[tbrake]

And yet in chess the Carlsens, Nakamuras, Caruanas, Svidlers etc of the world still compete while knowing they have no chance of beating StockFish running on a modern desktop.

The super GMs of the world - and basically all of the chess loving public with them - seem to have acknowledged it and moved on; why would such a transition be impossible in Go?

[conanbatt]

It might happen, but I hope it doesn't.

I cannot speak for Chess's mindset but as a Devoted Go Player, we are collectively trying to solve it, and so we have for centuries. We play Go to explore its universe and reach utmost understanding of the game(and a glimpse of ourselves). If we ever find(which eventually we shuold) the exact single pattern that is best for both players, and we solve the game, it becomes something different. Maybe it becomes something senseless, or something artful(I can explain the 'art' part if someone asks) but trying to be competitive is silly.

If I devoted my life to Go today, I would not aim at becoming better competing, I'd have to aim at a more effective way to solve the game. Competing was the only thing we had to figure out what was best, but now we can have a companion that will prevent us from faulty variations and logic, and give us instant validation. We can discover more fuseki with a focus group and AlphaGo in a month than in a decade of tournaments.

Competing for the sake of competing is a petty goal.

[nightcracker]

> Competing for the sake of competing is a petty goal.

This makes me much more angry than it probably should. Who are you to decide what is or what is not a petty goal? People will always do what they enjoy, and if they enjoy competition then that is what they will do. There is nothing wrong or petty about that.

[conanbatt]

Its a petty goal because the only thing you want to do is be better than the others. In the end, only 1 person is right, and the only consolation is that others are worse for you. Its also not representative of Go, you can be competitive in eating sausages. If your only reason to play Go is to compete, your contribution to the Go community is marginal

[chipsy]

With respect to Checkers (specifically, the 8x8 English Draughts variant), it's been a solved game as of last decade, and people still play in tournaments. I don't think it's that silly, since there are many techniques we've automated away, yet still practice by hand.

[keithpeter]

"[...]we are collectively trying to solve it, and so we have for centuries. We play Go to explore its universe and reach utmost understanding of the game(and a glimpse of ourselves)."

Is there a literature available in English that explores this attitude/practice? It sounds most interesting. You seem to derive significant meaning from the game and I'm interested in how groups of people find meaning in collective activities.

[conanbatt]

This is more of an insight you get about Go Life, not something we "All know and agree of". Hikaru No Go was a manga that talked a bit about the purpose of playing Go, about being connected with Go players since time immemorial, trying to get perfect play, and failing but getting better each generation.

This is a professional or go devotee mindset, not a typical amateur player that plays without the intent of changing Go Theory or making a legacy.

[Noos]

Why would you do so? The computer will advance much, much quicker than you will because it doesn't have to memorize or be inefficiently trained to be good at Go. It will be able to solve things better than you will, and one day the game will be solved and truly pointless.

[conanbatt]

We might get much quicker to the solution of Go Working with the computers as Go players and scientists, than only scientists.

[deanCommie]

Could you explain to me (someone with a very naive superficial understanding of Go) how Go relates to exploring and understanding the universe?