Comments by JohnAyer

I have scrutinized the late-medieval painting on this page (the enlarged image, that is)and it clearly shows the king and griffin on the central files, and crocodiles on e and h.

Yes, I was speaking of the dabbaba(h). As for whether Chinese Chess ever had a leaper, I doubt anyone knows. Murray quotes a later Chinese work on chess, I suspect from the Ming dynasty, remarking on how little they knew of how chess was played in the Tang and Sung periods, except that it was obviously different.

Kohtz's idea is that the same thing did happen a millenium earlier: that the original piece on the corners was what we now call a Dabbabah, and that it was joined and then replaced by the Rook.

I have read and enjoyed the book _The Chess Artist_ by J. C. Hallman. He describes his friendship with a Mongolian woman who is a Grand Master. In one of their conversations she seems to deny that 'Bers' or 'Berse' means anything in Mongolian--except 'chess queen' of course. It is the word 'Fers' adjusted for the fact that Mongolian has no f. It somewhat resembles the words 'Merzé' (mastiff) and 'Bars' (snow-leopard, formerly 'ounce'), both of which have been taken as guides in carving the pieces.

Very well! The site http://www.goddesschess.com/chessays/calvognosis2.html has this to say about a conjectural parent of Chaturanga: <p>The German historian Johannes Kohtz (1843-1918) supposed that in the protochess the Rook was also a jumping figure, with a mobility limited to a third square. So the squares accessible to a Rook in h1 would be f1 and h3, and later in the game f3, d3, d1, b1, b3, b5, d5, f5, h5, h7, f7, d7 and b7. His theory makes a lot of sense (in spite of Murray's rejection after long arguments by post), because the three jumping pieces (Alfil, Knight, and Rook) represent a diagonal, hook-curved and rectilinear movement of the same range. It also expresses a perfect ranking order: The King and the Knight are the only pieces which can move to any of the 64 squares. The Firzan has half of the board, 32. The Rook half of that, 16 squares. And the Alfil, half of that, 8. <p> End of quotation. The goddesschess page cited above suggests that this protochess traveled to Persia, where the concepts of checkmate and check were introduced. The rook was invented to make checkmate more attainable, and the board was enlarged to ten squares by ten to accommodate it. This game is known to John Gollon and his followers as Shatranj al-Kamil Type I. The orthogonal leaper (0,2) in that game is called a Jamal, or camel. It has the same move as the dabbabah in Tamerlane's Shatranj al-Kabir. We are apparently to infer that the rook was so popular that players used it at the corners of the eight-square board instead of the old 0,2 leaper, and the game in this form traveled back to India and supplanted its predecessor as swiftly and thoroughly as modern chess did medieval chess in the late fifteenth century. My thought is simply that Shatranj al-Kamil I traveled along the Silk Road through Central Asia to China, where the camel/dabbabah became the cannon/catapult, extending its leap from two squares to any number. The game was transferred to a previously existing Chinese game-board, and with a few minor adjustments became Xiangqi.

As for Charles Gilman's question as to the literal meaning of Berse: I have read and enjoyed the book _The Chess Artist_ by J. C. Hallman. He describes his friendship with a Mongolian woman who is a Grand Master. In one of their conversations she seems to deny that 'Bers' or 'Berse' means anything in Mongolian--except 'chess queen' of course. It is the word 'Fers' adjusted for the fact that Mongolian has no f. It somewhat resembles the words 'Merzé' (mastiff) and 'Bars' (snow-leopard), both of which have been taken as guides in carving the pieces.

Mr. Truelove knows something about Chezz, and lists pieces that were not described in the only document where I ever saw Chezz mentioned. Where is this information available, or when will we see it?

I think that Tamerlane's Chess was derived from this game. Shatranj al-Kamil Type I has an orthogonal rider, an orthogonal leaper, a diagonal one-step mover, and a diagonal leaper. Someone filled out these two sets with a diagonal-rider (the Taliah, which was for some reason forbidden a single-step move) and an orthogonal one-step mover (the Wazir). Then someone made the horse the basis for another family by adding a one-step-farther leaper (the Jamal) and a diagonal-plus-orthogonal rider (the Zarafah; again, short moves are forbidden). The individualization of the pawns was a complete novelty.

I think this game was derived from Shatranj al-Kamil Type I, which has orthogonal-riders (the Rukhs), orthogonal-leapers (the Jamal), diagonal one-step movers (the Firzan), and diagonal-leapers (the Alfil). The game-designer filled out these two families by adding an orthogonal one-step mover (the Wazir, or vizir) and a diagonal-rider (the Taliah, or picket, which for some obscure reason is forbidden to take a one-square move). The horse was then made the basis for a third family by adding a one-square-farther leaper (the Jamal, or camel, the original camel being rechristened a Dabbabah, or war-machine) and a diagonal-plus-orthogonal-rider (the Zarafah, or giraffe; again, short moves are forbidden). The individualization of the pawns is a complete novelty. <p>

For future reference, this site includes a Piececlopedia at http://www.chessvariants.com/index/mainquery.php?type=Piececlopedia&orderby=LinkText&displayauthor=1&displayinventor=1&usethisheading=Piececlopedia which describes all the principal pieces. If a piece is mentioned without comment, that's a good place to look first.

On reviewing Murray and Gollon, I find that the pawn promotion rule for this game is unknown. The rule given is from another game, and its application to this one is a conjecture by Murray. Promotion determined by file is therefore as valid as any other rule agreed on by two players.

Not the faintest, Keith. Where, exactly, are the stars located, please?

This is discouraging! Another anonymous post on the same side, and another dodge! The name produced for a couple of posts was not 'Harold Pooter'! I Google-searched on 'Harrold Pooter' and found nothing, so there is no verification.

I object to the name, as it is usually reserved for shatranj as played in Europe, with no fixity as to whether the kings opposed each other on the d or the e file.

Yes, I think most people who are good at chess would know about this game. This is one of the first variants known to the west, being described in Falkener's _Games Ancient and Oriental and How to Play Them_, published in the nineteenth century, and again in Murray's _History of Chess_. It has been described since in many books about chess and its relatives, or more generally about board games.

Much thanks, again, to all you gracious gentlemen who do such excellent work on this delightful subject.

Thank you for changing the name. It looks like an interesting game.

I agree that this page is excellent, and that it should be easier to find. I found and bought two plastic chess sets and a checkers set made by the same company, in the same colors (beige and a very dark red), to use the same size board, and with a utility knife and a glue gun and a couple of hours made (on each side) a sage, a fool, and two elephants (for Courier Spiel, as I interpret the pieces) and a couple of emperors and a prince (for Emperor Chess, which I have extensively modified [see the page] and now want to play). Pending my learning to post photographs to the Internet, here is what I did: I cut the heads off two bishops, just under the collar. I glued each onto a stack of three checkers, making an emperor (bishop + lame dabbabah-rider). The bottom piece I smoothed off and glued onto a stack of two checkers, making an elephant (ferz + alfil). I simply glued a pawn onto a checker to make a fool (man). I took one king and sliced the cross off the top and the base off the bottom to make a prince (squirrel). I took a knight and glued it to the severed base of the king and glued that to a checker, making a sage (centaur). I was pleased to see that the prince and sage are the same height, as I have given them complementary positions in Emperor Chess, which I have changed so much that maybe I should rename the result. I had intended to saw two files off each of two boards and slap them together to make a 12x8 board, but they turned out to be surprisingly substantial, and I haven't done it yet. I will try to get pictures to post, but meanwhile am looking forward to playing with these pieces.

It appears to me that the l-pawn is guarded by the crowned rook on the m-file.

Congratulations to the entire family, and please give your wife our compliments on the excellent workmanship!

Just out of curiosity, why do we have two consecutive links (from What's New?) to this one page?

According to Murray on page 57, al-'Adli, in the ninth Christian century, reported that in India a stalemated player won, which he contrasted with the rule with which he and his readers were familiar. According to that same account, the elephants stood in the corner squares, and had the move of the dabbabah rather than the alfil; the rooks stood on the c and f files. A player who bared his opponent's king won, even if the opponent could return the compliment on the next move--a rule that was also current in the Hejaz, although the rest of the Moslem world held that if the opponent could even the score on the next move, the game was tied. <p> As for the crosswise arrangement of the kings, the arrangement shown in Hans Bodlaender's diagram is that given by Murray on page 80 as used in recent times in India in the varieties of chess that were apparently of native descent (distinguished from shatranj, introduced by the Persian conquerors, and European chess, introduced by the British, French, and Portuguese conquerors). In ancient times there may not have been a fixed rule. As for pawn promotion, the rule given in a work 'written about 1600 or 1700,' as Murray says, seems to me to say that a pawn reaching the ultimate rank on the a, d, e, or h file is promoted to counsellor, and a pawn reaching the ultimate rank on the b, c, f, or g file is returned to its square of origin with the rank of counsellor (ferz). This is on page 64, and the text is as vague as the date. As for stalemate, 'When a king is imprisoned without standing in check, and no other of his pieces can move, he may slay the piece of the enemy in his vicinity which imprisons him.' So the stalemated player does not win. Just before this we read: 'It is not proper to protect another piece rather than the King. The slaying of the King is yet considered proper. Imprisonment is counted as a defeat of the King. If the King is left entirely alone it is reckoned a half-victory, if he is checked 64 times in succession he is also held to be defeated.' I think we might fairly understand that as perpetual check. The game begins with each player moving his counsellor and counsellor's pawn two squares forward, 'Also another piece which goes one square distant is advanced at the same time...' apparently another pawn. <p> On page 81 Murray describes Hindustani chess, one of the three native varieties current in the nineteenth century, when all the pieces had the moves current in Europe. In this game a pawn reaching the last rank is promoted to the master piece of that rank, except that on either central file promotion is to vizier (Q). Further, a pawn can only be promoted if the appropriate piece has already been lost; a player can never have more of any sort of piece than he started with. Murray specifies that the color restrictions of the elephant, now moving as a bishop, must be observed. This means that a pawn cannot be promoted to elephant on the c file until that player has lost his elephant that started on the f file. A pawn that cannot be promoted cannot be advanced to the eighth rank; it must remain where it is, an immobile target. Whether it can offer a threat that cannot be executed is a subtlety that seems not to be addressed. Logic suggests to me that it cannot. On page 82 Murray describes various conclusions to the game. Checkmate is a win. Stalemate is not allowed; a move that inflicts stalemate must be retracted, and another move played. Capture of all of a player's pieces (pawns are ignored) is a half-win. When both players are reduced to a king and a single companion, the game is drawn. Perpetual check is a draw. It is in this game, not the earlier ones described above, that the king has the privilege of making one knight-leap, provided he has not been checked. According to one questionable source, the king cannot capture on that leap. Conclusion: John Gollon, sitting in the Cleveland Public Library, reading its copy of Murray's _History of Chess_ and taking handwritten notes, confused three sets of rules. Fergus, I hope you're not too disappointed. This page, with its seventy comments, should probably be scrapped.

Do we have a page on Tsui Shogi? I can't find it.