In general 'world-re'building' is what the vast majority of people here do. We don't completely throw out the rulebook on physical laws or history and start again, rather we take a world that's already been built (even if it's right at the fundamental level) and ask how our changes might affect it.
But onto the actual question.
I personally think that questions of this type 'what if x person had done y instead of what they actually did?' are rarely suitable for worldbuilding, but that's because they tend to generate opinion based answers, not because they're based on works or a world that already exists. In the example given, the 'correct answer' depends a lot on what the OP's opinion is of Stephan Zweig, and what various people's opinions of the effects are. It also (and this is crucial) has no bearing on a world that the OP is building. He's just asking a hypothetical question about a book someone else has written. If the question was reworded as 'Could an imprisoned man learn Go in a way similar to that used in The Royal Game?', then it would be on topic.
It's possible that someone on Writers would have a better idea of how the book would have been written on a different subject (or for the OP to write a book in the style of Zweig), or someone on chess might have a better idea of what the effects would have been on the game of chess had The Royal Game been written about Go, but overall this isn't a suitable question for any of the stacks, due to the lack of any way to define the acceptability of an answer. Two separate questions (one chess, one writers) could potentially do the trick, but you'd have to craft them very well.
For future instances of this kind of question: It depends upon the question. If the question falls within the scope of worldbuilding and isn't going to produce opinion based answers then it's fine. Otherwise? Well. We've already got rules for that.