Genealogy of Chess
DAVID H LI
Chess (383 pages, published in 1998). I am happy to oblige:
Part I THE ORIGIN OF CHESS IN WESTERN LITERATURE
1 The Origin of Chess in Early Western Literature to 1694
2 The Origin of Chess in Western Literature: 1765 to 1801
3 The Origin of Chess in Western Literature: 1847 to 1870
4 The Origin of Chess in Western Literature: 1874 to 1899
5 The Origin of Chess in Western Literature in the Fist Half of the
20th Century
6 The Origin of Chess in Western Literature in the Second Half of
the 20th Century to 1996
Part II TOWARD CHESS AS A CHINESE INVENTION
7 Antecedents to Chess in the Chinese Environment
8 Who? When? and Where? of Chess Invention
9 Why? and How? of Chess Invention: Playing Board and Number of
Playing Pieces
10 Why? and How? of Chess Invention: Playing Pieces and Their Placement
11 Why? and How? of Chess Invention: Rules of the Game
12 Why? and How? of Chess Invention: Rules of the Game - Revised
Part III CHESS AFTER INVENTION - IN CHINA AND BEYOND
13 Chess After Invention - Acceptance, Dormancy, Revival, and
Modifications
14 Chess After Invention - Games in Early Chinese Literature
15 Chess After Invention - Some Short-Lived Experiments
16 Chess After Invention - Westward Dissemination
17 Chess After Invention - Chess After Invention - Eastward
Dissemination
18 Chess - A Chinese Invention - Summary
The book earned a Book of the Year 1998 honor from Mr. John McCallion,
then publisher of an independent chess periodical, currently an editor
of the GAMES magazine. In the October 1999 issue of GAMES, The
Genealogy of Chess is again recommended as remarkable and indispensable.
There are several other reviews, in UK, Germany, Italy, and USA. The
book is carried by Amazon.com or may be ordered from Premier Publishing
Company, P O Box 341267, Bethesda MD 20827, at $25 + $2 shipping and
handling. David Li
PMG
none), but I made some comment in a post that was probably considered by most to be
rather rude, that China was somewhat shielded from Chess to a large extent.
But quickly looking over your chapters, I'd say that you feel that the game originated
in China, I had some impression that it had come from India, but I've never been too
comfortable with that idea.
I have the impression that the game of Chess that we play today has largely evolved
outside of China. Is there a game currently played in China today with very clear
lineage to China's original game, and how much would you say it's evolved, and how does
it differ from Chess?
Pete
Dennis Hussey
You are probably the person to ask about this, can you point me to a
reference about the version of chess that had a board with 625 squares, and
each side had (presumably) 25 pieces and 25 pawns? I've read it was
invented in Turkey and it was created because the standard version of chess
was 'too easy.' I'm curious to see the rules of the game, the pieces, and
whether it is still played anywhere.
Thanks in advance,
dfh
DAVID H LI <dav...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:385EE2...@erols.com...
: Mr. Lopez wants me to post chapter headings of my book, The Genealogy of
:
DAVID H LI
Chess, I made reference to a Japanese game, known as Grand Shogi or
Grand Xiangqi, which is played on a 25x25 board. I have seen such a
board, along with playing pieces, in a History of Shogi book, written in
Japanese, at the Library of Congress. While I read Japanese (and
translated several passages from a couple of History of Shogi books to
definitively establish that Shogi was derived from Xiangqi) and
reproduced several Shogi boards, including one from a German periodical,
ZDMG, back in 1879, my book does not include a reproduction of a 25x25
board.
The Turkish game to which you refer is probably the Persian game of
Shatranj ul Kebir (The Great Chess). This game, however, is played on
an 11x10+2 board (totalling 112 squares). In my book, this game is
discussed at pp 42-47, complete with a reproduction of such a board and
a listing of playing pieces and their valuations. I was at the Palace
Museum in Istanbul last year (my third visit) but did not see anything
interesting being exhibited except a 7th century regular western chess
set.
All these are culled from my book, The Genealogy of Chess, available
from Amazon.com or from Premier Publishing, BOX 341267, Bethesda MD
20827 at $25 + $2 shipping.
Thanks for your interest in chess and its variations. David Li
Phil Innes
> Thanks for your interest in chess and its variations. David Li
Hi David - I feel that I owe you a few notes on the ancient western games I
mentioned before:
Ludus Latrunculorum (Roman) Tau (Egyptian) was illustrated in Egyptian
papyrus paintings and played as late as the time of Trajan and the Antonines
- about 100 A.D.
There are some Greek names, but ASCII does not support them! Claims are made
for a 3,000 year heritage for this game. Archaeological artifacts via Mr.
Newton (Sir Charles Newton) from Halicarnassus are now in the British
Museum, as are numerous pieces from Etruscan cities and the tombs of Cuma
(these are Greco-Roman latrunculus pieces.)
Speculation is that the game originates from the 4th Dynasty.
Classical authors have made references to the game. including Pliny, and
Sigr. Minervini makes reference to passages in Pollux, Ovid, Martial and
Sidonius Apollinarius, and finally to the poem by Saleus Bassus, concluding
"Non saprei giudicare quai movimenti si additassero dal latino poeta."
(Bulletino Archeologico Napolitano, Nuova Serie del P.R. Garuccci e di
Giulio Minervinim anno primo 1853.)
I wonder if there may be references for you in the LOC?
The Egyptian board has the most consistent representation of 12 x 12 or 144
cells. The Greek name; grammismos or diagrammiismos - inferring that the
Roman game came from Egypt.
Then Hyde quotes Ovid:
Sive latrocinii sub imagine calculus ibit,
Fac pereat vitreo miles ab hoste tuus.
(Ars Amandi, ii, 207)
But Hyde's principal authority is a panegyric to Calpurnius Piso by Saleius
Bassus.
The Frenchman M. le Page Renouf has also written on language derivations
obtaining to the pieces tracing an hyroglphic source as origin.
----
But there are other Egyptian games - SENAT is one, and the game of ATEP is
another.
I do not entirely trust the works of Hyde and the mid seventeenth century,
or later romanticists on western origins from the late eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries - yet neither is there a sensible investigation into
these three games whose history deeply preceeds claimed Semitic or Indian
origins in 600A.D., and are rather similar to early Chinese claims to
origin.
The problems of proving attribution emerge because of the failure of the
written record in about 500 A.D. There are simply not enough references of
any sort to provide a continuous reference to earlier works, and
archaelogical factors are often equivocal.
Very Best wishes to you,
Phil Innes
Christian Joachim Hartmann
>>Dennis Hussey schrieb:
>> You are probably the person to ask about this, can you point me to a
>> reference about the version of chess that had a board with 625
>>squares, and
>> each side had (presumably) 25 pieces and 25 pawns? I've read it was
>> invented in Turkey
In article <385F84...@erols.com>, dav...@erols.com wrote:
> The Turkish game to which you refer is probably the Persian game of
> Shatranj ul Kebir (The Great Chess). This game, however, is played on
> an 11x10+2 board (totalling 112 squares). In my book, this game is
> discussed at pp 42-47, complete with a reproduction of such a board
>and > a listing of playing pieces and their valuations.
You can find a set of rules and a description of this game
at <http://www.chessvariants.com/historic.dir/tamerlane.html>.
You might also want to check other chess variants known in the Muslim
world, <http://www.chessvariants.com/ihistoric.html> especially this
different "Large Chess":
<http://www.chessvariants.com/historic.dir/indiangr1.html>
>>and it was created because the standard version of chess
>> was 'too easy.' I'm curious to see the rules of the game, the
>> pieces, and whether it is still played anywhere.
Do you remember where you got this statement from, concerning standard
chess being too easy?
This points very much to the Large Chess of Tamerlane, because exactly
this reason was given by one of Tamerlane's biographers as to why
the great conqueror would play this large game and not the usual chess.
This remark can be found e.g in
"Tamerlane or Timur the great amir: from the Arabic life by Ahmed Ibn
Arabshah."
Transl. by J. H. Sanders.
London 1936, Lahore 1970
Davind Li:
>I was at the Palace
> Museum in Istanbul last year (my third visit) but did not see anything
> interesting being exhibited except a 7th century regular western chess
> set.
Yes, there are a few very sets in the Topkapi museum, mostly because
the pieces are carved from precious stones.
I know of no surviving sets of this large version of chess, which also
answers the questions as to whether this game is still played. This
chess variant doesn't seem to have been actually *played* very much,
but instead it had a tenuous life in Turkish (Ottoman) books on chess,
being included and briefly described there among other chess variants.
As such a "literary chess variant" the "Tamerlane Chess" seems to have
existed at least into the 19th century, where it can still be found in
Ottoman-Turkish books on chess.
--
* Christian Joachim Hartmann
* <luk...@Null.net>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dennis Hussey
The name Tamerlane rings a bell very loudly, I think you are right. Uhh, I
hesitate to mention the source, it was one of those desktop references like
the 'Readers Digest Book of Facts,' I don't recall the year it was
published, sometime in the mid-80's I believe.
Viel dank,
dfh
Christian Joachim Hartmann <luk...@Null.net> wrote in message
news:83q80t$b2m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
:
: >>Dennis Hussey schrieb:
michael adams
>
> Mr. Hussey, re your query on 25x25 board. In my book, the Genealogy of
> Chess, I made reference to a Japanese game, known as Grand Shogi or
> Grand Xiangqi, which is played on a 25x25 board. I have seen such a
> board, along with playing pieces, in a History of Shogi book, written in
> Japanese, at the Library of Congress. While I read Japanese (and
> translated several passages from a couple of History of Shogi books to
> definitively establish that Shogi was derived from Xiangqi) and
> reproduced several Shogi boards, including one from a German periodical,
> ZDMG, back in 1879, my book does not include a reproduction of a 25x25
> board.
>
> Shatranj ul Kebir (The Great Chess). This game, however, is played on
> an 11x10+2 board (totalling 112 squares). In my book, this game is
> discussed at pp 42-47, complete with a reproduction of such a board and
> Museum in Istanbul last year (my third visit) but did not see anything
> interesting being exhibited except a 7th century regular western chess
> set.
>
> from Amazon.com or from Premier Publishing, BOX 341267, Bethesda MD
> 20827 at $25 + $2 shipping.
>
overpopulating sperm,needless to say World printing "inc"luvved the
smell?! yyuk,Mick, 'gards Mick.
michael adams
>
>
> > Thanks for your interest in chess and its variations. David Li
>
slit-eyed,Chinese turkey before me would like to do,unmentionable things
to me,such is 'karma' etc.Jeez,an ass'ole full of pomp is among
us..Dave. 'gards Mick.
Anders Thulin
PMG wrote:
> But quickly looking over your chapters, I'd say that you feel that the game originated
> in China, I had some impression that it had come from India, but I've never been too
> comfortable with that idea.
The book is, as it says somewhere, written from that premise.
The first part is largely a listing of where western authors went
wrong --
or at least everyone who claims chess was invented somewhere else than
in China.
There's no attempt to treat the question dispassionately -- for that
reason
this part may leave a bad taste in your mounth. It's well worth reading
just
because it raises the question of scientific 'proof' or when and why we
accept a historical model as sufficiently good.
Part 2 is a very different proposition -- it reads like a
fictionalized
description of how chess was invented: by one single person, at one
fairly
limited point in time. It reads much like a story, and so may also give
an impression that appears to act somewhat against the intentions of the
author.
I was rather surprised to find this very detailed treatment of the
"bad" Western
research into the history of chess in Part 1, but no similar description
of
the (presumably "good") Chinese research. It is mentioned, but there's
no
attempt to describe it.
My general impression: a rather uneven book. The main thing I got out
of
it was the question: just what makes anyone an authority in this field?
and
how do I decide if anyone who claims authority is or isn't one?
I would not give it any kind of 'book of the year' award, though. And
I would
not recommend it as a first introduction to history of chess.
But that's me. So what do I know about it?
--
Anders Thulin Anders....@telia.se 040-10 50 63
Telia Prosoft AB, Hjälmaregatan 3B, 212 19 Malmö, Sweden
Phil Innes
<Anders....@telia.se> wrote:
>
> PMG wrote:
>
>> But quickly looking over your chapters, I'd say that you feel that the
> game originated
>> in China, I had some impression that it had come from India, but I've
> never been too
>> comfortable with that idea.
(snip)
> My general impression: a rather uneven book. The main thing I got out
> of it was the question: just what makes anyone an authority in this field?
> and how do I decide if anyone who claims authority is or isn't one?
>
> I would not give it any kind of 'book of the year' award, though. And
> I would not recommend it as a first introduction to history of chess.
>
> But that's me. So what do I know about it?
Anders and PMG hit on some problems that emerge in any sort of derivative
analysis for almost any subject. I recently posted a few notes on the Latin
game, which was transferred from the Greeks, from the Egyptians - where
there is a speculation of a very ancient game with "pieces" (modelled 3D
elements) invested on a squared board, variously 12x12, and smaller and
larger.
Much of what we speculate is also the speculation of what sort of world
there was in the pre-BC period, from the year BC200 to BC1600 there are some
"written" records, however equivocal.
An example is that from my native Cornwall there is record of trading with a
Mediterranean civilisation ('The Phoencians" from the Eastern end of the
Med.) from 1000 BC. Did these same people trade with the East also? How
prevalent were Egyptian ideas of the time? To the south of Egypt was the
fading civilisation of Zimbabwe, a great city, probably greater than
Babylon/Ur, a slave trader at the end, but extending its influence to the
orient (at least as far as the Arabian peninsula and India [now Pakistan])
In discussions like this we would be grateful if several disciplines -
linguistics, archaeology and anthropology - could come to some sort of
concensus, but this remains elusive or controversial on almost any subject.
I think Dr. Li has made some progress in establishing possibility of early
Chinese roots of a chess-like board game - it remains to be seen if other
researchers can avoid chauvinistic or romantic fixations that were very
prevalent in the last century, and certainly coloured our thinking about
origins, and examine western possibilities and their possible migration or
reception from the East.
An interesting speculation.
Phil Innes
PMG
Phil Innes wrote:
Sometimes I'm rather bothered that it can't be positively nailed down as to it's
origins, and evolution. You could almost call Chess the game that was never
actually quite invented. Somewhat similar to the Garden of Eden types of
theories where God just created man & poof, he was there, like something out of
the Bewitched TV show. And _then_ God created Eve from one of Adam's ribs
(Adam must must have been in allot of pain from that divine piece of
surgery). So what you had was these two rather instant people standing in
front of God in the Garden of Eden, and I never heard anything about how "oh
well, they were actually cavemen, or some early evolution of man who really
didn't walk on 2 feet at all."
So you have to figure that the starting point of Chess was actually nothing
_like_ Chess at all, and Chess might actually have evolved from more than one
game (several?) from more than one part of the world, possibly a great deal of
crossbreeding between very different games, not all that much unlike what takes
place with some of the Chess variations, where Chess is combined with another
game with varying success to create the variation.
So is Chess possibly a combination of games from (maybe) China, India, the Arab
area, & Europe, or did it mostly evolve from one origin, and the evolution of
the game just happened in several different parts of the world?
I don't know what concept I'm more comfortable with, because from my narrow
perspective I want everyone to have been using Staunton style Chess pieces all
the way from the beginning, which obviously isn't the case since they're
actually a very recent creation given the total length of the lifetime of
Chess. And in a way, I want it to have evolved from just one game, but
actually I doubt if that's what really happened.
Pete
Phil Innes
<dfhu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Christian,
>
> The name Tamerlane rings a bell very loudly, I think you are right. Uhh, I
> hesitate to mention the source, it was one of those desktop references like
> the 'Readers Digest Book of Facts,' I don't recall the year it was
> published, sometime in the mid-80's I believe.
>
> Viel dank,
> dfh
Some references:
De Ludis Orientalibus - Hyde 1694
Persian Chess - Bland 1850
The History of Chess - Forbes 1860
But the principal document on Tamerlane's Chess or Great Chess is
MS.260 - The Royal Asiatic Society -Anon (trans. Dr. Forbes)
Linguistic derivation from Timur the Tartar, called later when wounded in
the leg, Timur lenk (lame Timur) and subsequently corrupted to Tamerlane the
Great.
> Christian Joachim Hartmann <luk...@Null.net> wrote in message
> news:83q80t$b2m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> :
> : >>Dennis Hussey schrieb:
> : >> You are probably the person to ask about this, can you point me to a
> : >> reference about the version of chess that had a board with 625
> : >>squares, and
> : >> each side had (presumably) 25 pieces and 25 pawns? I've read it was
> : >> invented in Turkey
> :
> : In article <385F84...@erols.com>, dav...@erols.com wrote:
> : > The Turkish game to which you refer is probably the Persian game of
> : > Shatranj ul Kebir (The Great Chess). This game, however, is played on
> : > an 11x10+2 board (totalling 112 squares). In my book, this game is
> : > discussed at pp 42-47, complete with a reproduction of such a board
> : >and > a listing of playing pieces and their valuations.
> :
> : You can find a set of rules and a description of this game
> : at <http://www.chessvariants.com/historic.dir/tamerlane.html>.
> :
> : You might also want to check other chess variants known in the Muslim
> : world, <http://www.chessvariants.com/ihistoric.html> especially this
> : different "Large Chess":
> : <http://www.chessvariants.com/historic.dir/indiangr1.html>
> :
> :
> : >>and it was created because the standard version of chess
> : >> was 'too easy.' I'm curious to see the rules of the game, the
> : >> pieces, and whether it is still played anywhere.
> :
> : Do you remember where you got this statement from, concerning standard
> : chess being too easy?
> : This points very much to the Large Chess of Tamerlane, because exactly
> : this reason was given by one of Tamerlane's biographers as to why
> : the great conqueror would play this large game and not the usual chess.
> :
> : This remark can be found e.g in
> : "Tamerlane or Timur the great amir: from the Arabic life by Ahmed Ibn
> : Arabshah."
> : Transl. by J. H. Sanders.
> : London 1936, Lahore 1970
> :
> :
> : Davind Li:
> : >I was at the Palace
> : > Museum in Istanbul last year (my third visit) but did not see anything
> : > interesting being exhibited except a 7th century regular western chess
> : > set.
Phil Innes
wrote:
> Sometimes I'm rather bothered that it can't be positively nailed down as to
it's
> origins, and evolution. You could almost call Chess the game that was never
> actually quite invented. Somewhat similar to the Garden of Eden types of
> theories where God just created man & poof, he was there, like something out
of
> the Bewitched TV show.
The arabist who wrote about Tamerlane received his knowledge in a dream
where Mohammed gave him a bag of chess pieces.
> And _then_ God created Eve from one of Adam's ribs
> (Adam must must have been in allot of pain from that divine piece of
> surgery). So what you had was these two rather instant people standing in
> front of God in the Garden of Eden, and I never heard anything about how "oh
> well, they were actually cavemen, or some early evolution of man who really
> didn't walk on 2 feet at all."
Presumably you make the point that Adam was bored playing the snake in the
garden, and needed another opponent to play chess against, create a modest
league, form rules and ethics committees, etc
> So you have to figure that the starting point of Chess was actually nothing
> _like_ Chess at all, and Chess might actually have evolved from more than one
> game (several?) from more than one part of the world, possibly a great deal of
> crossbreeding between very different games, not all that much unlike what
takes
> place with some of the Chess variations, where Chess is combined with another
> game with varying success to create the variation.
Yes - this is a possibility, but even if there were a unified origin, the
same thing would take place - the original game would develop variants. The
matter of variants does not of itself help us determine if there was a
unified source.
> So is Chess possibly a combination of games from (maybe) China, India, the
Arab
> area, & Europe, or did it mostly evolve from one origin, and the evolution of
> the game just happened in several different parts of the world?
>
> I don't know what concept I'm more comfortable with, because from my narrow
> perspective I want everyone to have been using Staunton style Chess pieces all
> the way from the beginning, which obviously isn't the case since they're
> actually a very recent creation given the total length of the lifetime of
> Chess. And in a way, I want it to have evolved from just one game, but
> actually I doubt if that's what really happened.
I suppose the least controversial thing to say is that most cultures
developed games, including strategy/tactical games, and these games were
adopted into the culture. This is significant, and one degree of unity among
all games.
The same speculations happen with other early origin theories that were
adopted into disparate cultures.
The interesting fact of Egyptian origin theory is, of course, that
references to their game(s) preceed others by 1,000 years or so.
Phil
> Pete
>
>
Christian Joachim Hartmann
"Phil Innes" <in...@sover.net> wrote:
>Hi David - I feel that I owe you a few notes on the ancient western
>games I mentioned before:
Hello Phil,
actually, I have to agree with David here: The board games
you bring up may be very old, but they are not related to
chess. They merely show that playing board games is
something that was common in all of the ancient cultures
of the world. Considering the board games played in
pre-columbian Mesoamerica, I hasard to guess that board
games were invented independently by different people
and at different times.
So the fact that the ancient Egyptians had a number of
favorite board games does not mean that these games must
neccessarily be connected to the origin of chess.
Chess is very special among all the other board games
of the world in that it alone possesses highly differentiated
pieces. No other game comes near to the number
6 different kinds of pieces as they are used in chess.
But let's go through the games one by one ...
>Ludus Latrunculorum (Roman) Tau (Egyptian) was illustrated in Egyptian
>papyrus paintings and played as late as the time of Trajan and the
>Antonines - about 100 A.D.
...
>Speculation is that the game originates from the 4th Dynasty.
The most recent attempt I read to reconstruct the
Ludus Latrunculorum is the one by Ulrich Schädler in
Spielbox 2/95, p. 44-47. According to him (and to other
scholars as well, e.g. Murray), the Latrunculi-game is
a tactical board game played on a grid. The method
of capturing is by putting to of your men on *either
side* of an adversary's men.
These features alone show that this game is related to
"Siga" or "Seega" played in modern Egypt.
"Tau" on the other hand must be the game that is
also called "20-square-game", after the fact that the
most common board for it has twenty squares. Two
years ago, I've heard a lecture by Irving Finkel on
this game and others related to it that are known
throughout the Middle East.
He made it completely clear that this game is not
a tactical board game, but one played with dice.
Secondly, it's not played on a grid, like chess or
draughts, but on a "racetrack", i.e. a one-dimensional
line that all the men have to go through. This is
a completely different concept of a "board" than
the 2-dimensional 'grids' used for chess, or the
ludus latrunculorum.
This makes the Egyptian game an ancestor of todays
backgammon, and related to the Indian "Ludo" or
"Parchisi".
>There are some Greek names, but ASCII does not support them! ...
...
>... The Greek name; grammismos or diagrammiismos - inferring that the
>Roman game came from Egypt.
I cannot comment on ancient Greek board games, because
the descriptions of ancient board games that I'm following
here concede that we simply know too little about the rules
and character of any of the board games mentioned by the
ancient Greek to make any attempts at reconstruction.
However, I believe that the Greek board games will not have
differed greatly from those played by the Romans or the
Egyptians or the Phoenicians, so there is no need to assume
that any Greek board game was particularly similar to chess.
>But there are other Egyptian games - SENAT is one, and the game of
>ATEP is another.
...
>The Egyptian board has the most consistent representation of 12 x 12
> or 144 cells. ...
I don't recall the name "Atep" right now, but "Senat" is a game similar
to the "20-square-game". A few (nearly) complete sets of "Senet" have
been found in ancient Egyptian graves. The boards consist of three
rows of 10 square, a total of 30 squares thus, with two sets of 5
undifferentiated men each. The general consesus is that this game
was played similar to the "20-square-game": You had to move all
your men according to the throws of a dice along the course
of 30 squares until they reached the final square(s), the goal.
This game is thus also a precursor of todays backgammon.
In the end it seems to me that the "backgammon-like" dice-
driven games were the ones most popular in ancient Egypt.
Ancient Egyptian boards for Senet, the 20-game and for
the similar "hound and jackal"-game have been found. The
fact that specially made board were made to play these
games indicates a special popularity of these games, maybe
also a special social standing of them.
Of course, there were also board games without dice
in Egypt. You mention board of 12x12 cells, and I'm
thinking first and foremost of the all-time classic
merels. However, I know no specially made game
board for these games from ancient Egypt. The
boards for merels and the grids were found
scratched into building stone and pavements and
the like.
I'm not saying that all non-dice games were limited
to the lower social classes in ancient Egypt, but I do
want to suggest that Egypt wasn't perhaps the right
environment where a tactical game like chess could
have been invented.
--
In my opinion, none of the features of these ancient
board games from Egypt of the Mediterranean compell
us to see them directly ancestral to chess.
In my view, chess is a an *innovator* and a *late-comer*
and a *loner* to the board game scene.
It is a *late-come* in the sense that it originated and
spread fairly late in history, in the 6th and 7th c. *AD,*
at a time when there already were a large number of
board games, most of them known (in variations)
all over the Old World, like merels, backgammon,
Ludo, Siga, Mancala.
Chess is an *innovator* because this game introduced
the concept of many-differentiated pieces, having
completely different powers of move and capture.
This is one of the main reason of the popularity and
rapid spreading of chess: It bring something to board
games that simply wasn't there before.
As a result of the two resons above, chess remained
a *loner* in the board game culture. Because chess
was introduced so late, it didn't generate so many and
so different variations as for example the backgammon-
family of games, which is a couple of milleniums older
than chess.
And because of chess' new feature, the differentiated
pieces, and the resulting fast spreading and rise in
popularity, the "chess-family of games" remained
rather closely knit and connected to each other.
Nobody saw any reason to improve a game that was
considered to be just perfect by the vast number of
players.
Sure, there were variations, but nowhere did the
developement of chess really break apart into
different strands, like is the case with backgammon
and Ludo, which represents two branches of the
same family of games that have developed away
from each other.
---------------
After these concluding words, allow me two
questions:
>Then Hyde quotes Ovid:
>
>Sive latrocinii sub imagine calculus ibit,
> Fac pereat vitreo miles ab hoste tuus.
> (Ars Amandi, ii, 207)
You quote Hyde quite a lot, e.g. when you
provided sources for Tamerlane chess. I'm
interested to know your source? Keat's
translation? Or the real book itself?
>Ludus Latrunculorum (Roman) Tau (Egyptian)
In a recent (and scathing) review of Fittà's book on
ancient games in Spielbox 4/99, p. 48, Ulrich Schädler
says that: "Fittà calls [that game] still "Tau", in
contrast to modern Egyptologists of today."
I'm a bit puzzled by that! Is the name "Tau" outright
wrong? How did the Egpytians call this game in
their language?
Anybody knows?
Panagis Sklavounos
Phil Innes
<luk...@Null.net> wrote:
> In article <jFW74.1038$Ji1....@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>,
> "Phil Innes" <in...@sover.net> wrote:
>>Hi David - I feel that I owe you a few notes on the ancient western
>>games I mentioned before:
>
> Hello Phil,
Christian, Hi,
> actually, I have to agree with David here: The board games
> you bring up may be very old, but they are not related to
> chess. They merely show that playing board games is
> something that was common in all of the ancient cultures
> of the world. Considering the board games played in
> pre-columbian Mesoamerica, I hasard to guess that board
> games were invented independently by different people
> and at different times.
>
> So the fact that the ancient Egyptians had a number of
> favorite board games does not mean that these games must
> neccessarily be connected to the origin of chess.
I agree with you.
> Chess is very special among all the other board games
> of the world in that it alone possesses highly differentiated
> pieces. No other game comes near to the number
> 6 different kinds of pieces as they are used in chess.
Ah. Yes a key element. However, in this and in your subsequent questions,
responses and general comments we enter the labrynth. Consider the following
passage on:
THE [GAME OF] SACRED WAY
"In all these boards, with the exception of Dr. Abbot's, one of the side
columns has four cells marked with hieroglyphics. In Queen Hatasu's board,
in the British Museum, the second cell has two men (sorry, ASCII does not
support hieroglyphic illustrations) marked on it, the third has three men,
and the first and fourth cells are wanting.
Queen Hatasu's board in the Louvre, and that of Amon-mes also, have two men
in the second cell, but the third cell has three birds, forming the word
Ba-a (spirits), and the fourth has the sign of water. In all the boards the
fifth cell has the sign *nefer*; the two latter boards having three nefers
instead of one. Mr. Petrie's board, however, instead of having
hieroglyphics, has the simple numerals II and III on the second and third
cells, and the fourth cell divided by two diagonal lines, to signify four.
There can be no doubt therefore that these four cells were known as 1, 2, 3,
and 4.
Queen Hatasu's board in the Louvre and that of Amon-mes and those in the
Boulak Museum are further distinguished by having all the plain surfaces,
and even some of the cells, filled in with hieroglyphic inscriptions,
precatory and laudatory. On one side of Queen Hatasu's is her cartouche
name, on the opposite her throne name, Ra-ma-Ka; and at one end is an embryo
figure of Ptah. On the corresponding space of Amon-mes' board is a
representation of himself playing the game, and moving one of the pieces. M.
Pierret states that the first, fifth and ninth cells of Queen Hatasu's
central way are marked with hieroglyphics, which he thought had some
'importance particulière'; but no doubt they are of the same nature as those
on Amon-mes' board, on the fourth cell of which Mr. le Page Renouf reads
'Favoured by the good God;' on the eighth, 'Commanding officer of the Royal
Court;' and on the twelth, his own name, 'Amon-mes;' which is also seen on
the first of the right lateral row; and on the first left lateral the words
'che-en-hap,' the significatio of which is uncertain.
From these materials we have to construct the game. Evidently it was a game
for two players, who have four peices each, and the central column was
common to both players. This was the Sacred Way, on entering which each
party would strive to take up the other's pieces, and arrive at the goal.
There being so few men to start with, the game would soon come to an end if
the prisoners were not made use of by the victor. Accordingly they were
entered in the cells 1,2,3,4 as those numbers were thrown on a four sided
dice. It is this feature which gives interest to the game. On of the players
may be reduced to one piece, and the game then be considered lost; but with
the piece he takes one of his opponent's, and then another, and by entering
these men as his own may eventually win the game."
-----
end of segmnent.
Of course, you will consider several thing spontaneously from this offering
- the obvious being a differentiated variety of pieces. A rudimentary
re-introduction of a piece that has been captured [albeit the opponents].
The use of dice here is evident, but supplementary to the main game. Early
in the passage we must consider the corrupting influence of moving from a
pictorial representation of figurines to the [lingua franca] digital Latin
one.
I might add that this game may be at some process of evolution - early or
late, and be in a corrupted or even prototypical form of another game.
Perhaps there are hints to this later.
>
> But let's go through the games one by one ...
Yes, I hope I can follow the balance of your post with subsequent ones of my
own. I also hope that the gentleman with the Greek name who must have
considered a response will do the same.
Grüss, Phil
Phil Innes
>
> After these concluding words, allow me two
> questions:
>
>>Then Hyde quotes Ovid:
>>
>>Sive latrocinii sub imagine calculus ibit,
>> Fac pereat vitreo miles ab hoste tuus.
>> (Ars Amandi, ii, 207)
>
> You quote Hyde quite a lot, e.g. when you
> provided sources for Tamerlane chess. I'm
> interested to know your source? Keat's
> translation? Or the real book itself?
>
slaughtered both!
Hyde is so instrumental in the discussion of chess since 1650 that I think
it is necessary to gain some sort of impression of him. I even included some
of his work in a novel on Alekhin/Menchik.
Anyway the particular work is De ludo dicto Ufuba Wa Hulana - 1694
(perhaps you know some similar references from an American, Dr. H.
Carrington-Bolton -Seega- June 1 1889.)
I made some research about his life and here are some references, which are
both usual as starting points of anything subsequent, and I think you may
see the strengths and weaknesses of the linguist for yourself:-
HYDE, Thomas (1636-1703), a distinguished orientalist, was born at
Billingsley, near Bridgnorth, in Shropshire, June 29, 1636. He inherited his
taste for linguistic studies, and received his first lessons in some of the
Eastern tongues, from his father, who was rector of the parish. In his
sixteenth year Hyde entered Kings College, Cambridge, where, under Wheelock,
professor of Arabic, he made such rapid progress in the Oriental languages
that, after only one year of residence, he was invited to London to assist
Brian Walton in his edition of the Polyglot Bible.
Besides correcting the Arabic, Persic, and Syriac texts for that work, Hyde
transcribed into Persic characters the Persian translation of the
Pentateuch, which had been printed in Hebrew letters at Constantinople in
1546. To this work, which Archbishop Ussher has though wellnigh impossible
even for a native of Persia, Hyde appended the Latin version which
accompanieit in the Polyglot.
Having successfully accomplished these difficult taks amidst the flattering
acknowledgements of the most learned men of the day, Hyde entered Queenąs
College, Oxford, in 1658, where he was chosen Hebrew reader; and in 1659, in
consideration of his singular erudition in Oriental tongues, he was admitted
to the degree M.A. In the same year he was appointed under-keeper of the
Bodleian Library, and in 1665 he became librarian-in-chief. Next year he was
collated to a prebend in Salisbury, and in 1673 to the archdeaconry of
Gloucester, receiving the degree of D.D. shortly afterwards.
In 1691 the death of Pocock opened up to Hyde the Laudian professorship of
Arabic; and in 1697, on the deprivation of Altham, he succeeded to the
regius chair of Hebrew and a canonry of Christ Church. Under Charles II.,
James II., and William III., Hyde discharged the duties of Eastern
interpreter to the court. Worn out by his unremitting labors, he resigned
his librarianship in 1701, and dies at Oxford, February 18, 1703.
Hyde was an excellent classical scholar, and there was hardly an Eastern
tongue accessible to foreigners with which his wide erudition had not made
him familiar. He had even acquired chinese, while his writings are the best
testimony to his mastery of Turkish, Arabic, Syriac, Persic, Hebrew, and
Malay. His books are still valuable; and, although later investigations and
additonal authorities have partially superseded and corrected his
conclusions, he still deserves respect as one of the first scholars to
direct attention to the vast treasures of Oriental antiquity.
In his chief work, Historia Religionis veterum Persarum, 1700, Hyde made
the first attempt to correct from Oriental sources the errors of the Greek
and Roman historians who had described the religion of the ancient language
of Persians, but through ignorance of the ancient language of Persia he has
been often misled by Mahometan authorities. His other writings and
translations comprise
Tabulae longitudium et Latitudinum Stellarum fixarum ex observatione
principis Ulugh Beighi; 1665, to which his notes have given additional
value;
Quatuor Evangelia et Acta Aposto;orum lingua Malaica, caracteribus Europćis,
1677;
Epistola de Mensuris et Ponderibus Serum sive Sinensium, 1688, appended to
Bernardąs De Mensurisis et Ponderibus autiquis; Abraham Peritsol Itinera
Mundi, 1691;
and De Ludis Orientalibus Libri II., 1694.
With the exception of the Historia Religionis, which was republished by Hunt
and Costard in 1760, the writings of Hyde, including some unpublished MSS.,
were collected and printed by Dr. Gregory Sharpe in 1767 under the title
Syntagma Dissertationum quas olimŠThomas Hyde seperatim edidit. There is a
life of the author prefixed. Hyde also published a catalogue of the Bodleian
Library in 1674.
-----
And Christian, I think it is this last title "De Ludis.." which is the cause
of much mischief, and of course of speculations on those unpublished MSS.
----
I also wrote to a friend:
I must admit a bizarre coincidence. Entirely innocent of the above when I
wrote it, the chess-playing protagonist in my novel settles down in Oxford,
at the Bodleian, where the Ultra/Enigma traffic and decrypts were stored
during the war years. He has a łcover˛ as something else.
I will now not be able to resist including this material. In fact, the
interesting parallel of coded materials may be a respectable link in
displaying additional chess history.
it is very difficult to write something that would have a broad, if somewhat
educated, appeal, and still get in enough chess. You would think with AA as
the brilliant, but somewhat disintegrated rogue, the saintly faintly
virginal Vera as early mold-breaking feminist, and the cunning British
sleuth/chess-playing secret warriors, like OąDeath Alexander at Bletchley
there would be enough.
Still, you find yourself stopping to murder someone every ten minutes.
Actually, there is not much violence; there is reflection on killing, by
the killers. I spend time trying to get the voices right for the period.
Amusing that that otherwise excellent authority on everything else from the
period, Waugh, is not good at this. He hardly notices other classes, and
remarks less on them. I am still unsure if I should satirize Brideshead. I
will probably not resist it, just a little, somewhere. I certainly donąt
want to write another Oxford novel.
My appetite for Thomas Hyde has increased, rather than decreased. I wonder
at the łunpublished MSS,˛ and also if any letters are extant. Who he may
have known as colleagues. Opinion at that time of the validity of materials.
----
But I digress.
Cordial! Phil
Phil Innes
<luk...@Null.net> wrote:
>>Ludus Latrunculorum (Roman) Tau (Egyptian) was illustrated in Egyptian
>>papyrus paintings and played as late as the time of Trajan and the
>>Antonines - about 100 A.D.
> ...
>>Speculation is that the game originates from the 4th Dynasty.
>
> The most recent attempt I read to reconstruct the
> Ludus Latrunculorum is the one by Ulrich Schädler in
> Spielbox 2/95, p. 44-47. According to him (and to other
> scholars as well, e.g. Murray), the Latrunculi-game is
> a tactical board game played on a grid. The method
> of capturing is by putting to of your men on *either
> side* of an adversary's men.
> These features alone show that this game is related to
> "Siga" or "Seega" played in modern Egypt.
Yes it would. (there is also Ludus Calculorum).
----
Christian, David - I wrote before so much about Hyde because he is the
*literary* examiner from whom so much subsequent material springs. Of course
he was not a chess player (!) and he was also not aware of some Sanskrit
resources at that time, and it was Sir William Jones, about 100 years later
who seems to have cemented our impressions of Chaturanga from Hindustan and
its transit in the 6th century to Persia.
But also to note the devious way of literary semiology on its own without
much benefit from archaeology or other disciplines. Though Hyde was the
linguistic genius of his age, he was no polymath.
So a *method* by which we examine Hyde, or other linguistic reporters, might
be appropriate to apply to contemporary claimants.
I would like to write two more discussion pieces - one of various early
claims, including Kao Tsu/Lin Pang and the Shensi invasion of 174 B.C.,
(written by Eyles Irwin, 1793) and also an archeological one considering the
pieces themselves.
Phil
I should note that the Dr. Hyde that I refer to above, is not the one who
sometimes writes here, unless I am deceived.
DAVID H LI
a professor of Arabic at Oxford in the 1690s. In his "De Ludis
Orientalibus" (Games of the East), Hyde claims that he knows six
languages in addition to his mother tongue. One of these six languages
is Chinese, which by his own account in the book, he gained from a
one-or-two-week tutorial from a native Chinese, who was teaching
philosophy in Paris, and who came to Oxford at Hyde's invitation for
this specific purpose. After this exposure, Hyde displayed his
"expertise" by discussing the language's phonetic differences and by
presenting words in Chinese -- some, alas, are presented upside down!
Hyde's display of his linguistic talents, at times (unfortunately, they
were invariably crucial ones), had comical results. Encountering the
word "Shatrangj," the good professor insisted that it was the word
"Satrangh" corrupted by the Arabs. Hyde was so pleased with this
analysis that he called "this little work [his book referred to on lines
2-3 in this post] 'Mandragorias': and indeed in English it might not be
inappropriate to call it 'Mandrake-play.'" Hyde's book was written in
Latin. On only two occasions in the entire book (totaling some 600
numbered pages and 50 unnumbered pages) did he use English -- one an
instruction to the typesetter; the other, the quote here.
It was Jones, whom Innes also mentioned in his post, a Sanskrit scholar,
and a long-time resident in India, who gave a cogent analysis of the
etymology of the word "Shatranj" in his ground-breaking work, "On the
Indian Game of Chess," Asiatick Researches (Calcutta, 1790). Although
this analysis survived, another of Jones's analyses, equally cogent,
that the game "Chaturanga" as depicted then was actually "Chaturaji"
(Chatur = 4, anga = members [of army], raji = king(s)), was never well
received.
All these are based on my research at the Library of Congress. I doubt
many, if any, had the occasion to see Hyde's 1694 book (a rare book; the
last time a copy was offered for auction, several years back, in London,
it fetched over 10,000 UKP or 17000 USD) or Jones's 1790 article. These
findings, and many more, are in my Genealogy of Chess (383 pages, 1998),
a winner of "Book of the Year 1998" honor.
David Li
Persian word for the game of chess
Phil Innes
wrote:
> Phil Innes's post mentions Hyde as a linguistic genius. Thomas Hyde was
> a professor of Arabic at Oxford in the 1690s. In his "De Ludis
> Orientalibus" (Games of the East), Hyde claims that he knows six
> languages in addition to his mother tongue. One of these six languages
> is Chinese, which by his own account in the book, he gained from a
> one-or-two-week tutorial from a native Chinese, who was teaching
> philosophy in Paris, and who came to Oxford at Hyde's invitation for
> this specific purpose. After this exposure, Hyde displayed his
> "expertise" by discussing the language's phonetic differences and by
> presenting words in Chinese -- some, alas, are presented upside down!
>
> Hyde's display of his linguistic talents, at times (unfortunately, they
> were invariably crucial ones), had comical results.
[snip] My point was to show that even the linguist genius of his age, Hyde,
had weaknesses, and also note that he was not a chess player (!)
Continuing David's comical theme - here is a brief history of chess as
serious people have proposed it:
The invention of the pastime has been variously ascribed to the Greeks,
Romans, Babylonians, Scythians, Egyptians, Jews, Persians, Chinese, Hindus,
Araucanians, Castilians, Irish and Welsh.
Particular individual inventors have been:
Japhet, Shem, King Solomon, the wife of Ravan King of Ceylon, the
philosopher Xerxes, the Grecian prince Palamedes, Hermes, Aristotle, the
brothers Lydo and Tyrrhene, Semiramis, Zenobia, Attalus who died about 200
BC, and the mandarin Hansing, the Brahmin Sissa, and Shatrensha.
> It was Jones, whom Innes also mentioned in his post, a Sanskrit scholar,
> and a long-time resident in India, who gave a cogent analysis of the
> etymology of the word "Shatranj" in his ground-breaking work, "On the
> Indian Game of Chess," Asiatick Researches (Calcutta, 1790). Although
> this analysis survived, another of Jones's analyses, equally cogent,
> that the game "Chaturanga" as depicted then was actually "Chaturaji"
> (Chatur = 4, anga = members [of army], raji = king(s)), was never well
> received.
(this is a linguistics problem - causing much confusion - the Persians had
not the sound for the first and last syllable, so had to re-invent the name,
which was consequently re-imported to India!)
Sir William Jones through 1783-89 in 2d vol Asiatic Researches (pub 1790)
argued Hindustan as cradle for chess. He was president of the Asiatic
Society and based his research almost solely on the Bhawishya Purana, was
informed by Rhadhakant that the 4-handed game was mentioned in the oldest
law books and the legend proposed invention by the wife of Ravan (and would
have provided the game with a 4000+ year history!)
Jones preferred to ground his history in the Hindus although admitted that
he could not find any account of it in the classical writing of the
Brhamins.
Later Hiram Cox in 7th vol Asiatic Researches 1799 concured with him that
chaturanga, then Burmese, then Persian forms were the order of development.
RE-ENTER HYDE
In the 11th and 12th vols of the Archeologia Francis Douce and Sir
Frederic Madden expressed themselves as in favour of Hyde and his followers.
- Then came Prof Forbes 1860 History of Chess, upholding Cox's views based
on Jones. - viz, the 4 handed game was the primeval form of chess; invented
by Sanskrit speakers (Hindus); AND was known and practiced in India for a
duration as long as 3000 to 4000 years.
Van der Linde reduced Forbes' argument in 1874, agreeing on Indian
origin and Persian development, but that chess existed in Hindustan in the
8th Century, cited translation of Raghunandana by Weber 1872, and further
offers a Buddhist origin and rationale.
Von der Lasa who had supported Forbes in the Handbuch 1864, quickly amended
his opinion to now disagree with Forbes, and agree with Van der Linde.
The synopsis by Van der Linde has been the 'main line' for chess histories
since.
> All these are based on my research at the Library of Congress. I doubt
> many, if any, had the occasion to see Hyde's 1694 book (a rare book; the
> last time a copy was offered for auction, several years back, in London,
> it fetched over 10,000 UKP or 17000 USD) or Jones's 1790 article. These
> findings, and many more, are in my Genealogy of Chess (383 pages, 1998),
> a winner of "Book of the Year 1998" honor.
>
> David Li
> Persian word for the game of chess
>
In all this history we have students of language exploring manuscripts,
sometimes original ones - very rarely citing any archeoligica (until
European speculations begin in about 1100 - 1200, Richard 1, and the
Eschiquier, etc) other claims being quantum valeant.
I am interested in any cross-disciplinary investigation, especially from
archaelogy or anthropology which contribute other references to chess. Those
languages which were not much known to western scholars seem also to have
suffered more neglect archaeologically. Of these, obviously the pictorial
alphabets of China and Egypt are principal.
al-fil
DAVID H LI
to being valuable, exhibits his broad knowledge of history. Indeed,
evidences from archeological finds would add a new dimension to this
discussion. A theoretical foundation on this front has been laid by two
Italian researchers, G. Ferlito and A. Sanvito, in their article
"Protochess, 400 B.C. to 400 A.D." (Chess Monthly [London], September
1990. The offering by the chess-was-invented-in-India school falls
outside of this range, but my chess-was-invented-in-China thesis -- that
it was invented in 203 BCE -- satisfies the Ferlito-Sanvito theme. Are
there archeologists-cum-chessplayers in our midst? Or, perhaps, is
there a ng on archeology on which this issue may be further discussed?
David Li
DAVID H LI
welcome. David Li
PJDBAD
>1990. The offering by the chess-was-invented-in-India school falls
>outside of this range, but my chess-was-invented-in-China thesis -- that
>it was invented in 203 BCE --
I would like to see more discussion of the idea that chess was possibly
invented in Europe and spread to India and China through Military activity and
trade. Both the Greek and Roman Empires were more extensive and diverse than
the Persian and were apt to be more contemporary with proto-chess. At the very
least, let's allow that cultural difusion is a two way street. Why is it that
chess remained popular and was improved in historic times in Europe and was
forgotten or existed only in variations elsewhere until the modern game? Out
side of historical interest, I don't see why it matters. What's the latest on
the cultural disfusion of the bow and arrow and the wheel? Does the complexity
of the game preclude the possibility of independant inventions?
PJDBAD
>I made some research about his life and here are some references, which are
>both usual as starting points of anything subsequent, and I think you may
>see the strengths and weaknesses of the linguist for yourself:-
This causes me to wonder that Samuel Johnson and J. Swift had to say about
Thomas Hyde (and Chess), if anything. Surely the good Doctor and the Dean ought
to put the matter in perspective.
Chess: in Scotland a game; In England a GAME.
Phil Innes
(PJDBAD) wrote:
Yes - these are all interesting ideas - unfortunately we have another
similar thread. Perhaps Anders will come over here?
I see you make one interesting sociological point - why did it catch on in
Europe? Literacy? no broad or consistent religious oppression? It seems to
have been an educated person's game until about 1830 - when it was adopted
in the North of England by middle- and working-class people.
---
Then there is the obscure trail of things Egyptian, through several epochs
there, then to Greece, and eventually a diaspora Romana.
Claims for differentiated Egyptian figures are obviously, if they exist as
chess pieces, of great importantance to any migratory or origination theory.
Egyptian archaeologic histories are rife with scandal, and sourcing often a
joke. however... I'll look for information on pieces. This is harder than it
seems - the initial problem is - okay, its a man on a horse - a Knight - but
is it a chess piece or a model of a man on a horse? If another figurine is
discoverd of a soldier on foot - is this a pawn, or a figurine of a soldier?
Its not unnatural for the two to be found together.
Here is an abstract piece, with another slightly different design. 2 proto
pieces? or what Mr and Mrs Nile shook to obtain salt and pepper for their
fish and chips.
Phil
PJDBAD
>entered in the cells 1,2,3,4 as those numbers were thrown on a four sided
>dice. It is this feature which gives
Usually a die is a cube, with six sides. Were two of them blank? If so maybe
the die was a spinner or a top something like a draydle.
PJDBAD
>This makes the Egyptian game an ancestor of todays
>backgammon, and related to the Indian "Ludo" or
>"Parchisi".
Note though the method of capture in some of these games where the pieces (men,
pawns) capture by landing on the same square. The direction of movement is
usually in one direction. Additionally there is the idea of subversion of
enemy forces and the promotion of your own forces with enhanced powers vis. the
kings in draughts.
DAVID H LI
game; in England, a GAME", my speculation is that it was made when
English players were dominant in the game -- which were centuries, if
not a millennium-and-half, later. That comment, by itself, makes no
reference to Thomas Hyde. David Li
DAVID H LI
Indian game played on an 8x8 board, I read, if my memory serves me, that
the players would make the following convertions: 5 = 1 and 6 =2 when
the die throws a 5 or 6, respectively. David Li
Phil Innes
from The Game of The Sacred Way
## Dr. Birch ## "No dice have been found in Egypt older than the Roman
period; nor have they been recognised in inscriptions and texts ; nor are
there any representations of playing at dice in the earlier or older
sepulchres.
however:-
...This board is remarkable also for combining in itself the two games for
which all other boards of this description were intended. It could be used
for the upper game of the usual board, and with four ab-shaped pieces; or it
could be used for the lower game with both the ab-shaped and the reel-shaped
pieces: but in this case there would be twelve cells instead of ten as
usual.
Fortuantely one dice is preserved of this game, and this is highly
interesting as it is of oblong form having only four numbers, as we surmised
was the case, in consequence of the cells numbered 1, 2, 3, 4.
Falkener
-----
There follows a further description offering that the Tau-board was played
on the squares, whereas in China both the game of chess and the game of
Enclosing (and Japanese derivations) are played on the lines.
Phil
DAVID H LI
proto-chess got his inspirations -- a game known as Liu-bo (liu = 6; bo
= chance), played before die was invented -- six sticks, with one side
marked white and the other side marked black, were used to determine
chance-directed moves. First mention of Liu-bo was in the Shang dynasty
(1600-1028 BCE). David Li
DAVID H LI
live? In any case, he could have lived longer were he to take oats as a
food source for human beings more seriously. Oats for horses, so what?
I eat oatmeal for the last 25 years for breakfast, and I am a
septuagenarian. David Li
PJDBAD
>septuagenarian. David Li
>
I also have oatmeal for breakfast, change my small clothes every day, and
bathe, all of which Samuel Johnson sometimes did. He lived to be an
octagenarian so there must have been something else he was doing right. Maybe
it was playing chess when I do further literary research I'll check into this.