>I think we will see a complete analysis of go before we see one of chess because of its simpler structure. Reason is that go is mathematically simpler
This is a false issue I think. Actually, the complexity of chess allows us to reduce the search space a lot more, whereas in go the inherent simplicity in the game itself is built in a way where the entire search space is "potentially" useful, meaning the search space is really big.
This is just my intuition, but I feel like the simplicity makes the game irreducible in itself.
I think you are misunderstanding what "complete analysis" means. As soon as one uses a heuristic like "don't move your king on move 2", one gives up the possibility of a full analysis.
For go (technically: the mathematical variant), we can fully analyze some endgames where there still are 40 or 50 possible moves without an exhaustive tree search. For chess, almost all we have are databases storing the results of tree searches, and little of that helps when looking at slightly different positions (example: let's say you know how to win with knight and bishop against a lone king. If I have an extra pawn, does that affect your first move?)
This is a false issue I think. Actually, the complexity of chess allows us to reduce the search space a lot more, whereas in go the inherent simplicity in the game itself is built in a way where the entire search space is "potentially" useful, meaning the search space is really big.
This is just my intuition, but I feel like the simplicity makes the game irreducible in itself.