[lmm]

> you can find people almost anywhere ready to play with you

Depends where you are and on your circle of friends.

> The board and pieces are a chance for art that I've not seen in Go.

That seems like making a virtue of necessity. I always found the fancy carved sets harder to play with than a basic one, though YMMV. And there are certainly beautiful antique Go sets, though it's maybe a more austere kind of beauty. But you can play it with a pen and paper and a pile of paperclips and staples if you have to, which is a bigger advantage to my mind.

> I'd rather play a game that is interesting, but basic, that models the complexity of life and its political and caste dynamics

Go is more basic than chess and at least as interesting, and grounded very much in politics. It reflects a culture in which control over territory is the most important thing (farmland is scarce in Japan), and is all about the subtle nuances of power projection - the difference between occupying a place and controlling it.

> and that's fun to play on any level.

Huh? It's much easier to have an interesting beginner game of Go than Chess - the rules are simpler and there are not really any openings to memorize, no four-move mate or Queen stampeding around the board. Even as a complete beginner in Go, your tactics may be poor, but you're playing the same strategic game as an expert. It also has a much more practical handicap system - between club-level chess players even a pawn is a massive advantage, so you can only have close games between players of very similar ability, whereas in Go a player who's two ranks ahead can just take a two stone handicap.

> It also enlightens us to the fact that humans cannot beat computers at strategy when computers are given sufficient time and resources (because we can't).

That seems a bizarre thing to base your choice of game on.

[purpled_haze]

> Depends where you are and on your circle of friends.

chess.com

> I always found the fancy carved sets harder to play with than a basic one

Me also.

> That seems a bizarre thing to base your choice of game on.

It was a response to a criticism, not basis for choosing to play Chess.

[lmm]

> chess.com

Plenty of equivalents for any number of games.

> It was a response to a criticism, not basis for choosing to play Chess.

Fair enough. In that case I'd say: computers aren't yet better than humans at strategy in general; real world conflict doesn't have an openings book (which is where computers get a lot of their advantage in chess) or indeed an endings book, and in that sense go is a better reflection of the state of the art, and the way computers gain an advantage in go will be closer to the way they will gain an advantage in real conflict.

Yes, that computers are better than humans at rote memorization is a fact worth remembering - but playing a game of rote memorization is still an unpleasant, anti-humanistic experience.