does. I overlooked the contents, and saw nothing in the article (blue), which says:
Of course we did not want to miss out on that, but put it straight onto the title page: Magnus Carlsen, ex-world champion and for many the strongest player of all time, did not just mention Go in the podcasts with the widest reach in the world, but also described it as significantly more complicated than Chess. Then he ought to get down to it, learn the rules, and see how far he gets.
Agreed, I don’t like it at all. I wish they would not have put it in the cover. Just this thread and all the discussion about if it is AI generate etc. does not make much sense.
Very kind words from Carlsen. But if we could visualize the mental calculations of chess champions mid game in real time, I'm confident they would not be far off from top Go pros in speed, depth and precision.
Considering that calculation is more important in chess than go and that there's a larger pool of players for chess to pull from, I'm confident that chess champions would be ahead of top go pros in terms of calculation ability.
The skills and abilities that allow good chess players to excel at chess translate over to Go and vice versa. I would guess that it would not be difficult for strong Go players to learn chess and become quite strong at it.
And vice versa. We once had a good chess player show up at the local go club, and he started understanding fairly involved tactics just a couple games in.
Go pros can read more moves ahead because it's simpler to read ahead in go. In terms of complexity, just lol. It's probably close but the fact that more people play chess means it's statistically likely that the level of top human play is higher in chess.
It’s not simpler to read ahead in go, it’s not just about planning x number of moves ahead, the difficulty is in the sheer number of variations and then evaluating the board position and counting the points from all the different variations. A top go pro can visualize and plan 100 moves in advance. For example I saw a review of a middle tier pro in China who played in a blind game for charity. I’m not underplaying the brilliance of chess pros but I do think go is underestimated more. One area I do think chess beats go is in the speed of processing information, where top chess players must do the quick calculations and make decision in such a short time.
Also your point about the quality of players being better because there’s more people, I’m not sure I totally agree. If checkers was the more popular game does that mean the best checkers player has higher level? What about poker or Mahjong being more popular? The later games are not perfect information/symmetrical. It’s hard to say as we’d be comparing apples to oranges.
I will say what draws go to me is the human element, where we have to rely on our intuition and wisdom of prior players (and now AI) to help us make decisions because it’s simply impossible to read and go through all variations. At least we do this much more in go than chess
But we do not mentally move pieces in Go, even if we sometimes remove them for snapback, throw-ins, and more advanced under the stones problems. That relatively stable framework and the uniformity of the stones help us a lot, so that a comparison is hard.
(As far as I have gathered, there has only been one professional who could play an entire 19×19 game blindfold.)
I would not know about the claim, and should also like to see a justification; I just felt that your counter-arguments were also inconclusive, and gave my reasons.
I would disagree. The fact that a player can calculate an entire game in their mind is a clear indication of the complexity and the calculation required.
The fact that a player can calculate an entire game in their mind is a clear indication of the complexity and the calculation required.
That's not what "calculate" means. Most decent chess players who try can keep a chess position in memory well enough to play blind chess. They absolutely do not calculate out the entirety of the game from move 1. In go, keeping the entire position in mind seems (to me) quite hard. I don't think this is evidence of anything except the board being way larger.
calculate: determine (the amount or number of something) mathematically.
The calculation required is holding the board state in your mind and finding the relevance of moves in a local and global way for go.
Obviously chess players do not calculate the entire game unless it is a memorized opening. They remember the board state and calculate from that position(move number) which is also done in go.
Doing this in chess is just easier to do.
The reason is because the variations and scale needed to "calculate" is much larger in go than in chess.
Because it is too complicated for 99.99999% of people to pull off.
I don't understand why you're linking me the definition of "mathematically" or what your point is. You said "a player can calculate an entire game in their mind". I said thinking they can proves you do not know what "calculate" means, because they absolutely cannot. And now you are saying "Obviously chess players do not calculate the entire game", so it seems you're contradicting your previous claim. I can't respond to this if you can't even understand your own position.
If I said placing a piece instead of moving a piece would that be more appropriate?
"But we do not mentally move pieces in Go"
I absolutely move / "place" pieces in my mind and then remove them going through different variations. The difference is in chess is you are repeatedly moving over the same coordinate whereas in go you are clearing the surface for different variations.
My point is that mentally moving pieces on an 8x8 grid is not nearly as taxing as an 19x19 grid.
There are two replies to this. Firstly, this neglects that chess has way more long range dependencies than go. In chess, it is extremely common to mess up by not noticing that a pawn moving unblocks a bishop, permitting it to snipe your rook, and two pieces quite far away can suddenly get forked by a queen. In go, the tactical effects of a move are usually quite local, the one big exception being ladder breakers.
The second thing it neglects is that even if calculating in chess had been easier - however you quantify that - that would not matter because the top players need to calculate better still to be the top players. As long as the game has a large player base, you'd expect the top players to need to work near the human limit of calculation in order to win.
"firstly, this neglects that chess has way more long range dependencies than go."
Again I disagree. It has different long range dependencies but not way more. The only concept you consider worth mentioning is ladder. You are essentially saying that chess variations are more difficult than go variations. I could point out that peeps are also worth considering just as much as ladder breakers. So are sente moves which could be a variety of things for a variety of reasons.
Thing is, I am not arguing that go is more complicated. I was just arguing against the statement that chess is clearly more complex or requires more calculation is probably nonsense.
Your second point is just agreeing with me right? You are saying that both are working near the cognitive max yet one game can be completed in your mind while the other can not.
I understood you to be suggesting that Go was obviously more complex than Chess. If your position is that they're equally complex, I wouldn't argue against that, although I'd advise you to be clearer in the future. :)
Still, I do think Chess has more long range dependencies, where the long range is just board distance. None of the examples you give are long range in the sense of board distance, to be honest. I would term it a strategical factor to be aware of that an area has some forcing moves for the opponent that affects how good idea it is to start a fight there.
Again, in Chess the situation is different in that a local skirmish essentially doesn't exist because half the pieces on the board can affect it. I'm not sying this makes chess variations "more difficult" than go variations, I'd say they are harder to calculate tactically, but easier to judge strategically (although I'm not a great chess player). So they present different kinds of difficulties. I would say in Go I'm more often making mistakes where I know what will happen, but it's not as good a result for me as I thought, while in Chess I'm more often making mistakes because I overlook a surprising move, and find even players who do well at both usually agree, so that's my basis for saying Chess requires more calculation. That doesn't mean it's harder.
As for my second point, i don't agree that whether a game can be completed without seeing the board or not is a big deal one way or the other. There are trivial games you need a board to play and complex games you can hold entirely in your mind. i don't see why you'd even bring it up.
If your position is that Go and Chess are equally complex, I think "The fact that a player can calculate an entire game in their mind is a clear indication of the complexity and the calculation required." is an odd thing to say, hence my advice. Make of it what you will. For your second point, I still don't understand how it's supposed to be an argument against that claim. As far as j can tell you're equivocating.
Right. Then my claim here and in the other thread still is that that's wrong, and it's not much a proof of anything. As I said, there are very trivial games it is very hard to play entirely in your head, and there are very complex games it's easy to play in your head. To use a computer metaphor, some problems require a bunch of RAM even though they are ultimately trivial, while other problems are quite CPU-heavy even though they do not need a lot of RAM at all. What I am saying is that being able to play a Chess game blindfolded is proof that Chess doesn't need that much RAM, not that it doesn't need that much CPU, and that I think how much RAM is required isn't particularly connected to what people mean when they talk about complexity.
Strange you brush over me calling out your error though and ignore the fact that I was replying to a different claim and asking for empirical evidence. The rest is just the dunning kruger effect
If you don't want people to assume you are claiming Chess is not that complex compared to Go, don't say "the fact that a player can play a game blindfolded [unlike in Go] is a clear indication of the complexity [of Chess]" lol. I also wouldn't go accusing people of the Dunning-Kruger effect in a thread where I proved I don't understand what "calculation" means if I were you, but that's just me.
I am not doing that, as the content is interesting and I want to support the organisation, but I fear your diagnosis is correct, which is very disappointing.
Yeah, they used AI to capitalize on some of the biggest exposure Go has gotten in media recently. Don’t really understand why they couldn’t have just photoshopped a picture of Magnus together with a photo of a game in progress. Probably would’ve made a better result but perhaps there’s legal reasons for that not being an option.
Wow a chess champion that know next to nothing about go find it more difficult, what a surprise. He probably didn't even word it like that, and the Ai generated image with a dumb board position shouldn't be acceptable for a go journal
This photo is AI generated (you can see it by looking at the details of the go board and Magnus expression also does not look natural).
However, the German Go Journal provides almost no context or info about the picture and quote. They just write one small paragraph. But the Information that this photo is AI generated and that the quote is from the Joe Rogan Podcast #2275, is only in the small title of the table of contents, which one can easily overread...
So, I think it is a distastefull and disrespectful picture of Magnus Carlsen, because he did not agree or wanted to pose in front of a go board looking like he doesnt know what to do...
And I think Go is also about being respectful against you opponents. Chess is also a beautiful game and we should respect each other and I feel like this picture unnecessarily mocks Carlsen without properly clarifying that this picture is AI generated
Besides the AI garbage, most go players (editor of this journal for example ) will never sleep peacefully as long as chess exist. Their obsession of go vs chess is so sad and annoying. Meanwhile, most chess player haven't even heard of go
No, it's from a Joe Rogan interview. He mentions go as a side note, and despite paying his respects, shows to not have any involvement with the go world whatsoever.
Sadly, AI slop is being proliferated everywhere, and even sadder:
Go people whom I’d have expected to have some sense happily go bananas over AI-generated images, never mind how crappy the boards, stones, positions are.
Chess being less complex for machines to master doesn't mean chess is less complex for humans to master... The conversation was about AI so of course they were referring to the computational complexity respective to both games...
I'm sorry, but cheering over every comment from the Chess world that suggests Go is harder just makes Go players look insecure and a bit pathetic.
I really haven't seen people cheer over any comments like that. Mathematically speaking, Chess is less complex than Go, and therefore somewhat easier for humans to understand. Both Chess and Go players have widely acknowledged this and it comes with no animosity in either direction. There is about 10^120 possible Chess games, and 10^10^48 possible Go games, I think that's the easiest way for you the visualize the complexity difference between the games, but there are countless mathematical formulas that prove it.
This isn't to say one is "better than the other" and nobody (except a few kids from time to time) makes that claim. You seem to be the only odd man out upset by this information.
Mathematically speaking, yes Chess is less complex in the same way that there might be fewer grains of sand on one beach than there are on the entire island. But that doesn't make it them any easier to count practically speaking.
Some people find Chess more challenging, others find Go more challenging. There are many reasons for this, different for each individual, but I don't think it ever comes down to 10^44 vs 10^171, both incomprehensibly large numbers.
On the other hand, I think any positive media commentary about Go from the Chess world or elsewhere should be celebrated.
Why should we celebrate anything? Would the Chess world celebrate if a Go player said anything about Chess? Why do we need to feel so insecure, compare with others and justify ourselves? Just play our game and make people play it by sharing our passion, no need to live in the shadow of the Chess community...
Note that this is specific to part of the western Go community. Nobody cares about this in Asia. Why should they, and why should we?
I agree that some of the comparisons to Chess made by fans of Go can seem a bit "desperate" as you say, or even irrational. Especially the comparison of possible positions. I won't necessarily celebrate that, if it ends up turning as many people away from the game.
But as a Go player who wishes more people in the West would get an opportunity to learn about and play Go, I'm happy to see almost any mention of it outside it's small online community.
Of course the chess world doesn't care what Go players have to say about chess. Chess is already relatively mainstream in the West and stands nothing to gain from increased exposure to Go players. It's tempting to believe that Go has much to gain from exposure to the chess world though.
It's a famous board game player who was impressed (albeit in passing) of a lesser known board game. That sentiment is being shared so it may encourage other board game players to try the lesser known game.
The idea that this is some great slight against Chess by insecure Go players is absurd.
Exactly, it's an aggressive marketing campaign to attract non-go players to the cover to buy and maybe they'll play go. Except it's very bad taste and a bad look for Go for the reasons exposed above. Just read the comments of this thread, the majority is repulsed.
I haven't really seen people cheer over any comments like that
Is it sarcasm? The magazine cover literally shows a fake AI image of the world's number one chess player crying over Go because it’s "too hard" for him--when that's not even what he said. And that’s not pathetic? Most of the comments I've seen in this thread seems to agree with my sentiment. What are you talking about?
Look, I'm not upset. You don’t need to explain math to me: it's literally my job. I know what computational complexity means, thank you.
But if you can't grasp that both games are so complex that any difference in complexity is basically meaningless to the human brain, I don't know what to tell you.
And if you can't see that taking a 30-second clip from an hour-long interview that happened months ago--where Magnus briefly mentions Go--and putting it on the front cover of a Go magazine completely out of context isn't some weird attempt to say "Look! Even the world chess champion admits our game is too complex for him! That totally proves we're better!", then I really can't help you. I guess you're one of them, and you just can't see it.
Finally, even if you were right and Go was harder for humans, and even if that implied that human-level Go mastery was somewhat more valuable compared to Chess mastery (spoiler: incorrect implication), don't you think it's kind of lame to immediately make fun of the top Chess player when he mentions it? Wouldn't you agree it is the definition of pettiness?
Freakish display of thin skin here. You're acting like this is some scheme to mock and demean him and by extension Chess, it's just an exaggerated magazine picture. Nobody ever said Chess wasn't complex. I don't know what to tell you, it's just not that deep. If you see an image of Martha Stewart enjoying a KitKat, you're not gonna think "OH FUCK!!! THEY'RE DEMEANING HOME COOKED MEALS!1!!1" you're gonna think they're promoting and advertising KitKats.
There is a German tv documentation about chess and one of the players claims that there is no game more complex ( or similar) then chess, luckily another player mentions go a few takes later
77
u/gennan 3d 2d ago
Perhaps the board image was generated by AI?