Yes, there's an interesting distinction here. Although I'd say it's more like Chess than Go, in the sense the mechanics are really simple in Go, while Chess has specific rules for each piece and you should memorize openings and quirks to get an edge (Go is much more about generalization).
In reality, both Chess and Go and all board games are fairly simple, you can learn all the rules in a few sittings and then just focus on strategy.
In roguelikes, often learning the system is the point (or a point) of the game. The fun, at least to me, is in dealing with the unknown and discovering how it works and what works.
Nethack (a classic roguelike) takes it to the extreme -- a bit too much in fact, because an essential game mechanic is an obscure passage you'd have to deduct (Elbereth). But the fun is there: you grab a potion and have no idea what happens if you drink it -- maybe you will be killed instantly, maybe it will make you into a god -- it's not just "which of those effects am I going to get?". You have to rely on previous knowledge, as well as expectations from similar games and what you know about the game.
But isn't that quite common IRL? Like, okay figuring out what you should be eating has a science to back it (albeit quite extensive): you read the most effective diets, what risks it reduces, you health, your weight and need to make a decision. Already not very simple strategic decision. And then you need to take into account satisfying your tastes, how often diet fads reverse (is eating butter healthy? go figure), how to do it when sharing a meal with other people, and so on. The unknowns are as significant as skillful strategic planning. The same could be said to running a company: you need to manage uncertainties in a vast decision space, with opportunities like calling for partnerships, merging, buying other companies, spending on uncertain research, and much more. You slowly acquire domain-specific knowledge (with help from the vast literature, plus a few insights of yours) and use that to in turn reduce and manage uncertainties and plan ahead (here your model of other players and capability to find the 'best move' -- least risky, greatest payoff, more robust -- will shine).
In reality, both Chess and Go and all board games are fairly simple, you can learn all the rules in a few sittings and then just focus on strategy.
In roguelikes, often learning the system is the point (or a point) of the game. The fun, at least to me, is in dealing with the unknown and discovering how it works and what works.
Nethack (a classic roguelike) takes it to the extreme -- a bit too much in fact, because an essential game mechanic is an obscure passage you'd have to deduct (Elbereth). But the fun is there: you grab a potion and have no idea what happens if you drink it -- maybe you will be killed instantly, maybe it will make you into a god -- it's not just "which of those effects am I going to get?". You have to rely on previous knowledge, as well as expectations from similar games and what you know about the game.
But isn't that quite common IRL? Like, okay figuring out what you should be eating has a science to back it (albeit quite extensive): you read the most effective diets, what risks it reduces, you health, your weight and need to make a decision. Already not very simple strategic decision. And then you need to take into account satisfying your tastes, how often diet fads reverse (is eating butter healthy? go figure), how to do it when sharing a meal with other people, and so on. The unknowns are as significant as skillful strategic planning. The same could be said to running a company: you need to manage uncertainties in a vast decision space, with opportunities like calling for partnerships, merging, buying other companies, spending on uncertain research, and much more. You slowly acquire domain-specific knowledge (with help from the vast literature, plus a few insights of yours) and use that to in turn reduce and manage uncertainties and plan ahead (here your model of other players and capability to find the 'best move' -- least risky, greatest payoff, more robust -- will shine).