There have been quite a few threads that which i have read which have been on the topic of Go vs Chess. In many of these threads it is usually cited the that statistically Go is a better game. What they seem to be ignoring is the fact that Chess is played on an 8*8 board while Go is usually played on a 19*19 board. So considering that there are 3 possible positions for every space on the board (that is we have 1 for the a white piece one for a black piece and 1 for a blank space) and the total spaces are 19*19 =361 so we have the total number of positions on the Go board to be 3^361 . If we play chess with a 19*19 board and then we have 13 states for every space with 6 for every piece of one army and 6 piece for the other army with 1 for a blank so we have the total number of states for it as 13^361 which is exponentially much larger than for GO. Remember that this is just the upper limit not all of these positions are possible but same is the case with Go. And lets keep in mind that changing the dimensions of the board has a much dramatic effect on the game play of chess than go where after a certain size the same set of strategies could be applied. And increasing the size of the board also has a much dramatic effect on all the other aspects of chess game play like the complexity of chess openings, an area where go enthusiasts claim that Go has an advantage over chess.

Time to hit the road Bozo! This is a Chess Site & not a Go site. Now take your Barbie Doll & go home to Mama & cry your eyes out! Don't let the Spam hit you on your way out TROLL..!!!!

Oh man can anyone be anymore Gung Ho-ish. Why don't you actually read the post, it isn't that long not even for someone like you. It doesn't talk about Go as being better than Chess just the opposite in fact if you had taken the time to read it. It counters the arguments which many sites have been making to argue that Go is a better game than chess. And it definitely does belongs in the "General Discussion" forum of a chess website.

Vitor, calm down. Comparing Chess to other games is on topic in a general Chess discussion forum.

As for the original topic, I think comparing Go and Chess based on statistics is just silly. The game play is completely different, so it's all a matter of taste. Statistics are irrelevant.

Now comparing Chess and XiangQi based on this type of analysis kinda makes sense, since they're similar games. Fans of XiangQi try to argue that it's the better games, since there's more types of pieces (7 instead of 6), it's played on a 9x10 board instead of 8x8, and there are less draws.

But there's a major factor that they always forget to mention: pawn structure. "Pawns are the soul of Chess", but in XiangQi, they're just a weak attacking piece. They don't protect each other and form pawn chains in XiangQi like they do in Chess, nor do they promote to powerful pieces when they reach their maximum potential on the opponent's back rank. There are also less of them. Thus, in Chess terms, all XiangQi games are open, tactical games, rather than closed games.

So for those who like attacking and tactics, this makes XiangQi the more exciting game. For those who prefer positional subtlety, Chess is superior.

I think XiangQi is more fun as a game, and I'd probably play it a lot more if I had the opportunity to do so. But there are no clubs anywhere near me, and very few internet sites in English, not to mention very little in the way of improvement books published in English. So I stick to Chess, until I get sick of losing, then switch to XiangQi for a while.

--Fromper

Thats what i thought but with these websites putting up all these statistical analysis i thought that i should pay them in their own coin and show them even in the light of these comparisons Chess holds up pretty well.

If comparing Chess to Go is like comparing Apple to Oranges then comparing Chess to Xiangqe is like comparing Oranges to Grape Fruits. A compliment for one is most of the time a compliment of the other. They both belong to the same class of boardgames.