Why do we place the stones at the intersection of the lines?

[Alcadeias]

Hello.

I'm a novice at Go, and I have a novice question:

Why are the stones placed at the intersections of the vertical and horizontal lines?

Why don't we place the stones inside the squares of the board like in chess or in draughts/checkers?

Concerning rules, gameplay and strategy, this would make absolutely no difference. (Except for the fact that if you want to continue playing 19x19 Go you would need a board consisting of 19x19 squares which means 18x18 lines.)

Thanks in advance for your answers.

[xed_over]

(Except for the fact that if you want to continue playing 19x19 Go you would need a board consisting of 19x19 squares which means 18x18 lines.)

20x20


There's nothing to say you couldn't play inside the squares. Or even use a blank board with no lines or squares at all. Aside from tradition/convention, the lines/squares are really nothing more than a visual aid for the connecting stones and boundaries. I think its easier to visualize the connections of the stones along the lines, than it would be within the squares.

[DrStraw]

Stones are connected along the lines, so isn't it perfectly natural? Another was of putting it is why does chess play in the middle of the squares? And the answer is probably that it doesn't have the same idea of connectivity.

[Mike Novack]

I rather suspect the answer is "chance".

There are two possibilities to have been chosen from, use the intersections or use the squares. Going back to antiquity, some games used the intersections (go, nine man morris aka the mill, etc.) and some games the squares (chess, checkers, etc.).

The explanation that intersections imply connection makes sense when you consider go and the mill but then why isn't checkers played on the intersections? (with a diagonal grid -- logical, no?)

Some ancient games we know of only by boards and pieces the archeologists may be making the wrong assumption (assuming played on the squares but perhaps these games used the intersections).

[RobertJasiek]

There are three possibilities: stones on intersections, lines or facets.

[Tim C Koppang]

The explanation that intersections imply connection makes sense when you consider go and the mill but then why isn't checkers played on the intersections? (with a diagonal grid -- logical, no?)

Actually, there is an interesting historical note here. Most scholars agree that the precursor to Checkers is Alquerque, which was played on the intersections of a 5x5 board. Different games in different regions of the world developed from Alquerque. For example, Fanorona is still played the intersections; however, in Europe, where the Chess board was already popular, the game switched over to being played on the squares.

[Joaz Banbeck]

My guess is that is has something to do with playing in the sand.

I'm assuming that the original players of board games were in a really primitive society, where making a board was a high tech operation requiring a serious investment of time, tools, and energy. So they played in sand. ( Early civilizations seem to have grown up first around rivers like the Indus, Nile, Tigris/Euphrates, Yellow, etc. Rivers often have sand flats and lots of small stones. )

Once you have lines drawn in the sand, placing a stone on an intersection doesn't disturb them much, for there is already a depression there. But placing a stone on a square, which is relatively high, tends to squash it and thereby blur the lines. Playing just a few dozen moves will wreck the board.

So the earliest players played in the sand and they played on intersections.

Thus the question really should be not why go is played on intersections - for it was always played on them - but rather: how did the square-placing games like chess and checkers mutate?

[Mike Novack]

So the earliest players played in the sand and they played on intersections.

Thus the question really should be not why go is played on intersections - for it was always played on them - but rather: how did the square-placing games like chess and checkers mutate?

Well ...... from archeology we have evidence boards and pieces of unknown games that appear to have been played in the squares. Though that of course may be wrong. In many cases all we know about the game is its name. In other cases, perhaps not even that.

I don't think we can put any of these games down to an age when played on scratches in the mud or sand. Nomadic people might not want to have carried a board around but no big deal for sedentary people and I think you overestimate the technological difficulties of producing a board. Or are you imagining the game origins predate pottery? If you can scratch the lines in mud then you can scratch them in more suitable mud (clay) and make a board just as you probably made pieces.

[Cassandra]

I suppose that all has to do with the properties, abilities, and values of the game's pieces, as well as with the aim of the game.

In games like Chess, and Shôgi, it is important to OCCUPY a (let's say) piece of land. This -- in principle -- means that the opponent will be unable to occupy this piece of land (with some kind of pieces being inhibited to occupy only "occupation-threatend" pieces of land). Additionally, a "warrier" needs a sure stand.

In games like Go, it is important to SURROUND land.
All pieces have the same value, but these will gain the more "power" the more "connected" they are. And "connection" is best visualised by lines.