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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
