[math-fun] pointless chess/go Lasker Lange trivia
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. It is a deep game, much deeper than chess, although the rules are simpler. -- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step)
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.
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.
--well, I saw some, but none I terribly liked. And the fact some elementary book was written by some 9 dan pro, was kind of like a nuclear weapon to squash an ant. But I think the authors ought to be better than Edward Lasker was.
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).
--yah, that worked somewhat, but not too well. Actually I have a highly unsupported theory that go strength is not well correlated with math ability (except in the beginner stage) and is better correlated with language ability. Have you noticed such a correlation? My language and go abilities both have never been all that good.
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,
--well, it is mysterious. But there seem to be a wider range of human strengths at go, than at chess. That's one metric. And at least for me, I think I can comprehend the vast majority of grandmaster chess games, but not at all the case with go. And a third metric is the difficulty of making a computer play strong, and the fact that even when they succeeded, the program sort of was unable to explain to its creators how it did it. Whereas even the strongest chess programs so far, all are pretty comprehensible; if you read the source code for the evaluator, then you know how it works. -- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step)
On 2016-04-12 16:29, Warren D Smith wrote:
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.
--well, I saw some, but none I terribly liked. And the fact some elementary book was written by some 9 dan pro, was kind of like a nuclear weapon to squash an ant. But I think the authors ought to be better than Edward Lasker was.
I read Lasker's and Korschelt's (spelling?) books in the late 70s. Even then, there were much better books. I don't know if our tastes are similar, but if you want I can tell you books that I liked (back then). There are probably even better books now. But playing against stronger humans who are willing (and able) to be good teachers, and then going through game records, is going to be better than any books.
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).
--yah, that worked somewhat, but not too well. Actually I have a highly unsupported theory that go strength is not well correlated with math ability (except in the beginner stage) and is better correlated with language ability. Have you noticed such a correlation? My language and go abilities both have never been all that good.
Hmm. I haven't noticed a correlation with either math or language. But I'm not sure I'm the best judge. My sense is that it correlates more (beyond a certain basic ability to concentrate) with enthusiasm and experience (if you're willing to play a thousand games and think about them, you will get better, even if you have terrible mathematical or linguistic skills). People with good spatial reasoning skills have certain advantages, people with good memories have others, people with good reasoning skills have yet others. I don't know that there's any simple correlation. It seems very multidimensional to me. I have noticed that some people pick it up and get very good very quickly, but I don't have a generalization that covers them. This is probably due to a lack of observation on my part.
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,
--well, it is mysterious. But there seem to be a wider range of human strengths at go, than at chess. That's one metric. And at least for me, I think I can comprehend the vast majority of grandmaster chess games, but not at all the case with go. And a third metric is the difficulty of making a computer play strong, and the fact that even when they succeeded, the program sort of was unable to explain to its creators how it did it. Whereas even the strongest chess programs so far, all are pretty comprehensible; if you read the source code for the evaluator, then you know how it works.
Well, I think one of the strengths of go is that it has a handicapping system that allows players of unequal ranks to play games that aren't as dissimilar as spotting a queen or a rook. Chess games are fundamentally altered by a handicap, while go games are changed (as black in a high handicap game, you start out with a lot of influence) they aren't so fundamentally different than a normal game (and komi changes the game even less). I think this allows a wider range of players; it makes sense to talk about ranks of much weaker players. In chess, it's hard to talk about the lower end of the range. I am not particularly expert in either go or chess, so my opinions aren't worth much. Both are complicated and deep *enough*, for me, to be entertaining and enjoyable in ways that tic-tac-toe (or even othello) is not. Checkers is also too complex for me to play perfectly, yet it is less enjoyable than go or chess --- so maybe I am just saying that I, personally, can't distinguish between the levels of complexity in chess and go, but for people who can, it makes sense that they'd find go more appealing.
participants (4)
-
Hans Havermann -
Michael Greenwald -
Michael Greenwald -
Warren D Smith