![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The naming has gotten a little messed up. E.g., should we talk about
I'm inclined to go with "queen" because it will be familiar to a reader, and it addresses the historical connection between the modern chess queen and the corresponding piece from Shatranj.
Elephant is problematic because the piece name appears to have lost its meaning when it left India. I'd be more comfortable calling it a bishop or a "fil".
Jake 01:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've added a table of pieces as for the Chaturanga article. -- Ant 00:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The popular contentions has long been that Shatranj came to Persia from the Indian game of Chaturanga. However, modern scholars now view this theory with reserve. (See origins of chess.) (from the Shatranj article)
However, the article on Chaturanga says that Chaturanga is the direct ancestor of shatranj which was the form that brought chess to medieval Europe.
The two articles seem to disagree, which is probably not what we want. The origins of chess article agrees with the second view but also offers counter-explanations.
Whatever shall we do? Reediewes 06:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
May I correct the correction: the mainstream theory by Murray is that Chatrang was Persian version of Indian game Chaturanga. Shatranj was the name when Arabs conquered the Persian empire. So this theory is Chaturanga -> Chatrang -> Shatranj. Cazaux 14:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The reference to Shatranj being well known in the 3rd century is almost certainly false. "By the third century, Shatranj was well known in the Sassanid Empire, as evidenced in the biography of its founder Ardashir I, who ruled from 226-241. His court biography, the Karnamak-i Ardeshir-i Papakan, ..." According to HJR Murray, the Karnimak is the oldest reference to chess, yes; however, there is no proof that it was written in Ardashir's time. Considering the number of literary references that fabricate chess mastery by any number of historical figures who could not have known the game, HJR Murrary concludes that the reference in the Karnimak is without value before 600AD.
I've just recently been through this section of HJR Murray, but unfortunately it was via inter-library loan, and I don't have the book anymore. Could someone who does have it fix this section? I don't want to introduce an uncited assertion. Mlwilson 04:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've corrected some poor grammer in the last paragraph, and forced section endings come after the diagrams, rather than have some of the diagrams overlap the next section, an improvement (I think...)
this bothers me however...
"However, white wins by sacrificing two rooks: 1. Rh8+ Kxh8 2.Bf5+ Kg8 3. Rh8+ Kxh8 4. g7+ Kg8 5. Nh6# (black king can't move on h7, because it is attacked by Alfil on f5)."
I've phrased it into better English but see no Alfil on f5. (or any piece for that matter) Can somebody who understands this properly consider this and correct it if its wrong please. -- Shoka 19:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The sequence of movements currently in the article:
1. Rh8+ Kxh8 2.Bf5+ Rh2 3. Rxh2+ Kg8 4. Rh8+ Kxh8 5. g7+ Kg8 6. Nh6#
makes no sense.
As I read it, I thought "why is 2.Bf5+ not followed by 2. ..., Kg8 ?" I thought over it and couldn't find an explanation. Then I came to this discussion page and find you talking about the sequence "1. Rh8+ Kxh8 2.Bf5+ Kg8 3. Rh8+ Kxh8 4. g7+ Kg8 5. Nh6#" which does make sense.
It looks as if the last one was the original sequence of movements in the article but someone changed it to the first one.
I think we should change it again to the original sequence. What do you think? By the way, the Spanish article about Shatranj also has the wrong sequence.
Carlos M. 05-Aug-2006
Afghanistan also lays claim to chess. Someone should change the article. They dont tell you but alot of this names are given are Dari words from afghanistan; Rukh, Shah mat, Wazir, Asp. Iran tries to tie it in with persia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pashtun786 ( talk • contribs)
And Afghanistan was before 1919 part of Persia and the main population, the Persian-speaking Tajiks who are descandants of Persians and eastern-Iranian people, such as Soghdians, Bactrians, Kushans...have more knowledge about it than a nomadic Pashtun who have nothing, nieta, nie de va plu, nichts zerro.... to offer..sorry for you, brother Pashtun Kharkuss. Maybe, one day Pashtuns will also offer the world something, maybe, if they drop off selling their women, exchanging their daughters with house-animals, Taliban, Wahabism, promoting Arabism, suicide bombing, nomadism, plundering etc etc. -- 94.219.210.142 ( talk) 02:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Chess originated in India and not Afghanistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.226.42 ( talk) 15:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
These comments should be removed. That agressive tone does not have its place on Wikipedia. Cazaux ( talk) 20:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This problem and its solution seem to have been solved severally in Dec 2005 and later, but going through the page history, I find that all solutions have 2. Bf5 - but this is not possible - it would need to jump over the N at g4.
I hope I am not missing something elementary here. Most likely there is a problem in the board setup (a citation would help).
Also, I couldn't find any other place where the N could be so it can reach h6, and let the B go from h3 to f5.
In order to present a consistent page, I am editing in an alternate (less dramatic) mate while historical sources to the problem are being looked up. My edit is: 1. Rh8+ Kxh8 2.Bg2+ Kg8 3. Bd5+ Kf8 4. Rh8#. Note that 2. Bf1 3. Bxc4+ also works, but winning the Knight is not a big deal. Also, Bg2 is more forced, the delaying move Rh2 is avoided.
But this solution is rather lame; the pawns don't move, neither the white N. I am sure the 2-rook sacrifice was the original solution. So I feel it must be the initial board that is not right. If someone has access to the historical source, pls fix. I am presenting the present solution only as a stop gap to preserve consistency. mukerjee ( talk) 05:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I think there is still a mistake. After first move the black king is on h8 and bishop (2. Bf5+) can't check from f5. I think, that possible solution is
But even that white wins, there is not a two-rook sacrifice. Vaclav.vesely.cz ( talk) 19:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Did shatranj or any variant of it survive to modern times in the Middle East? If not, what caused it to die out? Lexington1 ( talk) 00:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This term is used about five times in the article, at least four of which refer specifically to western chess. The Asian forms of chess are also "modern". -- 68.161.147.11 ( talk) 23:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this article is focusing too much on the Persians' adapted version of the game when in fact it should focus on the original Indian version of the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.226.42 ( talk) 15:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I have removed that map from the article page. The reason is that map is bearing too much wrong or/and speculative data, so it constituted a very criticable information:
For all these reasons, I think it is much safer to remove that map. More information on my web site http://history.chess.free.fr Cazaux ( talk) 20:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Differences:
It looks like everything else is exactly the same. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I dubt that the one shown is the real Mashaikhi opening (or tabiya). The Black's pawn must be in g6, not in h6. -- Little bishop ( talk) 22:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The values of the pieces is quite clearly wrong. -- Little bishop ( talk) 22:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
" In either case, the white and black shāh would be on the same file (but not always in modern India). " Why would the shāh have to be in modern India? Can't the game be played anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.36.194 ( talk) 00:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I incorrectly said that the word was used to refer to the ancient form of the game in a discussion about things in Farsi/Persian, and was informed by a native speaker that it is also used to refer to chess' European/modern form in Farsi/Persian itself. If someone can find a source for that and drop a quick line into the article warning people about that, that would be great. I didn't hear how the ancient form or forms other than the modern/European form of the game are distinguished in the language, though, so there might be a little more to look into beyond that for completeness. NadiaYvette ( talk) 20:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
I incorrectly said that the word was used to refer to the ancient form of the game in a discussion about things in Farsi/Persian, and was informed by a native speaker that it is also used to refer to chess' European/modern form in Farsi/Persian itself. If someone can find a source for that and drop a quick line into the article warning people about that, that would be great. I didn't hear how the ancient form or forms other than the modern/European form of the game are distinguished in the language, though, so there might be a little more to look into beyond that for completeness. NadiaYvette ( talk) 22:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The naming has gotten a little messed up. E.g., should we talk about
I'm inclined to go with "queen" because it will be familiar to a reader, and it addresses the historical connection between the modern chess queen and the corresponding piece from Shatranj.
Elephant is problematic because the piece name appears to have lost its meaning when it left India. I'd be more comfortable calling it a bishop or a "fil".
Jake 01:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've added a table of pieces as for the Chaturanga article. -- Ant 00:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The popular contentions has long been that Shatranj came to Persia from the Indian game of Chaturanga. However, modern scholars now view this theory with reserve. (See origins of chess.) (from the Shatranj article)
However, the article on Chaturanga says that Chaturanga is the direct ancestor of shatranj which was the form that brought chess to medieval Europe.
The two articles seem to disagree, which is probably not what we want. The origins of chess article agrees with the second view but also offers counter-explanations.
Whatever shall we do? Reediewes 06:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
May I correct the correction: the mainstream theory by Murray is that Chatrang was Persian version of Indian game Chaturanga. Shatranj was the name when Arabs conquered the Persian empire. So this theory is Chaturanga -> Chatrang -> Shatranj. Cazaux 14:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The reference to Shatranj being well known in the 3rd century is almost certainly false. "By the third century, Shatranj was well known in the Sassanid Empire, as evidenced in the biography of its founder Ardashir I, who ruled from 226-241. His court biography, the Karnamak-i Ardeshir-i Papakan, ..." According to HJR Murray, the Karnimak is the oldest reference to chess, yes; however, there is no proof that it was written in Ardashir's time. Considering the number of literary references that fabricate chess mastery by any number of historical figures who could not have known the game, HJR Murrary concludes that the reference in the Karnimak is without value before 600AD.
I've just recently been through this section of HJR Murray, but unfortunately it was via inter-library loan, and I don't have the book anymore. Could someone who does have it fix this section? I don't want to introduce an uncited assertion. Mlwilson 04:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've corrected some poor grammer in the last paragraph, and forced section endings come after the diagrams, rather than have some of the diagrams overlap the next section, an improvement (I think...)
this bothers me however...
"However, white wins by sacrificing two rooks: 1. Rh8+ Kxh8 2.Bf5+ Kg8 3. Rh8+ Kxh8 4. g7+ Kg8 5. Nh6# (black king can't move on h7, because it is attacked by Alfil on f5)."
I've phrased it into better English but see no Alfil on f5. (or any piece for that matter) Can somebody who understands this properly consider this and correct it if its wrong please. -- Shoka 19:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The sequence of movements currently in the article:
1. Rh8+ Kxh8 2.Bf5+ Rh2 3. Rxh2+ Kg8 4. Rh8+ Kxh8 5. g7+ Kg8 6. Nh6#
makes no sense.
As I read it, I thought "why is 2.Bf5+ not followed by 2. ..., Kg8 ?" I thought over it and couldn't find an explanation. Then I came to this discussion page and find you talking about the sequence "1. Rh8+ Kxh8 2.Bf5+ Kg8 3. Rh8+ Kxh8 4. g7+ Kg8 5. Nh6#" which does make sense.
It looks as if the last one was the original sequence of movements in the article but someone changed it to the first one.
I think we should change it again to the original sequence. What do you think? By the way, the Spanish article about Shatranj also has the wrong sequence.
Carlos M. 05-Aug-2006
Afghanistan also lays claim to chess. Someone should change the article. They dont tell you but alot of this names are given are Dari words from afghanistan; Rukh, Shah mat, Wazir, Asp. Iran tries to tie it in with persia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pashtun786 ( talk • contribs)
And Afghanistan was before 1919 part of Persia and the main population, the Persian-speaking Tajiks who are descandants of Persians and eastern-Iranian people, such as Soghdians, Bactrians, Kushans...have more knowledge about it than a nomadic Pashtun who have nothing, nieta, nie de va plu, nichts zerro.... to offer..sorry for you, brother Pashtun Kharkuss. Maybe, one day Pashtuns will also offer the world something, maybe, if they drop off selling their women, exchanging their daughters with house-animals, Taliban, Wahabism, promoting Arabism, suicide bombing, nomadism, plundering etc etc. -- 94.219.210.142 ( talk) 02:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Chess originated in India and not Afghanistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.226.42 ( talk) 15:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
These comments should be removed. That agressive tone does not have its place on Wikipedia. Cazaux ( talk) 20:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This problem and its solution seem to have been solved severally in Dec 2005 and later, but going through the page history, I find that all solutions have 2. Bf5 - but this is not possible - it would need to jump over the N at g4.
I hope I am not missing something elementary here. Most likely there is a problem in the board setup (a citation would help).
Also, I couldn't find any other place where the N could be so it can reach h6, and let the B go from h3 to f5.
In order to present a consistent page, I am editing in an alternate (less dramatic) mate while historical sources to the problem are being looked up. My edit is: 1. Rh8+ Kxh8 2.Bg2+ Kg8 3. Bd5+ Kf8 4. Rh8#. Note that 2. Bf1 3. Bxc4+ also works, but winning the Knight is not a big deal. Also, Bg2 is more forced, the delaying move Rh2 is avoided.
But this solution is rather lame; the pawns don't move, neither the white N. I am sure the 2-rook sacrifice was the original solution. So I feel it must be the initial board that is not right. If someone has access to the historical source, pls fix. I am presenting the present solution only as a stop gap to preserve consistency. mukerjee ( talk) 05:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I think there is still a mistake. After first move the black king is on h8 and bishop (2. Bf5+) can't check from f5. I think, that possible solution is
But even that white wins, there is not a two-rook sacrifice. Vaclav.vesely.cz ( talk) 19:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Did shatranj or any variant of it survive to modern times in the Middle East? If not, what caused it to die out? Lexington1 ( talk) 00:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This term is used about five times in the article, at least four of which refer specifically to western chess. The Asian forms of chess are also "modern". -- 68.161.147.11 ( talk) 23:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this article is focusing too much on the Persians' adapted version of the game when in fact it should focus on the original Indian version of the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.226.42 ( talk) 15:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I have removed that map from the article page. The reason is that map is bearing too much wrong or/and speculative data, so it constituted a very criticable information:
For all these reasons, I think it is much safer to remove that map. More information on my web site http://history.chess.free.fr Cazaux ( talk) 20:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Differences:
It looks like everything else is exactly the same. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I dubt that the one shown is the real Mashaikhi opening (or tabiya). The Black's pawn must be in g6, not in h6. -- Little bishop ( talk) 22:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The values of the pieces is quite clearly wrong. -- Little bishop ( talk) 22:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
" In either case, the white and black shāh would be on the same file (but not always in modern India). " Why would the shāh have to be in modern India? Can't the game be played anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.36.194 ( talk) 00:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I incorrectly said that the word was used to refer to the ancient form of the game in a discussion about things in Farsi/Persian, and was informed by a native speaker that it is also used to refer to chess' European/modern form in Farsi/Persian itself. If someone can find a source for that and drop a quick line into the article warning people about that, that would be great. I didn't hear how the ancient form or forms other than the modern/European form of the game are distinguished in the language, though, so there might be a little more to look into beyond that for completeness. NadiaYvette ( talk) 20:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
I incorrectly said that the word was used to refer to the ancient form of the game in a discussion about things in Farsi/Persian, and was informed by a native speaker that it is also used to refer to chess' European/modern form in Farsi/Persian itself. If someone can find a source for that and drop a quick line into the article warning people about that, that would be great. I didn't hear how the ancient form or forms other than the modern/European form of the game are distinguished in the language, though, so there might be a little more to look into beyond that for completeness. NadiaYvette ( talk) 22:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)