Answers.Body: <p>Go:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>3 type of piece on a square (black, white, none)</li>
  <li>huge board (19x19)</li>
  <li>pieces appearing on board</li>
  <li>close to 3^400 possible positions</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>Chess</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>13 type of pieces on a square (6 black, 6 white, none)</li>
  <li>smaller board (8x8)</li>
  <li>pieces are changing</li>
  <li>less than 13^64 possible positions</li>
  </ul>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-12-30T14:26:01.573Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-12-30T14:26:01.573Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Usern4me
Answers.Body: <p>Chess: </p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>Chess programming pretty much consists of optimising the tree search. All attempts at introducing "human like knowledge" into the engines have been dropped for more and more sophisticated search heuristics. </li>
  <li>The ultimate goal in chess programming has been reached. In fact one could argue that chess programming overshot it's goal by a mile or two. Since the mid-2000s no human player stands a chance against the top engines. </li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>Go:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>Apart from searching a search tree of possible variations the latest advances in go programming have included such divers techniques as <a href="http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/D.Silver/web/Applications_files/grand-challenge.pdf" rel="nofollow">Monte Carlo simulations</a> and <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.3409" rel="nofollow">neural networks</a>.</li>
  <li>The best human players are still stronger than the engines, so arguably there is still more to accomplish. </li>
  </ul>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-12-10T12:41:31.077Z
Answers.Text: This answer was valid when written, but computers have since beaten humans at Go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_versus_Lee_Sedol
Answers.UserDisplayName: user985366
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-12-30T22:47:41.743Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-12-30T22:47:41.743Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Body: <p>Please list the differences between the game of Chess and the game of Go for engine programming in a similar format as this one:</p>
  
  <p>Go:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>Item 1</li>
  <li>Item 2</li>
  <li>...</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>Chess:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>Item 1</li>
  <li>Item 2</li>
  <li>...</li>
  </ul>
  
Tags: <engines><chess-variants>
Title: What are the differences between Chess and Go from the perspective of computers?
ThreadText: # What are the differences between Chess and Go from the perspective of computers?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2015-12-30)
  
  Please list the differences between the game of Chess and the game of Go for engine programming in a similar format as this one:
  
  Go:
  
  * Item 1
  * Item 2
  * ...
  
  Chess:
  
  * Item 1
  * Item 2
  * ...
  
  **Tags:** engines, chess-variants
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2015-12-30. Score: 1 | Accepted answer
  
  Go:
  
  * 3 type of piece on a square (black, white, none)
  * huge board (19x19)
  * pieces appearing on board
  * close to 3^400 possible positions
  
  Chess
  
  * 13 type of pieces on a square (6 black, 6 white, none)
  * smaller board (8x8)
  * pieces are changing
  * less than 13^64 possible positions
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2015-12-30. Score: 2
  
  Chess:
  
  * Chess programming pretty much consists of optimising the tree search. All attempts at introducing "human like knowledge" into the engines have been dropped for more and more sophisticated search heuristics.
  * The ultimate goal in chess programming has been reached. In fact one could argue that chess programming overshot it's goal by a mile or two. Since the mid-2000s no human player stands a chance against the top engines.
  
  Go:
  
  * Apart from searching a search tree of possible variations the latest advances in go programming have included such divers techniques as [Monte Carlo simulations](http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/D.Silver/web/Applications_files/grand-challenge.pdf) and [neural networks](http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.3409).
  * The best human players are still stronger than the engines, so arguably there is still more to accomplish.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_3**: This answer was valid when written, but computers have since beaten humans at Go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_versus_Lee_Sedol  
  
  ---
  
  