![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I recommend changing some of the terms used. [First, background: most abstract game boards may be classified as either areal (played on the areas formed by a grid, e.g. Chess) or reticular (played on the intersections of lines, e.g. Go, most Merrels).] This article currently seems to use "fields" for the locations defined by reticular boards, and "tiles" for those defined by areal boards. This is not idiomatic American English (and I'm pretty sure not idiomatic British English, either). For an areal board, we'd typically say "squares" or "spaces" or "cells". But Sáhkku is (at least usually appears to be) played on a reticular board -- although I've seen the word "intersections" used for these locations, it's very long and fussy, and I believe "points" is by far the best term. Furthermore, "points" is the word always used to describe the locations in Backgammon, which bears some superficial similarity to the Sáhkku board.
Obviously, terms that are special to Sáhkku may be used and defined (as has already been done in several other cases), but I assume that "field" and "tile" are not special to Sáhkku, but rather meant to be general gaming terms.
In English, terms for types or shapes of dice or lots -- especially unusual traditional ones -- are pretty chaotic. However, I surmise that "rolling-pin" is a perfectly good Scandinavian term that just doesn't work for dice when translated into English. Personally, I prefer "long dice", but since there is already a Wikipedia entry for
barrel dice this is probably our best option. Or we might combine both with [[Barrel dice|long dice]]. Actually, I've just now updated and moved this page to
Long dice (but we'll see if that lasts!).
Phil wink (
talk)
19:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
~~~~
; Wikipedians like that.
Phil wink (
talk)
18:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)I can eventually get to this stuff, but I'm quite lazy, and (recent IP editor(s):) you've been doing such good work that maybe you want to keep going? Cheers. Phil wink ( talk) 16:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
As I began work on a "path" diagram, I realized that Sahkku (at least as described in Borvo) has a vexing problem (which I've also encountered elsewhere). Take a Sahkku board with these numbered spaces:
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15
If my home is row 01-15, then (according to Borvo) I move in the path 01-15, 15-16, 16-30, 30-31, 31-45, 45-16, 16-30, 30-01 ... (and I assume I continue in a figure-8 pattern, though this is not absolutely explicit in Borvo -- it's conceiveable that somehow my pieces just stay stuck back on their home row, but this would be shocking in a running-fight game). This same path is implied as the norm in the current article's Ráisá sáhkku section, when it states that the variant only continues to circle around the 2 larger-numbered rows, never returning home -- as opposed to the figure-8 pattern which it implies is the norm. Now, the Ráisá path makes sense to me. This is analogous to the Daldos path, and more or less analogous to Tab. But the "norm" drives me nuts: I may have several identical pieces on the middle row, some of which must go from 30 to 31, some of which must go from 30 to 01 based on where they've been in the past. I need an exact memory, not just of the history of all my own pieces to determine which way they go, but also of my opponent's pieces to catch infringements. Any disagreement is utterly unresolvable without video playback.
This leads me to question whether Borvo's (and I suppose Friis's) description of the path is really accurate. Can a game with such a built-in unresolvable conundrum really have thrived for centuries? Or am I just missing something?
Can anyone with personal experience, or access to other sources (I can only read English) shed light on this problem? Thanks! Phil wink ( talk) 19:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I've tracked down a Latin version of Lapponia (see here and posted an image of the first mention of sáhkku dice. Hoewever, I don't actually know Latin, so my Google-powered attempt at translating the description is probably awful. Help from people who know how to read Latin is greatly appreciated. Misha bb ( talk) 11:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not even going to bother putting this in the article, since it's probably going to be taken down immediately since it refers to commercial websites instead of articles etc, so I'll put what I find here.
Other points of note:
The rules for the "Ohcejohka sáhkku" are unclear and incomplete, and need further research. Until such further research appears, the incomplete rule set is put here. The same could be said for "Gussanjárga sáhkku", but this rule set is more complete and is retained on the main page to contrast with Ráisa sáhkku.
The following variant is attested from the Ohcejohka region of Finnish Lapland.
It is possible, but not certain, that in the starting position, the first square (from the player's perspective) was left open. [1] [2]
Dice have the numbers X-II-III-IIII. [3] When a player throws X, they get to throw the die that showed X again, after they have used the sáhkku as they please. The sáhkku-giving dice(s) continue to be thrown again until it lands on another value than X. [4]
The path of the soldiers is identical to that of the pieces in daldøs: towards the player's left in their home row, towards the right in the middle row, towards the left in the enemy row, and do not return to the home row, but instead keep walking in a circle in the middle and enemy row. [5]
The king can be captured and removed from the board, like the ordinary soldiers. [6] [7]
References
Unfortunately, it is becoming clear that this variant has been incorrectly written down. This concerns among other things, but not exclusively, the locking mechanism. This is oarticuarly problematic since rule sets produced on the continent appear to base themselves on this misunderstood Gussanjárga rule set, which does not accurately reflect the actual Gussanjárga rules. Still, the erroneous rule set has historical value because the French rule sets are based on it. Instead of deleting it, I'm moving it here.
The following variant has been described as played in the village of Gussanjárga in Davvesiida municipality, Finnmark. The variant rules presented here were written down around the turn of the millennium. The description of this rule set is not complete, but is included here in order to, together with the Ráisá variant, showcase the span of sáhkku variations.
The players begin by seeing who first manages to get three sáhkku in three consecutive throws. When doing this, the dice that have landed on sáhkku are set aside before the next throw. The player who first gets three sáhkku in this manner plays first. Instead of going directly into normal game play, a starting round occurs in which the player can choose if they want to activate the foremost soldier and move it three points ahead, or activate the three foremost soldiers and move each one point ahead, or activate two of the three foremost soldiers and move these two and one points ahead respectively. [1]
The king moves as described in the rules under (C).
Inactive soldiers cannot be captured. [2]
It is possible to "lock" some of the opposing player's soldiers. This happens when a player places one of his soldiers, or the recruited king, on the point immediately in front of an inactive piece of the opposing player's. This inactive soldier, and other inactive soldiers standing in row behind it, is now "locked" — it is not possible to activate them until the locking piece is removed. Locked soldiers cannot be captured, but if a player loses all their active soldiers, and all their inactive soldiers are locked, the player has lost the game. [3] The rule set is somewhat lacking in its description of the locking rule. For example, it does not mention what happens if the row of soldiers is broken before a lock occurs - if one soldier in the middle of the row which now has a locking piece in front of it has been previously activated, the rules are silent regarding whether or not the soldiers behind the "hole" in the row are also locked, or if these are now free to activate and move.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I recommend changing some of the terms used. [First, background: most abstract game boards may be classified as either areal (played on the areas formed by a grid, e.g. Chess) or reticular (played on the intersections of lines, e.g. Go, most Merrels).] This article currently seems to use "fields" for the locations defined by reticular boards, and "tiles" for those defined by areal boards. This is not idiomatic American English (and I'm pretty sure not idiomatic British English, either). For an areal board, we'd typically say "squares" or "spaces" or "cells". But Sáhkku is (at least usually appears to be) played on a reticular board -- although I've seen the word "intersections" used for these locations, it's very long and fussy, and I believe "points" is by far the best term. Furthermore, "points" is the word always used to describe the locations in Backgammon, which bears some superficial similarity to the Sáhkku board.
Obviously, terms that are special to Sáhkku may be used and defined (as has already been done in several other cases), but I assume that "field" and "tile" are not special to Sáhkku, but rather meant to be general gaming terms.
In English, terms for types or shapes of dice or lots -- especially unusual traditional ones -- are pretty chaotic. However, I surmise that "rolling-pin" is a perfectly good Scandinavian term that just doesn't work for dice when translated into English. Personally, I prefer "long dice", but since there is already a Wikipedia entry for
barrel dice this is probably our best option. Or we might combine both with [[Barrel dice|long dice]]. Actually, I've just now updated and moved this page to
Long dice (but we'll see if that lasts!).
Phil wink (
talk)
19:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
~~~~
; Wikipedians like that.
Phil wink (
talk)
18:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)I can eventually get to this stuff, but I'm quite lazy, and (recent IP editor(s):) you've been doing such good work that maybe you want to keep going? Cheers. Phil wink ( talk) 16:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
As I began work on a "path" diagram, I realized that Sahkku (at least as described in Borvo) has a vexing problem (which I've also encountered elsewhere). Take a Sahkku board with these numbered spaces:
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15
If my home is row 01-15, then (according to Borvo) I move in the path 01-15, 15-16, 16-30, 30-31, 31-45, 45-16, 16-30, 30-01 ... (and I assume I continue in a figure-8 pattern, though this is not absolutely explicit in Borvo -- it's conceiveable that somehow my pieces just stay stuck back on their home row, but this would be shocking in a running-fight game). This same path is implied as the norm in the current article's Ráisá sáhkku section, when it states that the variant only continues to circle around the 2 larger-numbered rows, never returning home -- as opposed to the figure-8 pattern which it implies is the norm. Now, the Ráisá path makes sense to me. This is analogous to the Daldos path, and more or less analogous to Tab. But the "norm" drives me nuts: I may have several identical pieces on the middle row, some of which must go from 30 to 31, some of which must go from 30 to 01 based on where they've been in the past. I need an exact memory, not just of the history of all my own pieces to determine which way they go, but also of my opponent's pieces to catch infringements. Any disagreement is utterly unresolvable without video playback.
This leads me to question whether Borvo's (and I suppose Friis's) description of the path is really accurate. Can a game with such a built-in unresolvable conundrum really have thrived for centuries? Or am I just missing something?
Can anyone with personal experience, or access to other sources (I can only read English) shed light on this problem? Thanks! Phil wink ( talk) 19:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I've tracked down a Latin version of Lapponia (see here and posted an image of the first mention of sáhkku dice. Hoewever, I don't actually know Latin, so my Google-powered attempt at translating the description is probably awful. Help from people who know how to read Latin is greatly appreciated. Misha bb ( talk) 11:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not even going to bother putting this in the article, since it's probably going to be taken down immediately since it refers to commercial websites instead of articles etc, so I'll put what I find here.
Other points of note:
The rules for the "Ohcejohka sáhkku" are unclear and incomplete, and need further research. Until such further research appears, the incomplete rule set is put here. The same could be said for "Gussanjárga sáhkku", but this rule set is more complete and is retained on the main page to contrast with Ráisa sáhkku.
The following variant is attested from the Ohcejohka region of Finnish Lapland.
It is possible, but not certain, that in the starting position, the first square (from the player's perspective) was left open. [1] [2]
Dice have the numbers X-II-III-IIII. [3] When a player throws X, they get to throw the die that showed X again, after they have used the sáhkku as they please. The sáhkku-giving dice(s) continue to be thrown again until it lands on another value than X. [4]
The path of the soldiers is identical to that of the pieces in daldøs: towards the player's left in their home row, towards the right in the middle row, towards the left in the enemy row, and do not return to the home row, but instead keep walking in a circle in the middle and enemy row. [5]
The king can be captured and removed from the board, like the ordinary soldiers. [6] [7]
References
Unfortunately, it is becoming clear that this variant has been incorrectly written down. This concerns among other things, but not exclusively, the locking mechanism. This is oarticuarly problematic since rule sets produced on the continent appear to base themselves on this misunderstood Gussanjárga rule set, which does not accurately reflect the actual Gussanjárga rules. Still, the erroneous rule set has historical value because the French rule sets are based on it. Instead of deleting it, I'm moving it here.
The following variant has been described as played in the village of Gussanjárga in Davvesiida municipality, Finnmark. The variant rules presented here were written down around the turn of the millennium. The description of this rule set is not complete, but is included here in order to, together with the Ráisá variant, showcase the span of sáhkku variations.
The players begin by seeing who first manages to get three sáhkku in three consecutive throws. When doing this, the dice that have landed on sáhkku are set aside before the next throw. The player who first gets three sáhkku in this manner plays first. Instead of going directly into normal game play, a starting round occurs in which the player can choose if they want to activate the foremost soldier and move it three points ahead, or activate the three foremost soldiers and move each one point ahead, or activate two of the three foremost soldiers and move these two and one points ahead respectively. [1]
The king moves as described in the rules under (C).
Inactive soldiers cannot be captured. [2]
It is possible to "lock" some of the opposing player's soldiers. This happens when a player places one of his soldiers, or the recruited king, on the point immediately in front of an inactive piece of the opposing player's. This inactive soldier, and other inactive soldiers standing in row behind it, is now "locked" — it is not possible to activate them until the locking piece is removed. Locked soldiers cannot be captured, but if a player loses all their active soldiers, and all their inactive soldiers are locked, the player has lost the game. [3] The rule set is somewhat lacking in its description of the locking rule. For example, it does not mention what happens if the row of soldiers is broken before a lock occurs - if one soldier in the middle of the row which now has a locking piece in front of it has been previously activated, the rules are silent regarding whether or not the soldiers behind the "hole" in the row are also locked, or if these are now free to activate and move.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)