Let me try to translate that a bit. In chess, the pieces are intrinsically different. Their role in the game depends on the kind of piece they are, which doesn

Let me try to translate that a bit. In chess, the pieces are intrinsically different. Their role in the game depends on the kind of piece they are, which doesn't change (unless a pawn promotes, I guess), instead of their position or relation with other pieces, which changes constantly. In go, all stones are identical, and their differences arise from their relationships with other stones around them. In chess, you play to kill the opponent's pieces. In go, you play to claim territory. It's possible to win without ever taking an opposing stone. Although what's territory can be very fluid, because stones can be placed anywhere, and thereby kill a group that was thought to be alive, save a group that seemed dead, destroy or claim territory. But it all depends on the stone's relation to other stones. Chess depends much more on what a single piece is capable of. Even a poorly positioned queen is worth more than a very active bishop, because the queen can move to a better position, but the bishop can't turn into a queen. I'm sure a missed a lot of nuance. I have no idea what they mean by nomos and polis, and parts of the second paragraph sound like I disagree with it. Maybe my translation is more my own opinion than a translation of theirs.