I haven't tried, or even heard of GO, but I shall check it out.
Considering that Chess has an endless skill-gap, I don't see how it could be harder to play effectively than Chess. As hard? Probably.
A moderately good player will never stand a chance against a Chess Grand Master.
Put it this way, in Chess, which is no doubt a hard game to master, you focus on the opening. There's 8 squares across, and you can make dozens of first move combinations, with increasing number of follow-ups. Chess pieces have prescribed movement patterns.
Go's first move gives you 361 legal options. Some are obviously better than others, but it's more ambiguous. Go stones can't be moved, they are placed and then stationary - unless captured, when they are removed. It is possible to force an opponent to capture in a way that leaves you with the ability to capture back the stones that captured yours. The rules are fairly simple - a stone or group of connected stones that is/are completely surrounded, are captured and removed as opponent's points. Depending on ruleset, the object of the game is generally to enclose as much empty intersections as possible without your opponent invading your territories. There is something called 'ko' rule, which prevents you from endlessly undoing the last move your opponent made, if it were a capture. Eg, you can't capture a stone your opponent just placed if it reverts the board position to its last state. This rule, like the other, while simple - has complex effects. Should you strategically WANT to capture that stone back, you have to play elsewhere first - and you have to play somewhere that will force your opponent to respond, then take back your stone. Of course, "force" is all in the feelings of the player, so again, ambiguity exists. Is your threat big enough?
Go has only a couple rules, is easy to learn, but is ridiculous to get good at. I'm terrible, but it's such a mind-blowing game.
