On 2016-04-12 12:06, Warren D Smith wrote:
Edward & Emanuel Lasker were related but only distantly. They also knew each other and both played go and chess.
Also, there were two famous "Max Lange"s in Germany at about same time, who played chess and/or go, and kew the Laskers... but I do not know whether the two Max Langes were related.
Although the Laskers thought they were very strong go players, likely among the strongest in the West at the time, they were probably quite weak by Asian standards, plausibly about 1 amateur dan. I unfortunately learned go initially from Lasker's book. I really do not know how best to learn go in English.
There are many more recent go books than Lasker's, written by much stronger players. Many are translated from Japanese or Chinese or Korean, or written by contemporary Go masters who speak English. There are also plenty of game records with commentary, both printed in (nice) books and online. But best is probably just going to a local Go club and playing games with a strong player. (You can do this online, too, but teaching games, at least at first, are probably best face-to-face).
It is a deep game, much deeper than chess, although the rules are simpler.
I enjoy go more than chess, but I'm always puzzled by this kind of remark. It is true that go is (in theory) more complex than chess, but both are beyond the ability of human players to perfect, so their relative hardness shouldn't be directly relevant. [Maybe it makes a difference to people who are much stronger than I am] The differences between go and chess that seem relevant (a game of trade-offs versus a single goal (capturing the king), for one example) are not directly comparable. But both are fun and both have great puzzles.