user32049: During recent online chat with gamers, I asserted that 'go' (and possibly othello) had a larger decision space than chess.
After reading Wikipedia, I realized I failed to account for othello and go 'saturating' the board with pieces and dramatically limiting available moves in the late game.
The opposite is true for chess. The decision space dramatically increases as the board is cleared.
From my non-expert opinion, this phenomenon would shift the balance away from position and towards the individual skill of the expert players. This skill is at the heart of the competition itself. The "precision" of skill would be more relevant in the late game.
So my question is: do master players naively assume the path that brought them to the weaker position is representative of the late game? Does the balance shift away from position enough to warrant the stronger position proving his mettle in late game?

user18590: It's quite contrary. Experienced chess players values a fair play and doesn't account on possibilities that opponent will make an error, which will be exploited. So a good chess player would assume that he/she is playing with itself (equally strong player). In this case, usually many game outcomes are determined by difference of captured peaces between you and opponent. Even a difference of one pawn in the beginning can lead to a victory at the end. Of course while board is full, this advantage can quickly be destroyed by opponent later captured peaces. However as board gets more and more empty, situation becomes more unlikely that opponent will reverse captured peaces advantage. So small game fluctuations at the beginning becomes a fatal damage in the end. Like death is a fatal outcome of small entropy accumulations in a lifetime. So by the time experienced chess player sees an unstoppable force, it's wise to resign, not wasting time and energy for a boring game, where is no point to think anymore. And it's not naive, it's a very clever and honored move.

user32051: An increase in possible moves does not equate to the number of meaningful choices. If you have ten moves that all win the game, it is not usually hard to pick one. Sometimes endgames are hard because they are obvious.
In Go, even at the end of the game, there is plenty to choose from. At the top level of the game, the exact order of moves may still swindle the result. Not like one move one point better but 1/4th of a point better. It is something that does not matter to me, but to pro-players it does. There are known cases of players resigning after evaluating a loss on half a point.

user13012: By the time an expert resigns the decision tree may still be large but its evaluation has become simple. Players usually resign because continuing would be miserable to them and boring to their opponent.

32049: <p>During recent online chat with gamers, I asserted that 'go' (and possibly othello) had a larger decision space than chess.</p>
<p>After reading Wikipedia, I realized I failed to account for othello and go 'saturating' the board with pieces and dramatically limiting available moves in the late game.</p>
<p>The opposite is true for chess. The decision space dramatically increases as the board is cleared.</p>
<p>From my non-expert opinion, this phenomenon would shift the balance away from position and towards the individual skill of the expert players. This skill is at the heart of the competition itself. The &quot;precision&quot; of skill would be more relevant in the late game.</p>
<p>So my question is: do master players naively assume the path that brought them to the weaker position is representative of the late game? Does the balance shift away from position enough to warrant the stronger position proving his mettle in late game?</p>
 18590: <p>It's quite contrary. Experienced chess players values a fair play and doesn't account on possibilities that opponent will make an error, which will be exploited. So a good chess player would assume that he/she is playing with itself (equally strong player). In this case, usually many game outcomes are determined by difference of captured peaces between you and opponent. Even a difference of one pawn in the beginning can lead to a victory at the end. Of course while board is full, this advantage can quickly be destroyed by opponent later captured peaces. However as board gets more and more empty, situation becomes more unlikely that opponent will reverse captured peaces advantage. So small game fluctuations at the beginning becomes a fatal damage in the end. Like death is a fatal outcome of small entropy accumulations in a lifetime. So by the time experienced chess player sees an unstoppable force, it's wise to resign, not wasting time and energy for a boring game, where is no point to think anymore. And it's not naive, it's a very clever and honored move.</p>
 32051: <p>An increase in possible moves does not equate to the number of meaningful choices. If you have ten moves that all win the game, it is not usually hard to pick one. Sometimes endgames are hard because they are obvious.</p>
<p>In Go, even at the end of the game, there is plenty to choose from. At the top level of the game, the exact order of moves may still swindle the result. Not like one move one point better but 1/4th of a point better. It is something that does not matter to me, but to pro-players it does. There are known cases of players resigning after evaluating a loss on half a point.</p>
 13012: <p>By the time an expert resigns the decision tree may still be large but its evaluation has become simple. Players usually resign because continuing would be miserable to them and boring to their opponent.</p>
