This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|
The introduction appears to state that 70% of the population in India plays chess but this doesn't seem correct since the source mentions that it's "70% among the 121m Indians considered ABC1 by advertisers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.244.168.161 ( talk) 12:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia:
I believe that origin of chess should be stated as: "A Matter of Controversy, . . .. " Britannica.
It is very clear in the Encyclopedia Britannica that Chess history does NOT have a clear origin. Ref. Cite Pg. 1101, Vol 15. Macropaedia. "The origin of Chess is a matter of controversy." "Game pieces found in Russia, China, India, Central Asia, Pakistan, and else where that have been determined to be older than 6th century." All this said the Chess Article does state that Chess originated in India. It appeared around the 6th century AD. Thus, if one chooses to read beyond the first line in the first paragraph it is clear that the best answer to origin of chess is unknown or a matter of controversy.
Soltis, Andrew E.. "chess". Encyclopedia Britannica, 11 Jun. 2021, https://www.britannica.com/topic/chess. Accessed 11 October 2021.
I of course realize that this will be debated as see in the edits on the page. James Powell, P.E., MSME — Preceding unsigned comment added by James1024512 ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Is there any place in this article for the apocryphal origin of chess as an explanation of the battle between Talhand and Gav over the kingdom of Hind referenced in the Shahnameh? It's a nice story and is referenced in the opening of the Broadway musical " Chess". It could be under a heading like "legendary origins". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.165 ( talk) 19:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit by MountainPriest of oct 13 for the following reasons:
HermanHiddema 08:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The statement about the origin of Chinese chess in India is flawed ("As a strategy board game played in China, chess is believed to have been derived from the Indian Chaturanga.[16]"). It uses the reference of Britannia Encyclopedia, which in fact just makes a simple statement without any reference or proof, a typical case of the blind leading the blind.
The conclusion of the origin of chess in India according Persian and Arabic accounts is also ambiguous. The methodology is simply flawed. You cannot draw a conclusion about the origin of Chess by reciting accounts. The Persian and Arab accounts only mean that they got to know the game from the Indians, no more, no less. However, this has nothing to do with the origin of the game! Let's use an analogy, there is no dispute about the origin of the game of Go, an ancient board game invented in China. However, the game was introduced first to the west by Japanese, as can be seen from its English name Go, a transliteration of the Japanese word for the game. So, following that flawed logic, can the rest of the world draw a conclusion that the game of Go originated in Japan, because the Europeans attribute the game to the Japanese (before they were told the real origin of the game)?
The origin of chess is better put in this way "Just as chess is a difficult game, its origin is a difficult puzzle. We may never know the truth of its birth." ( http://chess.about.com/od/history/p/aa06a14.htm)
Havelock the Dane, "mainstream academic opinion", you make me laugh. "As a strategy board game played in China, chess is believed to have been derived from the Indian Chaturanga.[16]" is this your so-called "mainstream academic opinion"? I suppose the "mainstream academic opinion" about the origin of Chinese chess in the place where it is mostly played is quite different from this "mainstream academic opinion". Who defines which is the "mainsteam"?
In reply to J.S. Ayers question about chinese scholarship, I suggest reading
Facts on the Origin of Chinese Chess by Peter Banaschak, which sets out 5 theories proposed by chinese scholars and discusses the evidence for and against them.
As a brief summary, Banaschak lists 5 theories, these are:
Theory 5 (XiangXi) is also the basis of Joseph Needham's theory.
HermanHiddema 15:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If the Chinese invented Chess, why would they name the game after an Indian animal, "The Elephant"? Chaturaji ( talk) 00:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
But it is not a native Chinese animal. Chaturaji ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
HermanHiddema, You made this edit on 12:39, 25 October 2007 with the edit summary "revert bad edit that removed properly sourced material"
I would like you to throw some light on the following questions:
1.) You claim that the lines "The oldest surviving remnant of ancient Chinese Liubo (or Liu po) dates to circa 1500 BC. Nevertheless, Liubo, though sometimes considered a battle game, was played with dice." constitute "properly sourced material."
Where are the sources for these lines in your revert ? If you don't have any sources for these lines then how is my removal of unsourced material a bad edit according to you ?
2.) You're using the German historian Peter Banaschak in the same lines as David Li, without mentioning what he has to say about Li's theories.
Do you not think that if you're mentioning Peter Banaschak in connection with David Li then it would be proper for you to mention this as well ?
As far as notability in an encyclopedia is concerned, Li made none I researched, and I still made sure he was represented in the article but representing Peter Banaschak in connection with Li will have to be done completely, not partially as has been done.
Of course then it would raise WP:UNDUE issues on why we're giving the Banaschak-Li connection such heavy place (in terms of kilobytes), so it's best to leave it only to what Li has to say, which again did not make any other encyclopedia of note.
3.) Why have you altered David Li's profession ? Why not let people know that he was an accountant who started writing books after he retired ?
Kindly refrain from making such colorful edit summaries,
With Regards,
Havelock the Dane
Talk 20:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
1.) The date of 1500 BC is referenced on the Liubo page, and could be repeated here, though I personally do not see any particular need for that. The bad edit part mainly refered to the fact that you removed the reference to Banaschak as being a dubious source.
2.) I am aware of what Banaschak has to say about Li. An earlier version of the article gave (IMO) undue attention to Li, and I edited the section by adding material from someone other than Li. My intention was not to make it seem that Banaschak supports Li, and I do not think the text gave that impression.
3.) Regarding the profession of Li, I feel the current edit by J S Ayer is neutral enough. I don't know why Li gets such attention anyway, why not refer to eg Joseph Needham?
HermanHiddema 21:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Look, regardless of the Li/Banaschak/XiangQi discussion, I think you're doing good work on an article which badly needed it. The only reason I reverted you was because I had recently made this edit and this edit, in which I tried to neutralize the text on Chinese origin and make it lean less heavily solely on the work of David H Li. I added (IMO) a good extra source on XiangQi. When someone the makes a change back to a text leaning only on the work of Li, with an edit summary that calls Banaschak a 'bad source', I think it is only natural for me to revert that edit, and I still think that makes it a bad edit among many good ones. As you state above about the text after your edit: It gives proper due, unnecessary due even, to Li's theories. I agree, Li gets to much attention when there are other source with (IMO) better credentials (Needham, Banaschak). HermanHiddema 09:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Given that Havelock is currently heavily editing, I will try not to touch the text until his work is done. I would like to point out however, that the current text contains the following:
Chaturanga was a battle simulation game played by four people; two players aligned against the remaining two.
The reference given for this statement is Wilkins 2002. Now as far as I know, the theory that chaturanga evolved from a four to a two player game was already discredited by Murray in 1913. Looking on the internet, I suggest reading this text by Cazaux for a good treatment of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HermanHiddema ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
For letting me edit the article uninterrupted and for waiting to discuss the nitty gritty until I'm done composing a rough draft (which is what this version basically is). I will be composing a "To-do" list after this rough draft is done (which should not really take very long now) and I hope the other editors add everything that's stopping this article's transition to a higher quality scale to it. Havelock the Dane Talk 06:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Following is a list for things that can be done to further promote the article. I'll go ahead and add my concerns first, and will try my best to take care of them as soon as I find some time. I'll be signing above the list because this is meant for everyone so please add your concerns here before we nominate the article to WP:GA. Havelock the Dane Talk 14:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Some points I would like to see adressed: HermanHiddema 15:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I like both these lists. Mention of modern tournaments should be brief here, with possibly more extensive coverage elsewhere. We have list of strong chess tournaments, but that article could stand some improvement. Brief mention of FIDE is also appropriate. It has its own article (also could be improved) for more extensive coverage. History of the World Championship itself belongs mostly in World Chess Championship, which is in pretty good shape. As far as chaturanga goes, perhaps we could use Murray unless his discussion isn't sufficient. Quale 20:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that we all agree to the following points:
1.) Japanese Chess needs a mention and then the user can/should check the many variants of the game for himself in the main article as it would provide him/her with details. I'll work to incorporate text pertaining to that view in the near future.
2.) The first section under India can be relocated. I'll get to it ASAP.
3.) A brief mention of the formation and rise of FIDE ought to suffice. Will do ASAP.
4.) I'll apply for a move to History of Chess and will attach a commons link as well.
I disagree on the following points:
1.) We have
Joseph Needham and even the
David H. Li + Banaschak mentioned in the main article and that's more than enough. These guys are seen as experts or popular proponents of the "Chinese origins" theory.
None of the other encyclopedias even care to mention what these sources have to say with regard to chess in such detail as this one currently does. An alternate theory is an alternate theory and that's it. No
undue weightage, which would go on to undermine the mainstream theory, should be attached to it in any event. We're building an encyclopedia and not writing a magazine article; for better or for worse the mainstream views have to be represented as they are. Ditto for minority views which already have way too much space here.
2.) Making exclusive edits to source sections using regional scholarship is a bad idea. If such patterns are followed then one would not rely on academic libraries but would have to somehow find regional scholarship to source every line for every region. As far as "Chinese scholarship for China" is concerned I have to say that those familiar with Needham's work will know that he has no western bias whatsoever and is good enough on his own. David H. Li is there too.
3.) I have problems considering EB as "erroneous."
Evolved variations of Chaturanga were played by four people (as documented by Abu Rayhan al-Biruni) and the EB doesn't say that the two player version did not exist or when the game evolved. It just says that shatranj was a popular 2 player variant.
Removing EB is something I'm not too comfortable with. However, we should make efforts towards promoting the " 2-Handed game precedes the 4-Handed game for about four centuries" view by adding it to the article so no scope for confusion remains. I'll get to it but wholesale removal of EB is something I'm not too comfortable with.
Havelock the Dane Talk 04:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
From this article:
A variation of chaturanga made its way to Europe through Persia, the Byzantine empire and the expanding Arabian empire.[6] Chess appeared in Southern Europe during the end of the first millennium, often introduced to new lands by conquering armies, such as the Norman Conquest of England.[7] Chess remained largely unpopular among the North European people — who could not relate to the abstract shapes — but started gaining popularity as soon as figurative pieces were introduced.[7]
The source is apperantly
Riddler 1998
So I'd like to know if anyone can verefiy that source..
Althou I don't have any good enough evidences right now(and therfore can't edit this yet), I'm told chess where introduced in the nordic contries when vikings visited Mikligarðr, or Byzantium as it was realy named, during trading journeys. This was before the people of normandy invaded england if I'm not much mistaken.. Also there is atleast some mentions to vikings playing chess and there are some founds of chess from during the viking age... I'll try to find some more information about this later one, perhaps even some english sources that's good enough for this article.. Luredreier 00:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
162. OF KING CANUTE AND EARL ULF.
When King Canute saw that the kings of Norway and Sweden steered eastward with their forces along the coast, he sent men to ride night and day on the land to follow their movements. Some spies went forward, others returned; so that King Canute had news every day of their progress. He had also spies always in their army. Now when he heard that a great part of the fleet had sailed away from the kings, he turned back with his forces to Seeland, and lay with his whole fleet in the Sound; so that a part lay on the Scania side, and a part on the Seeland side. King Canute himself, the day before Michaelmas, rode with a great retinue to Roeskilde. There his brother-in-law, Earl Ulf, had prepared a great feast for him. The earl was the most agreeable host, but the king was silent and sullen. The earl talked to him in every way to make him cheerful, and brought forward everything which he thought would amuse him; but the king remained stern, and speaking little. At last the earl proposed to him a game at chess, which he agreed to; and a chess-board was produced, and they played together. Earl Ulf was hasty in temper, stiff, and in nothing yielding; but everything he managed went on well in his hands; and he was a great warrior, about whom there are many stories. He was the most powerful man in Denmark next to the king. Earl Ulf's sister Gyda was married to Earl Gudin (Godwin) Ulfnadson; and their sons were Harald king of England, and Earl Toste, Earl Valthiof, Earl Morukare, and Earl Svein. Gyda was the name of their daughter, who was married to the English king Edward the Good.
A recent edit has added Edward Pino to the list of twentieth-century leading players who were also leading analysts. I have never heard of him, and an Internet search does not turn him up as a chess-player. Can anyone substantiate this claim? If not, I suppose he'll have to be deleted. J S Ayer ( talk) 02:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Should not Tafl be mentioned in this article as a predessesor? AWT ( talk) 00:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
A new section was recently added to this article, in which one Noshir Jesung retold the story of the origin of chess as narrated by Ferdowsi so that the war between the princes Gau and Talhend results in the invention of MODERN chess, with the far-ranging bishop (camel) and queen (minister). This is an engaging piece of literature, but in a serious discussion of history is simply preposterous; those pieces were invented in Europe and grafted into chess in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. The passage also uses curved quotation marks and apostrophes, contrary to Wikipedia practice. It also says that "shah" is an Indian word for "king", although from what little I know of Indo-Iranian languages it is Persian, not Indic. For these reasons I have regretfully deleted the entire tale. J S Ayer ( talk) 01:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the external links added July 15 go to very weak pages; what does anyone else think? J S Ayer ( talk) 01:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
There was once a link to the Goddesschess website, which contains several essays on the history of chess like those on the IGK website, plus essays on various other subjects. It was deleted; I don't think a reason was given. I didn't object because I wrote one of the essays; I suppose it has been up a year now. Should we link to the several chess essays? J S Ayer ( talk) 01:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
That might be to http://www.goddesschess.com/chessays/chessaystoc.html J S Ayer ( talk) 02:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
All right, everyone is on vacation. I have just deleted those two weak links and added one that contributes more. J S Ayer ( talk) 02:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
". That is a conflict here isn't it? So I took what was put in the original chess article and applied it here. Everyone ok with that then ya? ARYAN818 ( talk) 22:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
It is just two different ways of saying the same thing and rather than be insulted, the poster implying there is a contradiction should just accept that he has remedial reading difficulties and do something about it, such as enroll in some sort of night school. Being insulted won't improve your reading comprehension skills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.44.133 ( talk) 20:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Alright im kind of just messing around then waterd . . . . . 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 06:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The number 2 source on this article, is that even a source? ARYAN818 ( talk) 22:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This is because this article uses a different quotation style than you are used to, I think. The a b c d are indeed links back into the article, which is normal if someone uses named references of the form <ref name="Name">. The reference is to "Wilkinson 1943". This is a common style to reference books and academic articles, of the form "Author Year-of-Publication". The full reference can be found in the "References" section below, where you will find an entry:
So this is an article by Wilkinson, published in 1943 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin. The reference contains a link to a web version as well. HermanHiddema ( talk) 19:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Why so complicated? Why not just have a simple source, if possible, that takes you somewhere simply. I mean to the average person who clicks that link, the link just sometime's takes you to different part's of the aritcle. ARYAN818 ( talk) 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the large map should be moved out of the section of East Asia because it shows the spread of the chess-like games, not only in East Asia, but even in Africa and Europe as well. PFlores3 ( talk) 00:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think this map should be just removed from this page. This map is bearing too many wrong or unproved information, so it is very misleading. Most of the dates are wrong and not corroborated by historical facts. Most of arrows are mere speculations. Not to say that several names are wrong, for instance Senterej is not a North African variant of Chess. It is the name of Chess in Ethiopia and it was not attested before the end of 19th century. Let's forget this map. Cazaux ( talk) 21:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I also think this map should not appear. It shows senterej in Libya rather than Ethiopia; it shows chess entering Germany about 1500, when Murray gives sources showing that it was known at least in southern Germany in the eleventh century; it gives no date at all for Central Asia, where the earliest definite chess pieces were found; it shows chess entering Russia from Byzantium, when linguistic and artistic evidence alike indicate that it entered from Persia; it shows a firm origin for chess in central India at 600 A.D. when modern scholarship favors the north of India and a date a number of centuries earlier; it shows no connection between Japan and south Asia, while Japanese scholars now take such a connection for granted. J S Ayer ( talk) 02:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I have deleted this article three times, giving reasons and asking anyone who wants it reinstated to give reasons. Three times it has been reinserted without discussion. I have therefore asked for arbitration. J S Ayer ( talk) 04:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The last 2 sections (1850 onwards) a content fork from World Chess Championship. They should be trimmed to a bare minimum (a paragraph, maybe two), with a pointer to WCC. Peter Ballard ( talk) 00:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Things that should probably stay in are: informal matches in the first half of the 19th century; the emergence of national championships (nothing on them yet?) as well as the world championship in the second half of 19th century; FIDE; chess olympiads; womens chess; FIDE takes control of the world championship in 1948; FIDE establishes titles in 1950. It would perhaps be reasonable to end the article at 1950 and refer the reader to World Chess Championship. (Except perhaps the emergenece of computer and internet chess? And the explosion of chess theory also?) It's easy to confuse "History of Chess" with "History of the World Chess Championship", but they're two different things; including national, womens and teams championships helps add the balance. Peter Ballard ( talk) 01:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the image of the Iranian chess set be moved to the section on Iran? And the image of the Knights Templar playing chess be moved to the section on Europe, Early History? And the image of the map showing the origin and diffusion of chess from India to Asia, Africa and Europe be enlarged a bit? FadulJoseA ( talk) 12:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Recently the file File:Chess players by Anthony Rosenbaum.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. I'm not entirely sure who's who in this image, although the NPG site lists all their names - I'm sure some of them could be cropped out to form portraits for players who don't have images yet. Dcoetzee 06:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Here are they all:
Es sind: 1 Professor Wayte, 2 Mr Salter, 3 Mr Minchin, 4 Mr Cubison, 5 Earl of Dartrey, 6 Mr Woodgate, 7, 8 Mr Wyvill, 9 10 Mr Greenhough, 11 Mr Day, 12 Mr Donnisthorpe 13 ? waiter, 14 Mr Tinsley, 15 Rev Mr Macdonnell, 16 Mr Lowenthal, 17 Mr Bird, 18 Mr Blackburne, 19 Mr Vyse, 20 Mr Mason, 21Mr Lord, 22 Mr Walker, 23 Mr Hoffer, 24 Mr Steinitz, 25 Mr Zukertort, 26 Mr Potter, 27 Mr Horwitz, 28 Mr Murton, 29 Mr Studd, 30 Dr Ballard Sen., 31 Mr Hirschfeld, 32 Mr Chapman, 33 Mr Clark, 34 Mr Thomson, 35 Mr Walrond, 36 Mr Gastineau, 37 Rev Mr Pearson, 38 Mr Kunwald, 39 Mr Rabbeth, 40 Mr Eccles, 41 Mr Wagner, 42 Mr Gümpel, 43 Mr Coburn, 44 Dr Ballard Junr., 45 Mr Mackern, 46 Mr Rosenbaum, 47 ? waiter. Gerhard Josten —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.229.59 ( talk) 15:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
This sentence was recently changed, giving a reference to Bird: infantry, cavalry, elephants, and chariotry (originally navy), represented by the pieces that would evolve into the modern pawn, knight, rook, and bishop, respectively. Davidson gives the elephant as the bishop. So does The Oxford Companion to Chess. So does Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess. Bubba73 (talk), 20:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The moves of all the pieces employed in the Chaturanga were the same as those made in Asia and Europe down to the close of the Fifteenth century of our era. The Queen up to that time was a piece with only a single square move, the Bishop in the original game was represented by a ship, the Castle or Rook (as it is now indiscriminately called) by an elephant, the Knight by a horse, the two last named have never at any time undergone the slightest change, the alteration in the Bishop consists only in the extension of its power of two clear moves, to the entire command of its own diagonal.
Bird was probably mistaken. The google books link is
http://books.google.com/books?id=oJPVDNaSL8YC. On page 48 Bird gives a translation of a passage from the
Bhavishya Purana: "Let each player place his elephant on the left of his King, next to the Horse, and last of all the Ship..." This contradicts what he wrote just two pages earlier in the quote given above. [Sorry, I see that this could be
Chaturaji as suggested above]. Murray explains that rook=elephant was mistaken speculation by some early European writers on the history of chess,
A History of Chess, p. 159:
Bird reported the work of Duncan Forbes, which was discredited perhaps 20 years later (see Cox-Forbes theory). We should explain this somewhere, certainly at Bishop (chess)#History and possibly in this article also. Quale ( talk) 05:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The last external link, to chessmuseum.org, is dead, and I can't find a new location with a search engine. Can the person who originally contributed this link (or anyone else) help? J S Ayer ( talk) 03:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Kshatranj is sanskrit for 'battlefield'
Some nameless contributor has inserted yet another unsupported claim of great antiquity of chess in China, taking it back to the Warring States Period. It is buttressed by one link to a document in Chinese and one to Sam Sloan's essay. It contradicts Peter Banaschak's statement that the earliest definite reference to chess in Chinese literature is in an essay by a Tang Dynasty government minister in the ninth century C.E. I have therefore called for references at three points, and I hope someone who reads Chinese will evaluate the Chinese document. Failing support, these claims must go. J S Ayer ( talk) 02:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
According to Checkmate, the phrase "Shāh Māt" means literally "the King is ambushed" (or "helpless", "defeated", or "stumped", but not "dead"). [1] I suggest that this common misconception that it means "the King is dead" be corrected in this article. It would be nice if these two articles agreed on the translation. EdwardSabol ( talk) 18:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
References
"Findings in the Mohenjo-daro and Harappa (2600–1500 BCE) sites of the Indus Valley Civilization show a prevalence of a board game that resembles chess." I don't know when I will be able to find a copy of the cited source. Please: how, exactly, does it resemble chess? J S Ayer ( talk) 05:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
About etimology of italian "Alfiere", eng. Bishop it is not sure that came from Arab language.
It is plausible that also the Arabs have taken the word from Latin Ferens the soldier who carries the flag. In Italy the word "alfiere" means the bearer of flag. Example in medieval Palio. During Roman Empire was called Aquilifer. So the word is returned in Italy from Arabs as in English much latin words are returned with Normans conquest. See http://www.etimo.it/?term=alfiere
Indeed can not to be two sets of knights. (Arab: Al-Faris means knight). In western world the Bishop is represented with an Partian catafratta armor. Which suggests also a possible derivation from war games on the board already present in classical antiquity as the roman Ludus latrunculorum war game played almost certainly in 64 squares chessboard. It is arrived perhaps from Ancient Greece, Anatolia, Egypt or Mesopotamia or born locally or born in other parts. We don’t know. The Indian chess probably is only a local variant of game already widespread in the world since immemorial time. Howewer modern rules are established in mediterranean world during medieval period. In medieval Italy, as in ancient Greece, for the things that it haven't clear knowledge about the origin. The origin was attributed to a mythical Orient (Indie). Indeed for medieval Europe Indie means generally Orient, could to be Persia or China to see Cristoforo Colombo that thought to arrive in Indie (plural word).
-- Andriolo ( talk) 11:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I would only to throw the stone in the pond. Indeed the english articles of history of chess, is too much categorical. Some more “perhaps”…… it will make it better. The hypothesis of the subcontinent (not Asia), is British and was born with the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and is based on Indian legends written, however several centuries after the facts. (The first indian source of chatrang are witten in XII century). In the sameway why not in Ancient Babil ? (An italian legend in Jacopo Cessole book say about Nabucodonosor. However the chess until the Italian Renaissance, in Latin, were called Ludus latrinculorum so we are unable to say if gothic Teodorico il Grande (500CE) played chess or latrunculorum. The mention of latruculorum as chess appared in Europe in sources of c.a. 900-1000 CE with the end of dark age. This mix of terminology has caused lot of problems.
Archaeology tells us two things: 1) the most ancient findings of boards that we use in chess are in the Mediterranean area (8x8 chessboard with two colors diagonal squares used probably for Dama). File:scacchiera2-300x231.jpg This is only one of innumerable examples. It is in pubblic area in Brescia in some roman ruins on Foro. The black is X. 2) the first discoveries of chatrang that we have are in Uzbekistan (c.a. 700 CE Uzbekistan was India at wide sense, in this period) I remember that Scythian kings was considered Indians for Greeks and also for the hellenized Parthians and Sassanids. As for Alfonso X.
The central Asia origin, in the Silk Road, between Caspian Sea until Afghanistan (in area influenced from Parthian or Sassanid empire), I think can explain lot of things and the possibility for other steppic tribe as the germanic Goths to play chess before the Arabs. About latrunculi type see also see Tafl games. About latrunculi archeological findings in this book http://books.google.it/books?id=NJMcQ3az2KUC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=ludus+lusoria+brescia&source=bl&ots=M9HsPFeqEf&sig=DK0lGlwwGuk2RF53q3VjQuramEI&hl=it&ei=YyB_TaaVI4vasgaB6MTuBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ludus%20lusoria%20brescia&f=false
Only the beautiful examples of Mohejodaro can resolve the temporal contradictions with mediterranean chess or lantruculi and sustain the Indian Origin. The Egyptians and Knossos zachitrion are indubitely too much different table games. Gupta origin is too much recent. Jacopo Cessole has reason, it must be know well before than Arabs. Howewer that modern chess with mediterranean 8x8 board could be born only in Central Asia with a mix.
(this is a fragment of a discussion open in chess article)
-- Andriolo ( talk) 08:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Mohejodaro board games resemble germanic Tafl and nordic versions Latrunculi with a central king ??? ....... http://www.worldinprint.com/pictures_1182830/board-game.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.75.119 ( talk) 14:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
VENAFRO CASE There is also an OOPART chess pieces in roman tombs, the range of dating of the chess is controversial, 700-1000CE, 95% 850-1000CE 68% c.a. radiology on the material but the discussion is open. There are scolars that say it is an example of pre-islamic chess in Europe. And there are scholars that say that came in Italy during islamic incursion and Sicily invasion, but the style is different from sicilian pieces. And it is open the question, how these chess are finished into the roman tomb. http://goddesschess.blogspot.com/2009/08/mystery-of-venafro-chess-pieces.html http://goddesschess.blogspot.com/2009/08/mystery-of-venafro-chess-pieces-part-2.html Howewer they are serious claim that they are very old contemporary Uzbekistan.
There are other controversial findings in Butrint 600-700 CE during Byzantine Empire. The two colored chessboard are common in roman empire for Dama, and there isn't mystic interpretations. I think that Murray is too much old book. Gupta thesys is unsustainable. If you want Indian thesys, the chess must be older. -- Andriolo ( talk) 00:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not know if it is born in India (subcontinent today) or not, because “India” in medieval time was an ambiguous word often meant East Asia in general.
Murray is an old book. he didn’t know modern archeological and archival sources.
The manuscript with the image that you are referring is very recent at time the venetians sold chess “in cristallo di rocca” to Mongols long the Silk Road. In medieval time, the cosmopolitan people of Silk Road (Westerners, Persians, Arabs, Greeks, Jews, Slavs, Mongols) played together in the caravanserrais and in the brothels.
Contacts between the North Africa and Spain Arabs and Western worlds until the thirteenth century were quite limited for religious and war reasons. The Arabs do not set foot in western cities. The Italian merchants could not leave the “fondaci” in the muslim harbours. If an infidel merchant left Alexandria to move down the Nile could be killed. The contacts were limited and left to Jews intermediaries.
Things were much easier in Terra Santa, Asia and around the Black Sea. The directly asian way is more valid, at least for italian city-states and Byzantium.
The questions are still open... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.74.226 ( talk) 11:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
About central Asian syncretistic origin:
http://www.schachquellen.de/15038.html
The thesys of Murray is old, and is based on the opinion in vogue in the British Empire but no on archeological sources and archival sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.72.91 ( talk) 10:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
That excellent essay is already accessible through the link to the IGK's other website. J S Ayer ( talk) 16:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The Persian section is a cut-and-paste from this website: http://blog.chess.com/mohajeri/history-of-chess-in-iran
I thought Wikipedia had rules against that.
Professor Lewis is a prominent scholar in middle eastern studies so when he says that chess was invented by Persians his opinion should be considered. Please note the most reliable sources in Wikipedia are: [ peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses]. Iranic ( talk) 09:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, as one can't neglect that Ferdowsi is simply writing a tale which may not be based on historical fact. In fact, the oldest known reference points to Shah Ardashir as being a master of the game, his rule was from 224 - 241 AD. This would indicate that chess was invented some time before his rule, and long before Ferdowsi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:100:DCB0:EDCE:F987:85F4:6DF6 ( talk) 20:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
If a late document stated that Alexander played chess, that can indeed be evidence that chess existed in Alexanders time. But Edson marshall is only an example. And one can be used to make the point that there is no reason for the assertion that Ferdowsi's reference to 'Hind' should be regarded as a reliable reference to historical origins of chess, rather than a tale meant to inspire Persian natioanlism. Mind that the oldest verifiable chess pieces have been uncovered in Persianate regions, and 'Hind' actually referred to parts of southeast iran up until the 11th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:180:6548:6126:BDE3:6138:240 ( talk) 03:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
A link to chess paintings was added, and immediately removed as spam. I took a look at it, and see no reason why it should be considered spam. It isn't advertising anything. It is a large collection of paintings of people playing board games, and of chess pieces, and perhaps other things (I didn't look at all fifteen hundred images). There may be reasons to oppose linking to it, but I think "spam" isn't one. J S Ayer ( talk) 00:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Do I have the permission to put this link again ? JMRW67 ( talk) 09:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I checked the reference; it deprecates links to personal websites because those generally contain material only of interest to the author and his family and friends. This does not appear to me to come under that heading. Does anyone else have an opinion? J S Ayer ( talk) 00:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Concerning this section:
Chess was introduced to Persia from India and became a part of the princely or courtly education of Persian nobility. [1] In Sassanid Persia around 600 the name became chatrang, which subsequently evolved to shatranj, due to Arab Muslim’s lack of ch and ng native sounds [2], and the rules were developed further. Players started calling "Shāh!" (Persian for "King!") when attacking the opponent's king, and "Shāh Māt!" (Persian for "the king is helpless" – see checkmate) when the king was attacked and could not escape from attack. These exclamations persisted in chess as it traveled to other lands.
I find it suspicious that "Māt" in Arabic (مات) is connected to Māta, "he died". Astabada ( talk) 09:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
References
Hello all! Have you ever heard about Sam Sloan theory about origin of chess in china? Some material was added to portuguese article and I removed because it used a poor reliable source. But I read it and it seems tha Sloan wrote a book about it and have debunked Murray theory in some way. For example, that Murray couldn't speak pahlavi and used another paper of H.J. Raverty as source to say chess is indian by origin. Seems that Raverty is not an expert in pahlavi neither. Anyway, I'd like to know if you guys mind to point out some source about this theory. Nowadays, I'm using this source to sustain that chinese theory it's not completely accepted by scholars. Regards! OTAVIO1981 ( talk) 17:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
JS Ayer, you know the rules of Wikipedia. You need to refute the claim that references to xiangqi precede refs in India. The warring states claim is fully referenced on xiangqi page. Refute it please. Luan Hanratty ( talk) 02:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Quale, your point is a logical fallacy: argument from authority and does not address the merits of the claim. Please refute the facts stated above and in the article. Luan Hanratty ( talk) 09:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The Xianqi article says this: "References to a game called xiangqi date back to the Warring States period; according to the first century BC text Shuo yuan (說苑), it was one of Lord Mengchang of Qi's interests." The reference for this claim has five BCE sources all referring to a game called Xiangqi. We don't know the rules of this ancient xiangqi but your insistence on completely excluding it from the article despite it sharing the same name as the modern game is unreasonable. All these ancient references to the game with the same name as Chinese chess, which far predate the earliest Indian references, deserve a mention at the top of the article because they are not just relevant but absolutely critical to the history of chess and its origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luan Hanratty ( talk • contribs) 10:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
There seem to have been at least three games named Xiangqi, making the relevance of a name with no description quite questionable. J S Ayer ( talk) 02:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Common sense and Occam’s razor would suggest that because the ancient game and the early-medieval game share the same name, they are linked in other ways and share some of the same features. Two of those sources on the xiangqi page say that the pieces were the same — having scholars, elephants, horses, catapults etc. Other sources in that reference say it was a strategy and fighting game. You obviously have not read the reference. Here it is: http://www.banaschak.net/schach/origins.htm Given this information and given Occam's razor, it would be less likely that the ancient and early-medieval games of xiangqi share only the same name but none of the same features. Luan Hanratty ( talk) 10:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This is spurious. ludus latrunculorum may be called chess but it has almost nothing in common with chess. Xianqi and international chess on the other hand clearly share so many features that either one came from the other or they share a common ancestor.
Regarding Niu Sengru, he was referencing the ancient emperor Shennong who supposedly played xiangqi as we know. So it is a secondary source but then in the study of history since when are secondary sources rejected? Murray uses plenty of them. Luan Hanratty ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Granted the first line of my edit could be construed as original and I'll remove that particular sentence. However, it's ironic that you mention reliable sources. The sources in the Banaschak paper regarding ancient xiangqi, provide far more evidence than the sources references backing the claim that: "Precursors to chess originated in India during the Gupta Empire.” I’ve looked at these references and they do not provide better or even good evidence.
1. Leibs (2004) p 92 — “The game was invented in India during the 6th century” This is all it says regarding the origins. No explanations or anything.
2. Forbes (1860) — refers to this “long-debunked theory” by a colonial professor who claimed chess was invented in 3000 BC /info/en/?search=Cox-Forbes_theory The theory is soundly refuted in the article as well as in the Oxford Companion to Chess (1992).
3. Robinson, Dindy, Estes, Rebecca (1996) — “Two popular games, chess and badminton, come from India, as well as gambling with dice.” Again, this provides nothing to support the assertion. It’s not even a chess book, it’s a book on art.
4. The Murray book, A History of Chess published in 1913, is a credible reference yet only cites two seventh century texts. The book does not mention Chinese chess at all which seems a large oversight considering the the popularity of Chinese chess and its similarities to international chess. But this is an understandable oversight as Murray would not have had access to Banaschak's sources, Murray lived at time when China was still very much inaccessible to Westerners, he may not even have played Xiangqi or even knew of it. India however had been colonised for nearly three centuries and thus was far more accessible and familiar to western historians.
The first three references are so weak that I’m suggesting they are removed. These, and even Murray’s sources, are far weaker than the references on the origins of xiangqi. Luan Hanratty ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to see what Murray wrote about Chinese chess. I do not have a copy.
You wrote that Banaschak does not show that the earliest games of xiangqi were similar to chess. You are wrong here. We do know from the Banaschak sources that ancient xianngqi was a strategy game using elephants and other animals (sources 2 & 4) and that in Tang times the old pieces were replaced with the ones in the modern game (source 1). They key word is replaced. This is a fair and worthy source for inclusion in the article and I will write a new edit to reflect this precisely. This information, in addition to the very fact that the ancient game and the medieval game share the same name and far pre-date the Indian references in the article, makes xiangqi not just worthy but essential for inclusion in the origin section. Luan Hanratty ( talk) 17:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Address the issues please Quale. I wrote that Murray cites two Indian sources because I was looking at an excerpt from Murray. I forgot to mention that it was an excerpt, but that was where he made his main justification. You haven’t provided anything to the contrary yet. How about a quote from him. If you have it. Prove it.
You wrote: "Mainstream chess historians favor Indian origin so I think it is correct for this article to primarily report that expert opinion. Chinese origin is a minority view of note." Can't you see the shortcomings of this point. You are simply appealing to authority — an anonymous authority at that, and this is fallacious. Knowledge of logical fallacies is a basic part of arguing. It’s not a strong point because we still don't know a) who are these people? b) what they wrote to refute the Chinese origin theory? c) if these anonymous authorities have properly researched the Chinese origin theory? d) why is Banaschak not getting credit for his research and evidence? And so on
You also ignored the important points I made in the last comment. Luan Hanratty ( talk) 19:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
"A player whose mobile phone rings, thereby loses." Could we have a source, please? J S Ayer ( talk) 01:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
A manuscript explaining the rules of the game called "Matikan-i-chatrang" (the book of chess) in Middle Persian or Pahlavi still exists. citation needed
to
A manuscript explaining the rules of the game called "Matikan-i-chatrang" (the book of chess) in Middle Persian or Pahlavi still exists. [1]
which provides the proper citation. Bbradt ( talk) 02:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
References
There should be a link to this Wikipedia article: /info/en/?search=Ludus_latrunculorum#Chess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.182.47 ( talk) 11:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Why are these two Wikipedia articles not directly linked ? It is Censorship to hide the connection. 47.201.182.47 ( talk) 14:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
If you feel strongly about it and given that you have already made several edits as a guest, why not become a member? Once you complete the initial qualification period of ten edits in four (I think) days, you will be able to edit protected articles. No Great Shaker ( talk) 14:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
In that case, reword the paragraph so it is clear that the Roman game was a potential precursor and the Gupta game a likely one. The facts are that the Roman game existed and has been likened to chess so it is relevant, especially as it is reliably sourced. I'm signing off for now and will leave it with you to restore and suitably revise the wording. No Great Shaker ( talk) 01:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The inclusion of the Roman game as a potential precursor, suitably and reliably sourced, has twice been removed by an editor who apparently doesn't like it despite the reliable source and relevant usage of the same information in another article. Would other editors please comment? Thank you. No Great Shaker ( talk) 00:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The history of chess can be traced back at least 1500 years, and the earliest origins are uncertain. The earliest predecessors may have been Greco-Roman board games which were brought to India through the remnants of Alexander's empire, see Ludus latrunculorum. Early predecessors of the game evolved in India before the 6th century AD; a minority of historians believe the game originated in China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.182.47 ( talk) 02:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The article about Ludus latrunculorum is interesting and it was all new to me. It is in a way reassuring to see that board games with a generic resemblance to Go, checkers, etc. were played in the Roman empire.
The source that made the most serious attempt to connect it with chess was Samsin. But Samsin explicitly admits that there are serious missing links. That is, ludus was played before chess, and it has some superficial physical resemblance, but that's all he has got. He doesn't, for example, have evidence that ludus spread to what is now Persia, though he evidently thinks it was possible.
One can't prove a negative in archaeology. Perhaps, indeed, chess existed hundreds of years before the oldest evidence that we know of, in regions where we have not yet found it, etc. (I saw the same difficulty in reading the article about Backgammon.) But Wikipedia is for summaries of current knowledge, not for speculation about what might have happened. Bruce leverett ( talk) 04:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Would all participants please note that I have invited a sysop to join this discussion as adjudicator given the breach of WP:CANVAS that has taken place on top of earlier concerns around reversion of content that was already under discussion here. Thank you. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Just add a mention and link to ludus latrunculorum so wikipedia readers can see it and judge for themselves all scholarly viewpoints. That is all I ask. I suggested above how to write it. 47.201.182.47 ( talk) 12:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Support suggested opening by 47.201.182.47 providing that reliable sources are cited. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Chaturanga is the earliest known game in the chess family, and I think speculations about its origin belong there, not here. Philidor wrote several centuries ago, and expert knowledge has shifted noticeably since then. Murray's History, admittedly a century old now, is still substantially unchallenged. J S Ayer ( talk) 14:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I think a large problem, unaddressed until now, is that the article Ludus latrunculorum urges that the Greek game variously called petteia, psephoi, or polis is one of the sources of chaturanga, and that latrunculi is the same game. That last leap is one too many for me. According to our article History of games, it is, but the reference is to Homo Ludens 1994, and an essay by Ulrich Schädler, which I have not seen and cannot evaluate. J S Ayer ( talk) 21:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
OK Who will now go ahead and write the opening as I suggested, or will Wikipedia continue trying to censor and hide all this ? 47.201.182.47 ( talk) 13:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Please note that the IP who initiated this discussion has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 17:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
It's interesting to look at the editing history of ludus latrunculorum. A series of good faith edits led to chess being given undue prominence in that article. This appears to have appealed to those who have what may be politely described as Eurocentric views. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 05:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Looking into the claim that Ivan the Terrible banned chess reveals a handful of forum posts making this claim with no evidence to back them up. The book, Ivan the Terrible by Kazimierz Waliszewski is the source of the claim that he died playing chess (at least in the Ivan the Terrible Wikipedia article), but makes no mention of him banning chess in the book. I have a hunch that this claim is a apocryphal legend that makes his death ironic. I would love to see a reliable source for this or this claim removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonharrisoncode ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
First, the shogi part mentiones the 'independently invented rook, bishop and queen of modern Western chess', which arose in dai shogi and the first two of which were transferred to regular shogi. It remains unclear which actual shogi pieces these are. It's especially puzzling why the rook had to be independently invented, since it seems that it acted essentially like a modern rook already in the earliest chaturanga and never stopped doing so in xiangqi.
Also, while the Chinese and Japanese varieties are presented in some detail, some others are either not mentioned at all, not even with a wikilink, or only in passing - the Korean one, the Burmese one, the Vietnamese one, the Ethiopian one, etc. Again, this seems like an inconsistency, for which I see no reason. -- 82.137.115.143 ( talk) 13:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
One more thing - the article Courier chess mentions that it played a part in the evolution from medieval to modern chess, with the so-called Courier being the first piece to move as a modern-day bishop (which, I suppose, is why the bishop is called a courier or runner in many languages). However, Courier chess is not mentioned in the section on the 'Origins of the modern game' in this article.-- 82.137.115.143 ( talk) 14:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The sources presenting an Arabic etymology seem outdated, and the statements implausible, given the obvious Persian origin of shah (and not sheikh).-- 82.137.115.143 ( talk) 13:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
'In some parts of India the pieces in the places of the rook, knight and bishop were renamed by words meaning (in this order) Boat, Horse, and Elephant, or Elephant, Horse, and Camel'
As the article explains elsewhere, the Bishop was originally called the Elephant, so it's not that it was originally called Bishop and then renamed to Elephant, but vice versa - the name 'Bishop' is a European innovation, whereas the parts of India where it's called the Elephant are the ones keeping the original name. I don't know if there are any parts of India where it's called something like a Bishop even now, anyway.-- 82.137.115.143 ( talk) 14:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
In two places we are citing something called "The History of Chess", from a website called ChessZone. One of them is the diagram of the supposed starting position of chaturanga in the Origin section.
The ChessZone website is gone, and I cannot find "The History of Chess" or any parts of it online. It was a collection of articles by various authors. They were, as far as I could tell, not peer-reviewed and generally appeared to be works in progress. (This is also discussed in Talk:Chaturanga.) Other sources (reliable ones this time) will have to be found, or if not available, material that cited ChessZone may have to be dropped. Bruce leverett ( talk) 03:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
This article has dozens of citations of Encyclopedia Britannica. This is scandalous. Instead, we should be using secondary sources, per WP:SECONDARY. Bruce leverett ( talk) 05:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Chess Page: The Edward Lasker sentence in section: 'Persia' is not a proper source. His presumption was pure speculation, based on zero information/sources, centuries after the fact. This subjective addition lowers the validity of an otherwise good article, into a seemingly lopsided opinion piece. 2A00:23C5:2710:8A01:25E5:21C7:2778:DDCA ( talk) 02:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I apologize; I own both The Adventure of Chess by Edward Lasker and Richard Bell's two books in one, and was confused. Lasker did not say that possibly the Indian ambassador had been plied with liquor. J S Ayer ( talk) 03:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
We can easily document each of the archaic features of Makruk, but who wants to take responsibility for saying that it is the most archaic surviving form of chess? At the moment someone is demanding a citation for that. J S Ayer ( talk) 03:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|
The introduction appears to state that 70% of the population in India plays chess but this doesn't seem correct since the source mentions that it's "70% among the 121m Indians considered ABC1 by advertisers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.244.168.161 ( talk) 12:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia:
I believe that origin of chess should be stated as: "A Matter of Controversy, . . .. " Britannica.
It is very clear in the Encyclopedia Britannica that Chess history does NOT have a clear origin. Ref. Cite Pg. 1101, Vol 15. Macropaedia. "The origin of Chess is a matter of controversy." "Game pieces found in Russia, China, India, Central Asia, Pakistan, and else where that have been determined to be older than 6th century." All this said the Chess Article does state that Chess originated in India. It appeared around the 6th century AD. Thus, if one chooses to read beyond the first line in the first paragraph it is clear that the best answer to origin of chess is unknown or a matter of controversy.
Soltis, Andrew E.. "chess". Encyclopedia Britannica, 11 Jun. 2021, https://www.britannica.com/topic/chess. Accessed 11 October 2021.
I of course realize that this will be debated as see in the edits on the page. James Powell, P.E., MSME — Preceding unsigned comment added by James1024512 ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Is there any place in this article for the apocryphal origin of chess as an explanation of the battle between Talhand and Gav over the kingdom of Hind referenced in the Shahnameh? It's a nice story and is referenced in the opening of the Broadway musical " Chess". It could be under a heading like "legendary origins". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.165 ( talk) 19:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit by MountainPriest of oct 13 for the following reasons:
HermanHiddema 08:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The statement about the origin of Chinese chess in India is flawed ("As a strategy board game played in China, chess is believed to have been derived from the Indian Chaturanga.[16]"). It uses the reference of Britannia Encyclopedia, which in fact just makes a simple statement without any reference or proof, a typical case of the blind leading the blind.
The conclusion of the origin of chess in India according Persian and Arabic accounts is also ambiguous. The methodology is simply flawed. You cannot draw a conclusion about the origin of Chess by reciting accounts. The Persian and Arab accounts only mean that they got to know the game from the Indians, no more, no less. However, this has nothing to do with the origin of the game! Let's use an analogy, there is no dispute about the origin of the game of Go, an ancient board game invented in China. However, the game was introduced first to the west by Japanese, as can be seen from its English name Go, a transliteration of the Japanese word for the game. So, following that flawed logic, can the rest of the world draw a conclusion that the game of Go originated in Japan, because the Europeans attribute the game to the Japanese (before they were told the real origin of the game)?
The origin of chess is better put in this way "Just as chess is a difficult game, its origin is a difficult puzzle. We may never know the truth of its birth." ( http://chess.about.com/od/history/p/aa06a14.htm)
Havelock the Dane, "mainstream academic opinion", you make me laugh. "As a strategy board game played in China, chess is believed to have been derived from the Indian Chaturanga.[16]" is this your so-called "mainstream academic opinion"? I suppose the "mainstream academic opinion" about the origin of Chinese chess in the place where it is mostly played is quite different from this "mainstream academic opinion". Who defines which is the "mainsteam"?
In reply to J.S. Ayers question about chinese scholarship, I suggest reading
Facts on the Origin of Chinese Chess by Peter Banaschak, which sets out 5 theories proposed by chinese scholars and discusses the evidence for and against them.
As a brief summary, Banaschak lists 5 theories, these are:
Theory 5 (XiangXi) is also the basis of Joseph Needham's theory.
HermanHiddema 15:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If the Chinese invented Chess, why would they name the game after an Indian animal, "The Elephant"? Chaturaji ( talk) 00:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
But it is not a native Chinese animal. Chaturaji ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
HermanHiddema, You made this edit on 12:39, 25 October 2007 with the edit summary "revert bad edit that removed properly sourced material"
I would like you to throw some light on the following questions:
1.) You claim that the lines "The oldest surviving remnant of ancient Chinese Liubo (or Liu po) dates to circa 1500 BC. Nevertheless, Liubo, though sometimes considered a battle game, was played with dice." constitute "properly sourced material."
Where are the sources for these lines in your revert ? If you don't have any sources for these lines then how is my removal of unsourced material a bad edit according to you ?
2.) You're using the German historian Peter Banaschak in the same lines as David Li, without mentioning what he has to say about Li's theories.
Do you not think that if you're mentioning Peter Banaschak in connection with David Li then it would be proper for you to mention this as well ?
As far as notability in an encyclopedia is concerned, Li made none I researched, and I still made sure he was represented in the article but representing Peter Banaschak in connection with Li will have to be done completely, not partially as has been done.
Of course then it would raise WP:UNDUE issues on why we're giving the Banaschak-Li connection such heavy place (in terms of kilobytes), so it's best to leave it only to what Li has to say, which again did not make any other encyclopedia of note.
3.) Why have you altered David Li's profession ? Why not let people know that he was an accountant who started writing books after he retired ?
Kindly refrain from making such colorful edit summaries,
With Regards,
Havelock the Dane
Talk 20:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
1.) The date of 1500 BC is referenced on the Liubo page, and could be repeated here, though I personally do not see any particular need for that. The bad edit part mainly refered to the fact that you removed the reference to Banaschak as being a dubious source.
2.) I am aware of what Banaschak has to say about Li. An earlier version of the article gave (IMO) undue attention to Li, and I edited the section by adding material from someone other than Li. My intention was not to make it seem that Banaschak supports Li, and I do not think the text gave that impression.
3.) Regarding the profession of Li, I feel the current edit by J S Ayer is neutral enough. I don't know why Li gets such attention anyway, why not refer to eg Joseph Needham?
HermanHiddema 21:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Look, regardless of the Li/Banaschak/XiangQi discussion, I think you're doing good work on an article which badly needed it. The only reason I reverted you was because I had recently made this edit and this edit, in which I tried to neutralize the text on Chinese origin and make it lean less heavily solely on the work of David H Li. I added (IMO) a good extra source on XiangQi. When someone the makes a change back to a text leaning only on the work of Li, with an edit summary that calls Banaschak a 'bad source', I think it is only natural for me to revert that edit, and I still think that makes it a bad edit among many good ones. As you state above about the text after your edit: It gives proper due, unnecessary due even, to Li's theories. I agree, Li gets to much attention when there are other source with (IMO) better credentials (Needham, Banaschak). HermanHiddema 09:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Given that Havelock is currently heavily editing, I will try not to touch the text until his work is done. I would like to point out however, that the current text contains the following:
Chaturanga was a battle simulation game played by four people; two players aligned against the remaining two.
The reference given for this statement is Wilkins 2002. Now as far as I know, the theory that chaturanga evolved from a four to a two player game was already discredited by Murray in 1913. Looking on the internet, I suggest reading this text by Cazaux for a good treatment of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HermanHiddema ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
For letting me edit the article uninterrupted and for waiting to discuss the nitty gritty until I'm done composing a rough draft (which is what this version basically is). I will be composing a "To-do" list after this rough draft is done (which should not really take very long now) and I hope the other editors add everything that's stopping this article's transition to a higher quality scale to it. Havelock the Dane Talk 06:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Following is a list for things that can be done to further promote the article. I'll go ahead and add my concerns first, and will try my best to take care of them as soon as I find some time. I'll be signing above the list because this is meant for everyone so please add your concerns here before we nominate the article to WP:GA. Havelock the Dane Talk 14:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Some points I would like to see adressed: HermanHiddema 15:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I like both these lists. Mention of modern tournaments should be brief here, with possibly more extensive coverage elsewhere. We have list of strong chess tournaments, but that article could stand some improvement. Brief mention of FIDE is also appropriate. It has its own article (also could be improved) for more extensive coverage. History of the World Championship itself belongs mostly in World Chess Championship, which is in pretty good shape. As far as chaturanga goes, perhaps we could use Murray unless his discussion isn't sufficient. Quale 20:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that we all agree to the following points:
1.) Japanese Chess needs a mention and then the user can/should check the many variants of the game for himself in the main article as it would provide him/her with details. I'll work to incorporate text pertaining to that view in the near future.
2.) The first section under India can be relocated. I'll get to it ASAP.
3.) A brief mention of the formation and rise of FIDE ought to suffice. Will do ASAP.
4.) I'll apply for a move to History of Chess and will attach a commons link as well.
I disagree on the following points:
1.) We have
Joseph Needham and even the
David H. Li + Banaschak mentioned in the main article and that's more than enough. These guys are seen as experts or popular proponents of the "Chinese origins" theory.
None of the other encyclopedias even care to mention what these sources have to say with regard to chess in such detail as this one currently does. An alternate theory is an alternate theory and that's it. No
undue weightage, which would go on to undermine the mainstream theory, should be attached to it in any event. We're building an encyclopedia and not writing a magazine article; for better or for worse the mainstream views have to be represented as they are. Ditto for minority views which already have way too much space here.
2.) Making exclusive edits to source sections using regional scholarship is a bad idea. If such patterns are followed then one would not rely on academic libraries but would have to somehow find regional scholarship to source every line for every region. As far as "Chinese scholarship for China" is concerned I have to say that those familiar with Needham's work will know that he has no western bias whatsoever and is good enough on his own. David H. Li is there too.
3.) I have problems considering EB as "erroneous."
Evolved variations of Chaturanga were played by four people (as documented by Abu Rayhan al-Biruni) and the EB doesn't say that the two player version did not exist or when the game evolved. It just says that shatranj was a popular 2 player variant.
Removing EB is something I'm not too comfortable with. However, we should make efforts towards promoting the " 2-Handed game precedes the 4-Handed game for about four centuries" view by adding it to the article so no scope for confusion remains. I'll get to it but wholesale removal of EB is something I'm not too comfortable with.
Havelock the Dane Talk 04:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
From this article:
A variation of chaturanga made its way to Europe through Persia, the Byzantine empire and the expanding Arabian empire.[6] Chess appeared in Southern Europe during the end of the first millennium, often introduced to new lands by conquering armies, such as the Norman Conquest of England.[7] Chess remained largely unpopular among the North European people — who could not relate to the abstract shapes — but started gaining popularity as soon as figurative pieces were introduced.[7]
The source is apperantly
Riddler 1998
So I'd like to know if anyone can verefiy that source..
Althou I don't have any good enough evidences right now(and therfore can't edit this yet), I'm told chess where introduced in the nordic contries when vikings visited Mikligarðr, or Byzantium as it was realy named, during trading journeys. This was before the people of normandy invaded england if I'm not much mistaken.. Also there is atleast some mentions to vikings playing chess and there are some founds of chess from during the viking age... I'll try to find some more information about this later one, perhaps even some english sources that's good enough for this article.. Luredreier 00:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
162. OF KING CANUTE AND EARL ULF.
When King Canute saw that the kings of Norway and Sweden steered eastward with their forces along the coast, he sent men to ride night and day on the land to follow their movements. Some spies went forward, others returned; so that King Canute had news every day of their progress. He had also spies always in their army. Now when he heard that a great part of the fleet had sailed away from the kings, he turned back with his forces to Seeland, and lay with his whole fleet in the Sound; so that a part lay on the Scania side, and a part on the Seeland side. King Canute himself, the day before Michaelmas, rode with a great retinue to Roeskilde. There his brother-in-law, Earl Ulf, had prepared a great feast for him. The earl was the most agreeable host, but the king was silent and sullen. The earl talked to him in every way to make him cheerful, and brought forward everything which he thought would amuse him; but the king remained stern, and speaking little. At last the earl proposed to him a game at chess, which he agreed to; and a chess-board was produced, and they played together. Earl Ulf was hasty in temper, stiff, and in nothing yielding; but everything he managed went on well in his hands; and he was a great warrior, about whom there are many stories. He was the most powerful man in Denmark next to the king. Earl Ulf's sister Gyda was married to Earl Gudin (Godwin) Ulfnadson; and their sons were Harald king of England, and Earl Toste, Earl Valthiof, Earl Morukare, and Earl Svein. Gyda was the name of their daughter, who was married to the English king Edward the Good.
A recent edit has added Edward Pino to the list of twentieth-century leading players who were also leading analysts. I have never heard of him, and an Internet search does not turn him up as a chess-player. Can anyone substantiate this claim? If not, I suppose he'll have to be deleted. J S Ayer ( talk) 02:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Should not Tafl be mentioned in this article as a predessesor? AWT ( talk) 00:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
A new section was recently added to this article, in which one Noshir Jesung retold the story of the origin of chess as narrated by Ferdowsi so that the war between the princes Gau and Talhend results in the invention of MODERN chess, with the far-ranging bishop (camel) and queen (minister). This is an engaging piece of literature, but in a serious discussion of history is simply preposterous; those pieces were invented in Europe and grafted into chess in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. The passage also uses curved quotation marks and apostrophes, contrary to Wikipedia practice. It also says that "shah" is an Indian word for "king", although from what little I know of Indo-Iranian languages it is Persian, not Indic. For these reasons I have regretfully deleted the entire tale. J S Ayer ( talk) 01:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the external links added July 15 go to very weak pages; what does anyone else think? J S Ayer ( talk) 01:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
There was once a link to the Goddesschess website, which contains several essays on the history of chess like those on the IGK website, plus essays on various other subjects. It was deleted; I don't think a reason was given. I didn't object because I wrote one of the essays; I suppose it has been up a year now. Should we link to the several chess essays? J S Ayer ( talk) 01:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
That might be to http://www.goddesschess.com/chessays/chessaystoc.html J S Ayer ( talk) 02:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
All right, everyone is on vacation. I have just deleted those two weak links and added one that contributes more. J S Ayer ( talk) 02:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
". That is a conflict here isn't it? So I took what was put in the original chess article and applied it here. Everyone ok with that then ya? ARYAN818 ( talk) 22:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
It is just two different ways of saying the same thing and rather than be insulted, the poster implying there is a contradiction should just accept that he has remedial reading difficulties and do something about it, such as enroll in some sort of night school. Being insulted won't improve your reading comprehension skills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.44.133 ( talk) 20:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Alright im kind of just messing around then waterd . . . . . 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 06:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The number 2 source on this article, is that even a source? ARYAN818 ( talk) 22:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This is because this article uses a different quotation style than you are used to, I think. The a b c d are indeed links back into the article, which is normal if someone uses named references of the form <ref name="Name">. The reference is to "Wilkinson 1943". This is a common style to reference books and academic articles, of the form "Author Year-of-Publication". The full reference can be found in the "References" section below, where you will find an entry:
So this is an article by Wilkinson, published in 1943 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin. The reference contains a link to a web version as well. HermanHiddema ( talk) 19:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Why so complicated? Why not just have a simple source, if possible, that takes you somewhere simply. I mean to the average person who clicks that link, the link just sometime's takes you to different part's of the aritcle. ARYAN818 ( talk) 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the large map should be moved out of the section of East Asia because it shows the spread of the chess-like games, not only in East Asia, but even in Africa and Europe as well. PFlores3 ( talk) 00:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think this map should be just removed from this page. This map is bearing too many wrong or unproved information, so it is very misleading. Most of the dates are wrong and not corroborated by historical facts. Most of arrows are mere speculations. Not to say that several names are wrong, for instance Senterej is not a North African variant of Chess. It is the name of Chess in Ethiopia and it was not attested before the end of 19th century. Let's forget this map. Cazaux ( talk) 21:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I also think this map should not appear. It shows senterej in Libya rather than Ethiopia; it shows chess entering Germany about 1500, when Murray gives sources showing that it was known at least in southern Germany in the eleventh century; it gives no date at all for Central Asia, where the earliest definite chess pieces were found; it shows chess entering Russia from Byzantium, when linguistic and artistic evidence alike indicate that it entered from Persia; it shows a firm origin for chess in central India at 600 A.D. when modern scholarship favors the north of India and a date a number of centuries earlier; it shows no connection between Japan and south Asia, while Japanese scholars now take such a connection for granted. J S Ayer ( talk) 02:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I have deleted this article three times, giving reasons and asking anyone who wants it reinstated to give reasons. Three times it has been reinserted without discussion. I have therefore asked for arbitration. J S Ayer ( talk) 04:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The last 2 sections (1850 onwards) a content fork from World Chess Championship. They should be trimmed to a bare minimum (a paragraph, maybe two), with a pointer to WCC. Peter Ballard ( talk) 00:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Things that should probably stay in are: informal matches in the first half of the 19th century; the emergence of national championships (nothing on them yet?) as well as the world championship in the second half of 19th century; FIDE; chess olympiads; womens chess; FIDE takes control of the world championship in 1948; FIDE establishes titles in 1950. It would perhaps be reasonable to end the article at 1950 and refer the reader to World Chess Championship. (Except perhaps the emergenece of computer and internet chess? And the explosion of chess theory also?) It's easy to confuse "History of Chess" with "History of the World Chess Championship", but they're two different things; including national, womens and teams championships helps add the balance. Peter Ballard ( talk) 01:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the image of the Iranian chess set be moved to the section on Iran? And the image of the Knights Templar playing chess be moved to the section on Europe, Early History? And the image of the map showing the origin and diffusion of chess from India to Asia, Africa and Europe be enlarged a bit? FadulJoseA ( talk) 12:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Recently the file File:Chess players by Anthony Rosenbaum.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. I'm not entirely sure who's who in this image, although the NPG site lists all their names - I'm sure some of them could be cropped out to form portraits for players who don't have images yet. Dcoetzee 06:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Here are they all:
Es sind: 1 Professor Wayte, 2 Mr Salter, 3 Mr Minchin, 4 Mr Cubison, 5 Earl of Dartrey, 6 Mr Woodgate, 7, 8 Mr Wyvill, 9 10 Mr Greenhough, 11 Mr Day, 12 Mr Donnisthorpe 13 ? waiter, 14 Mr Tinsley, 15 Rev Mr Macdonnell, 16 Mr Lowenthal, 17 Mr Bird, 18 Mr Blackburne, 19 Mr Vyse, 20 Mr Mason, 21Mr Lord, 22 Mr Walker, 23 Mr Hoffer, 24 Mr Steinitz, 25 Mr Zukertort, 26 Mr Potter, 27 Mr Horwitz, 28 Mr Murton, 29 Mr Studd, 30 Dr Ballard Sen., 31 Mr Hirschfeld, 32 Mr Chapman, 33 Mr Clark, 34 Mr Thomson, 35 Mr Walrond, 36 Mr Gastineau, 37 Rev Mr Pearson, 38 Mr Kunwald, 39 Mr Rabbeth, 40 Mr Eccles, 41 Mr Wagner, 42 Mr Gümpel, 43 Mr Coburn, 44 Dr Ballard Junr., 45 Mr Mackern, 46 Mr Rosenbaum, 47 ? waiter. Gerhard Josten —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.229.59 ( talk) 15:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
This sentence was recently changed, giving a reference to Bird: infantry, cavalry, elephants, and chariotry (originally navy), represented by the pieces that would evolve into the modern pawn, knight, rook, and bishop, respectively. Davidson gives the elephant as the bishop. So does The Oxford Companion to Chess. So does Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess. Bubba73 (talk), 20:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The moves of all the pieces employed in the Chaturanga were the same as those made in Asia and Europe down to the close of the Fifteenth century of our era. The Queen up to that time was a piece with only a single square move, the Bishop in the original game was represented by a ship, the Castle or Rook (as it is now indiscriminately called) by an elephant, the Knight by a horse, the two last named have never at any time undergone the slightest change, the alteration in the Bishop consists only in the extension of its power of two clear moves, to the entire command of its own diagonal.
Bird was probably mistaken. The google books link is
http://books.google.com/books?id=oJPVDNaSL8YC. On page 48 Bird gives a translation of a passage from the
Bhavishya Purana: "Let each player place his elephant on the left of his King, next to the Horse, and last of all the Ship..." This contradicts what he wrote just two pages earlier in the quote given above. [Sorry, I see that this could be
Chaturaji as suggested above]. Murray explains that rook=elephant was mistaken speculation by some early European writers on the history of chess,
A History of Chess, p. 159:
Bird reported the work of Duncan Forbes, which was discredited perhaps 20 years later (see Cox-Forbes theory). We should explain this somewhere, certainly at Bishop (chess)#History and possibly in this article also. Quale ( talk) 05:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The last external link, to chessmuseum.org, is dead, and I can't find a new location with a search engine. Can the person who originally contributed this link (or anyone else) help? J S Ayer ( talk) 03:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Kshatranj is sanskrit for 'battlefield'
Some nameless contributor has inserted yet another unsupported claim of great antiquity of chess in China, taking it back to the Warring States Period. It is buttressed by one link to a document in Chinese and one to Sam Sloan's essay. It contradicts Peter Banaschak's statement that the earliest definite reference to chess in Chinese literature is in an essay by a Tang Dynasty government minister in the ninth century C.E. I have therefore called for references at three points, and I hope someone who reads Chinese will evaluate the Chinese document. Failing support, these claims must go. J S Ayer ( talk) 02:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
According to Checkmate, the phrase "Shāh Māt" means literally "the King is ambushed" (or "helpless", "defeated", or "stumped", but not "dead"). [1] I suggest that this common misconception that it means "the King is dead" be corrected in this article. It would be nice if these two articles agreed on the translation. EdwardSabol ( talk) 18:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
References
"Findings in the Mohenjo-daro and Harappa (2600–1500 BCE) sites of the Indus Valley Civilization show a prevalence of a board game that resembles chess." I don't know when I will be able to find a copy of the cited source. Please: how, exactly, does it resemble chess? J S Ayer ( talk) 05:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
About etimology of italian "Alfiere", eng. Bishop it is not sure that came from Arab language.
It is plausible that also the Arabs have taken the word from Latin Ferens the soldier who carries the flag. In Italy the word "alfiere" means the bearer of flag. Example in medieval Palio. During Roman Empire was called Aquilifer. So the word is returned in Italy from Arabs as in English much latin words are returned with Normans conquest. See http://www.etimo.it/?term=alfiere
Indeed can not to be two sets of knights. (Arab: Al-Faris means knight). In western world the Bishop is represented with an Partian catafratta armor. Which suggests also a possible derivation from war games on the board already present in classical antiquity as the roman Ludus latrunculorum war game played almost certainly in 64 squares chessboard. It is arrived perhaps from Ancient Greece, Anatolia, Egypt or Mesopotamia or born locally or born in other parts. We don’t know. The Indian chess probably is only a local variant of game already widespread in the world since immemorial time. Howewer modern rules are established in mediterranean world during medieval period. In medieval Italy, as in ancient Greece, for the things that it haven't clear knowledge about the origin. The origin was attributed to a mythical Orient (Indie). Indeed for medieval Europe Indie means generally Orient, could to be Persia or China to see Cristoforo Colombo that thought to arrive in Indie (plural word).
-- Andriolo ( talk) 11:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I would only to throw the stone in the pond. Indeed the english articles of history of chess, is too much categorical. Some more “perhaps”…… it will make it better. The hypothesis of the subcontinent (not Asia), is British and was born with the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and is based on Indian legends written, however several centuries after the facts. (The first indian source of chatrang are witten in XII century). In the sameway why not in Ancient Babil ? (An italian legend in Jacopo Cessole book say about Nabucodonosor. However the chess until the Italian Renaissance, in Latin, were called Ludus latrinculorum so we are unable to say if gothic Teodorico il Grande (500CE) played chess or latrunculorum. The mention of latruculorum as chess appared in Europe in sources of c.a. 900-1000 CE with the end of dark age. This mix of terminology has caused lot of problems.
Archaeology tells us two things: 1) the most ancient findings of boards that we use in chess are in the Mediterranean area (8x8 chessboard with two colors diagonal squares used probably for Dama). File:scacchiera2-300x231.jpg This is only one of innumerable examples. It is in pubblic area in Brescia in some roman ruins on Foro. The black is X. 2) the first discoveries of chatrang that we have are in Uzbekistan (c.a. 700 CE Uzbekistan was India at wide sense, in this period) I remember that Scythian kings was considered Indians for Greeks and also for the hellenized Parthians and Sassanids. As for Alfonso X.
The central Asia origin, in the Silk Road, between Caspian Sea until Afghanistan (in area influenced from Parthian or Sassanid empire), I think can explain lot of things and the possibility for other steppic tribe as the germanic Goths to play chess before the Arabs. About latrunculi type see also see Tafl games. About latrunculi archeological findings in this book http://books.google.it/books?id=NJMcQ3az2KUC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=ludus+lusoria+brescia&source=bl&ots=M9HsPFeqEf&sig=DK0lGlwwGuk2RF53q3VjQuramEI&hl=it&ei=YyB_TaaVI4vasgaB6MTuBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ludus%20lusoria%20brescia&f=false
Only the beautiful examples of Mohejodaro can resolve the temporal contradictions with mediterranean chess or lantruculi and sustain the Indian Origin. The Egyptians and Knossos zachitrion are indubitely too much different table games. Gupta origin is too much recent. Jacopo Cessole has reason, it must be know well before than Arabs. Howewer that modern chess with mediterranean 8x8 board could be born only in Central Asia with a mix.
(this is a fragment of a discussion open in chess article)
-- Andriolo ( talk) 08:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Mohejodaro board games resemble germanic Tafl and nordic versions Latrunculi with a central king ??? ....... http://www.worldinprint.com/pictures_1182830/board-game.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.75.119 ( talk) 14:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
VENAFRO CASE There is also an OOPART chess pieces in roman tombs, the range of dating of the chess is controversial, 700-1000CE, 95% 850-1000CE 68% c.a. radiology on the material but the discussion is open. There are scolars that say it is an example of pre-islamic chess in Europe. And there are scholars that say that came in Italy during islamic incursion and Sicily invasion, but the style is different from sicilian pieces. And it is open the question, how these chess are finished into the roman tomb. http://goddesschess.blogspot.com/2009/08/mystery-of-venafro-chess-pieces.html http://goddesschess.blogspot.com/2009/08/mystery-of-venafro-chess-pieces-part-2.html Howewer they are serious claim that they are very old contemporary Uzbekistan.
There are other controversial findings in Butrint 600-700 CE during Byzantine Empire. The two colored chessboard are common in roman empire for Dama, and there isn't mystic interpretations. I think that Murray is too much old book. Gupta thesys is unsustainable. If you want Indian thesys, the chess must be older. -- Andriolo ( talk) 00:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not know if it is born in India (subcontinent today) or not, because “India” in medieval time was an ambiguous word often meant East Asia in general.
Murray is an old book. he didn’t know modern archeological and archival sources.
The manuscript with the image that you are referring is very recent at time the venetians sold chess “in cristallo di rocca” to Mongols long the Silk Road. In medieval time, the cosmopolitan people of Silk Road (Westerners, Persians, Arabs, Greeks, Jews, Slavs, Mongols) played together in the caravanserrais and in the brothels.
Contacts between the North Africa and Spain Arabs and Western worlds until the thirteenth century were quite limited for religious and war reasons. The Arabs do not set foot in western cities. The Italian merchants could not leave the “fondaci” in the muslim harbours. If an infidel merchant left Alexandria to move down the Nile could be killed. The contacts were limited and left to Jews intermediaries.
Things were much easier in Terra Santa, Asia and around the Black Sea. The directly asian way is more valid, at least for italian city-states and Byzantium.
The questions are still open... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.74.226 ( talk) 11:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
About central Asian syncretistic origin:
http://www.schachquellen.de/15038.html
The thesys of Murray is old, and is based on the opinion in vogue in the British Empire but no on archeological sources and archival sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.72.91 ( talk) 10:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
That excellent essay is already accessible through the link to the IGK's other website. J S Ayer ( talk) 16:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The Persian section is a cut-and-paste from this website: http://blog.chess.com/mohajeri/history-of-chess-in-iran
I thought Wikipedia had rules against that.
Professor Lewis is a prominent scholar in middle eastern studies so when he says that chess was invented by Persians his opinion should be considered. Please note the most reliable sources in Wikipedia are: [ peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses]. Iranic ( talk) 09:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, as one can't neglect that Ferdowsi is simply writing a tale which may not be based on historical fact. In fact, the oldest known reference points to Shah Ardashir as being a master of the game, his rule was from 224 - 241 AD. This would indicate that chess was invented some time before his rule, and long before Ferdowsi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:100:DCB0:EDCE:F987:85F4:6DF6 ( talk) 20:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
If a late document stated that Alexander played chess, that can indeed be evidence that chess existed in Alexanders time. But Edson marshall is only an example. And one can be used to make the point that there is no reason for the assertion that Ferdowsi's reference to 'Hind' should be regarded as a reliable reference to historical origins of chess, rather than a tale meant to inspire Persian natioanlism. Mind that the oldest verifiable chess pieces have been uncovered in Persianate regions, and 'Hind' actually referred to parts of southeast iran up until the 11th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:180:6548:6126:BDE3:6138:240 ( talk) 03:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
A link to chess paintings was added, and immediately removed as spam. I took a look at it, and see no reason why it should be considered spam. It isn't advertising anything. It is a large collection of paintings of people playing board games, and of chess pieces, and perhaps other things (I didn't look at all fifteen hundred images). There may be reasons to oppose linking to it, but I think "spam" isn't one. J S Ayer ( talk) 00:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Do I have the permission to put this link again ? JMRW67 ( talk) 09:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I checked the reference; it deprecates links to personal websites because those generally contain material only of interest to the author and his family and friends. This does not appear to me to come under that heading. Does anyone else have an opinion? J S Ayer ( talk) 00:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Concerning this section:
Chess was introduced to Persia from India and became a part of the princely or courtly education of Persian nobility. [1] In Sassanid Persia around 600 the name became chatrang, which subsequently evolved to shatranj, due to Arab Muslim’s lack of ch and ng native sounds [2], and the rules were developed further. Players started calling "Shāh!" (Persian for "King!") when attacking the opponent's king, and "Shāh Māt!" (Persian for "the king is helpless" – see checkmate) when the king was attacked and could not escape from attack. These exclamations persisted in chess as it traveled to other lands.
I find it suspicious that "Māt" in Arabic (مات) is connected to Māta, "he died". Astabada ( talk) 09:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
References
Hello all! Have you ever heard about Sam Sloan theory about origin of chess in china? Some material was added to portuguese article and I removed because it used a poor reliable source. But I read it and it seems tha Sloan wrote a book about it and have debunked Murray theory in some way. For example, that Murray couldn't speak pahlavi and used another paper of H.J. Raverty as source to say chess is indian by origin. Seems that Raverty is not an expert in pahlavi neither. Anyway, I'd like to know if you guys mind to point out some source about this theory. Nowadays, I'm using this source to sustain that chinese theory it's not completely accepted by scholars. Regards! OTAVIO1981 ( talk) 17:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
JS Ayer, you know the rules of Wikipedia. You need to refute the claim that references to xiangqi precede refs in India. The warring states claim is fully referenced on xiangqi page. Refute it please. Luan Hanratty ( talk) 02:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Quale, your point is a logical fallacy: argument from authority and does not address the merits of the claim. Please refute the facts stated above and in the article. Luan Hanratty ( talk) 09:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The Xianqi article says this: "References to a game called xiangqi date back to the Warring States period; according to the first century BC text Shuo yuan (說苑), it was one of Lord Mengchang of Qi's interests." The reference for this claim has five BCE sources all referring to a game called Xiangqi. We don't know the rules of this ancient xiangqi but your insistence on completely excluding it from the article despite it sharing the same name as the modern game is unreasonable. All these ancient references to the game with the same name as Chinese chess, which far predate the earliest Indian references, deserve a mention at the top of the article because they are not just relevant but absolutely critical to the history of chess and its origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luan Hanratty ( talk • contribs) 10:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
There seem to have been at least three games named Xiangqi, making the relevance of a name with no description quite questionable. J S Ayer ( talk) 02:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Common sense and Occam’s razor would suggest that because the ancient game and the early-medieval game share the same name, they are linked in other ways and share some of the same features. Two of those sources on the xiangqi page say that the pieces were the same — having scholars, elephants, horses, catapults etc. Other sources in that reference say it was a strategy and fighting game. You obviously have not read the reference. Here it is: http://www.banaschak.net/schach/origins.htm Given this information and given Occam's razor, it would be less likely that the ancient and early-medieval games of xiangqi share only the same name but none of the same features. Luan Hanratty ( talk) 10:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This is spurious. ludus latrunculorum may be called chess but it has almost nothing in common with chess. Xianqi and international chess on the other hand clearly share so many features that either one came from the other or they share a common ancestor.
Regarding Niu Sengru, he was referencing the ancient emperor Shennong who supposedly played xiangqi as we know. So it is a secondary source but then in the study of history since when are secondary sources rejected? Murray uses plenty of them. Luan Hanratty ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Granted the first line of my edit could be construed as original and I'll remove that particular sentence. However, it's ironic that you mention reliable sources. The sources in the Banaschak paper regarding ancient xiangqi, provide far more evidence than the sources references backing the claim that: "Precursors to chess originated in India during the Gupta Empire.” I’ve looked at these references and they do not provide better or even good evidence.
1. Leibs (2004) p 92 — “The game was invented in India during the 6th century” This is all it says regarding the origins. No explanations or anything.
2. Forbes (1860) — refers to this “long-debunked theory” by a colonial professor who claimed chess was invented in 3000 BC /info/en/?search=Cox-Forbes_theory The theory is soundly refuted in the article as well as in the Oxford Companion to Chess (1992).
3. Robinson, Dindy, Estes, Rebecca (1996) — “Two popular games, chess and badminton, come from India, as well as gambling with dice.” Again, this provides nothing to support the assertion. It’s not even a chess book, it’s a book on art.
4. The Murray book, A History of Chess published in 1913, is a credible reference yet only cites two seventh century texts. The book does not mention Chinese chess at all which seems a large oversight considering the the popularity of Chinese chess and its similarities to international chess. But this is an understandable oversight as Murray would not have had access to Banaschak's sources, Murray lived at time when China was still very much inaccessible to Westerners, he may not even have played Xiangqi or even knew of it. India however had been colonised for nearly three centuries and thus was far more accessible and familiar to western historians.
The first three references are so weak that I’m suggesting they are removed. These, and even Murray’s sources, are far weaker than the references on the origins of xiangqi. Luan Hanratty ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to see what Murray wrote about Chinese chess. I do not have a copy.
You wrote that Banaschak does not show that the earliest games of xiangqi were similar to chess. You are wrong here. We do know from the Banaschak sources that ancient xianngqi was a strategy game using elephants and other animals (sources 2 & 4) and that in Tang times the old pieces were replaced with the ones in the modern game (source 1). They key word is replaced. This is a fair and worthy source for inclusion in the article and I will write a new edit to reflect this precisely. This information, in addition to the very fact that the ancient game and the medieval game share the same name and far pre-date the Indian references in the article, makes xiangqi not just worthy but essential for inclusion in the origin section. Luan Hanratty ( talk) 17:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Address the issues please Quale. I wrote that Murray cites two Indian sources because I was looking at an excerpt from Murray. I forgot to mention that it was an excerpt, but that was where he made his main justification. You haven’t provided anything to the contrary yet. How about a quote from him. If you have it. Prove it.
You wrote: "Mainstream chess historians favor Indian origin so I think it is correct for this article to primarily report that expert opinion. Chinese origin is a minority view of note." Can't you see the shortcomings of this point. You are simply appealing to authority — an anonymous authority at that, and this is fallacious. Knowledge of logical fallacies is a basic part of arguing. It’s not a strong point because we still don't know a) who are these people? b) what they wrote to refute the Chinese origin theory? c) if these anonymous authorities have properly researched the Chinese origin theory? d) why is Banaschak not getting credit for his research and evidence? And so on
You also ignored the important points I made in the last comment. Luan Hanratty ( talk) 19:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
"A player whose mobile phone rings, thereby loses." Could we have a source, please? J S Ayer ( talk) 01:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
A manuscript explaining the rules of the game called "Matikan-i-chatrang" (the book of chess) in Middle Persian or Pahlavi still exists. citation needed
to
A manuscript explaining the rules of the game called "Matikan-i-chatrang" (the book of chess) in Middle Persian or Pahlavi still exists. [1]
which provides the proper citation. Bbradt ( talk) 02:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
References
There should be a link to this Wikipedia article: /info/en/?search=Ludus_latrunculorum#Chess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.182.47 ( talk) 11:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Why are these two Wikipedia articles not directly linked ? It is Censorship to hide the connection. 47.201.182.47 ( talk) 14:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
If you feel strongly about it and given that you have already made several edits as a guest, why not become a member? Once you complete the initial qualification period of ten edits in four (I think) days, you will be able to edit protected articles. No Great Shaker ( talk) 14:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
In that case, reword the paragraph so it is clear that the Roman game was a potential precursor and the Gupta game a likely one. The facts are that the Roman game existed and has been likened to chess so it is relevant, especially as it is reliably sourced. I'm signing off for now and will leave it with you to restore and suitably revise the wording. No Great Shaker ( talk) 01:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The inclusion of the Roman game as a potential precursor, suitably and reliably sourced, has twice been removed by an editor who apparently doesn't like it despite the reliable source and relevant usage of the same information in another article. Would other editors please comment? Thank you. No Great Shaker ( talk) 00:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The history of chess can be traced back at least 1500 years, and the earliest origins are uncertain. The earliest predecessors may have been Greco-Roman board games which were brought to India through the remnants of Alexander's empire, see Ludus latrunculorum. Early predecessors of the game evolved in India before the 6th century AD; a minority of historians believe the game originated in China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.182.47 ( talk) 02:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The article about Ludus latrunculorum is interesting and it was all new to me. It is in a way reassuring to see that board games with a generic resemblance to Go, checkers, etc. were played in the Roman empire.
The source that made the most serious attempt to connect it with chess was Samsin. But Samsin explicitly admits that there are serious missing links. That is, ludus was played before chess, and it has some superficial physical resemblance, but that's all he has got. He doesn't, for example, have evidence that ludus spread to what is now Persia, though he evidently thinks it was possible.
One can't prove a negative in archaeology. Perhaps, indeed, chess existed hundreds of years before the oldest evidence that we know of, in regions where we have not yet found it, etc. (I saw the same difficulty in reading the article about Backgammon.) But Wikipedia is for summaries of current knowledge, not for speculation about what might have happened. Bruce leverett ( talk) 04:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Would all participants please note that I have invited a sysop to join this discussion as adjudicator given the breach of WP:CANVAS that has taken place on top of earlier concerns around reversion of content that was already under discussion here. Thank you. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Just add a mention and link to ludus latrunculorum so wikipedia readers can see it and judge for themselves all scholarly viewpoints. That is all I ask. I suggested above how to write it. 47.201.182.47 ( talk) 12:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Support suggested opening by 47.201.182.47 providing that reliable sources are cited. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Chaturanga is the earliest known game in the chess family, and I think speculations about its origin belong there, not here. Philidor wrote several centuries ago, and expert knowledge has shifted noticeably since then. Murray's History, admittedly a century old now, is still substantially unchallenged. J S Ayer ( talk) 14:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I think a large problem, unaddressed until now, is that the article Ludus latrunculorum urges that the Greek game variously called petteia, psephoi, or polis is one of the sources of chaturanga, and that latrunculi is the same game. That last leap is one too many for me. According to our article History of games, it is, but the reference is to Homo Ludens 1994, and an essay by Ulrich Schädler, which I have not seen and cannot evaluate. J S Ayer ( talk) 21:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
OK Who will now go ahead and write the opening as I suggested, or will Wikipedia continue trying to censor and hide all this ? 47.201.182.47 ( talk) 13:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Please note that the IP who initiated this discussion has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 17:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
It's interesting to look at the editing history of ludus latrunculorum. A series of good faith edits led to chess being given undue prominence in that article. This appears to have appealed to those who have what may be politely described as Eurocentric views. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 05:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Looking into the claim that Ivan the Terrible banned chess reveals a handful of forum posts making this claim with no evidence to back them up. The book, Ivan the Terrible by Kazimierz Waliszewski is the source of the claim that he died playing chess (at least in the Ivan the Terrible Wikipedia article), but makes no mention of him banning chess in the book. I have a hunch that this claim is a apocryphal legend that makes his death ironic. I would love to see a reliable source for this or this claim removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonharrisoncode ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
First, the shogi part mentiones the 'independently invented rook, bishop and queen of modern Western chess', which arose in dai shogi and the first two of which were transferred to regular shogi. It remains unclear which actual shogi pieces these are. It's especially puzzling why the rook had to be independently invented, since it seems that it acted essentially like a modern rook already in the earliest chaturanga and never stopped doing so in xiangqi.
Also, while the Chinese and Japanese varieties are presented in some detail, some others are either not mentioned at all, not even with a wikilink, or only in passing - the Korean one, the Burmese one, the Vietnamese one, the Ethiopian one, etc. Again, this seems like an inconsistency, for which I see no reason. -- 82.137.115.143 ( talk) 13:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
One more thing - the article Courier chess mentions that it played a part in the evolution from medieval to modern chess, with the so-called Courier being the first piece to move as a modern-day bishop (which, I suppose, is why the bishop is called a courier or runner in many languages). However, Courier chess is not mentioned in the section on the 'Origins of the modern game' in this article.-- 82.137.115.143 ( talk) 14:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The sources presenting an Arabic etymology seem outdated, and the statements implausible, given the obvious Persian origin of shah (and not sheikh).-- 82.137.115.143 ( talk) 13:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
'In some parts of India the pieces in the places of the rook, knight and bishop were renamed by words meaning (in this order) Boat, Horse, and Elephant, or Elephant, Horse, and Camel'
As the article explains elsewhere, the Bishop was originally called the Elephant, so it's not that it was originally called Bishop and then renamed to Elephant, but vice versa - the name 'Bishop' is a European innovation, whereas the parts of India where it's called the Elephant are the ones keeping the original name. I don't know if there are any parts of India where it's called something like a Bishop even now, anyway.-- 82.137.115.143 ( talk) 14:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
In two places we are citing something called "The History of Chess", from a website called ChessZone. One of them is the diagram of the supposed starting position of chaturanga in the Origin section.
The ChessZone website is gone, and I cannot find "The History of Chess" or any parts of it online. It was a collection of articles by various authors. They were, as far as I could tell, not peer-reviewed and generally appeared to be works in progress. (This is also discussed in Talk:Chaturanga.) Other sources (reliable ones this time) will have to be found, or if not available, material that cited ChessZone may have to be dropped. Bruce leverett ( talk) 03:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
This article has dozens of citations of Encyclopedia Britannica. This is scandalous. Instead, we should be using secondary sources, per WP:SECONDARY. Bruce leverett ( talk) 05:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Chess Page: The Edward Lasker sentence in section: 'Persia' is not a proper source. His presumption was pure speculation, based on zero information/sources, centuries after the fact. This subjective addition lowers the validity of an otherwise good article, into a seemingly lopsided opinion piece. 2A00:23C5:2710:8A01:25E5:21C7:2778:DDCA ( talk) 02:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I apologize; I own both The Adventure of Chess by Edward Lasker and Richard Bell's two books in one, and was confused. Lasker did not say that possibly the Indian ambassador had been plied with liquor. J S Ayer ( talk) 03:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
We can easily document each of the archaic features of Makruk, but who wants to take responsibility for saying that it is the most archaic surviving form of chess? At the moment someone is demanding a citation for that. J S Ayer ( talk) 03:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)