I found this article about the Roman Ludu latrunculorum
But I feel Go has a fundamental difference with other boardgames - the pieces once placed could not be moved. No matter how the appearance looks similar on the surface, they might originated from very different sources.
Has anyone wondered why this “static” rule existed or evolved from? Most boardgames all seems to involve some moving pieces
I have two thoughts (I hadn’t thought about it before, so they aren’t fully baked). Starting point, that those kinds of games began as a semblance of battlefield/ diplomacy etc situations.
-China wasn’t (isn’t?) really into wars to extend its reach, but rather into actions to settle into areas. So, the thought process of this “reenactment” of diplomacy/ war games is more “how can we create a satisfying status quo” and not so much “how can we push that out of there”.
-There hasn’t been as much moving around of nations/ ethnicities/ races (whatever word, depends on the situation) as in more volatile regions, see Europe. Realistically and historically in Europe and thereabouts, an area would be one “color” (blue, red, green etc), that color would be swept out and another one would take its place. Yes, of course, as in any place in China people are not static, but not in ways that brought visible rifts in continuity.
As always, I may be completely wrong.
Has anyone wondered why this “static” rule existed or evolved from? Most boardgames all seems to involve some moving pieces
In connect-N games like gomoku or four-in-a-row, the pieces are immobile.
Wikipedia suggests that gomoku is a fairly young game, having existed “since the Meiji Restoration”, although one could surmise there might be a longer unattested history.
You could also see ancient people possibly viewing the stones in mancalas as not “having movement” like a xiangqi horse or elephant, since they are usually talked about as seeds which are repeatedly picked up and “sown” by the player.
Found another article, describing an ancient central Europe boardgame from physical evidence seems to fill in the blank between Ludus Latrunculorum and Tafl
https://www.ancientgames.org/poprad-game-board/
Found a lot of the ancient board games around the world with just black and white uniform pieces (unlike chess, where pieces have different roles)
My thought is that it might have to do with a very intense and specific dense irrigation farming culture when it first appeared in a local region.
I found that there are ancient metaphors related to Go, not just with battles and wars, but also about the “flow of chi(氣 the life force)”, “the rice field” (we still see it today in Chinese characters 井田). Think about it, there is another peculiar rule about Go, that the pieces don’t go into the center of the grid, but on the intersection.
Think about the lines not as connections, but irrigation ditches where the grid itself representing a farm plot, and the survival of a farm plot far away from the sources, depended on who controls the intersection, a line of connection isn’t just a border, but like a river allowing chi to flowing through.
P.S. Come to think of it, the rule of playing on the intersections seems to be an unnecessary redundant rule. My profile picture is the best evidence, when you play on the grid, or in the grid (like a pixel) it doesn’t change the game at all.
This might be a clue though, that playing on the gird might mean some mechanism or metaphors in its original form, they got lost over time and leaving behind a relic of a sort.
Although I read a book about the evolution of rules in Go, and the author speculated that the original rule might have nothing to do with how “encircled” more areas, but who control more pieces, or AtariGo who captured more pieces. But I don’t know if there are any evidence to back them up though.
I hadn’t thought of that, that is a very interesting theory!
Most sources that can be found online would pointed the sourced of Go related to astrology, or mysticisms, but I would like to think it could have a more mundane origin. The explanation or interpretation can be cultural, but the rules has to make the game fun first, or it wouldn’t be spread around.
I got same input about astrology, especially mentioned about Tibetan go and how sometimes monks may be reluctant to play because it belongs to divination practice, guessing the future. (Source : some old article in weiqi tiandi my guess)
A lot of the association people make would start from words used in Chinese describing locations on the board, like star points (4-4), and tengen (天元), literally means the center of the sky. And there are comparisons of shapes to constellations. But we have no idea if the game evolved first, and later on, the cultures added metaphors upon them, or the belief came first and inspired the game.
I’d like to think no one just invented it, but it evolved from a simpler form. And the starting idea would not be some high society astrology inspiration, but more down to earth. It’s even likely that Go is kind of a hybrid between several simpler form of board games, and some ideas from astrology. The original “board” might not start with a grid-like pattern at all, judging by many cultures around the world seem to independently come up with various board patterns.
One thing I also think is very curious about Go, it is a “counting up game”. Every game has to finish somehow, and most games are “counting down game”, move till one side run out of pieces. But for Go, you need to be pretty good at add up. So in its core, Go revolves around the idea about who owns more, and it has to reach a full board before the game can end. The original board couldn’t be too big, or making stones alone would cost too much and not easily carry.
I like to think that go did come from some form of divination, similar to how playing cards came from the Tarot. As pure symbol manipulation, I think that imaginative speculation is elementary to human nature, and the concept of a competitive game between players was later layered on top.
Edit: wait! I’m wrong. The deck may have been used for gaming and gambling before divination.
I have a hypothesis for the possible evolution path of Go that leads us here today.
Lots of speculations though, but bases on possible related games that might be the cousins of Go.
Antti lost to Yao Zhi Teng by half a point, I think.
I read in the AGA group that there might be an announcement upcoming to do with the American Pro system.
I haven’t seen the announcement yet, but on the AGA/usgo (AGA Professional System | American Go Association) website there is
The North American Go Federation (NAGF) officially inherited the AGA Professional System as of year 2021. For more information on the NAGF, please visit [the website](https://nagofed.org/).
The AGA Professional System is the official go professional certification system for the United States and Canada. The professional system is organized and authorized by the *Pro-System Committee* of the AGA.
The *Pro Qualification Tournament* is an invitational based on go achievements in various tournaments.
To be an *AGA-Certified Go Professional*, you should:
1. be an American or Canadian citizen
2. meet the Pro-System Committee's residency criteria
3. be qualified as a finalist.
Which links to this modern looking website https://nagofed.org/
I hadn’t come across it before 
There is a bit more about the start of the NAGF here: AGA and CGA announce the North American Go Federation « American Go E-Journal
Ah I missed that one, and it was in the news feed and all! Thanks!
New European go journal starting.
February edition free and available.
Nakamura Sumire is going to be 2p now.
Nice!
I can’t remember if this is already on the forums but here it is again:
The Jena Go school do weekly updates on Go news in Europe and Internationally.
eg the post from yesterday:
"
Don’t forget to tune in to our weekly JIGS TV International Go News tonight! As always, we will go live at 20:30 CET on Twitch: Twitch
"
https://www.twitch.tv/jenainternationalgoschool
Edit: I realised I didn’t say it explicitly but it’s regularly on Mondays at this time I believe