&gt; chess.com<p>Plenty of equivalents for any number of games.<p>&gt; It was a response to a criticism, not basis for choosing to play Chess.<p>Fair enough. In that case I&#x27;d say: computers aren&#x27;t yet better than humans at strategy in general; real world conflict doesn&#x27;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.<p>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.