Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small]

The Persian game and table are both called Shatrang, or more commonly Shutrunj, the form of the table and arrangement of the pieces as in the diagram.

No. 1. Sha, or Padsha. The king has the same moves and powers as in the English game, but cannot castle, nor is stale mate admitted.

No. 2. Firz, or more commonly Vizier, the general. It is the first piece moved on opening the game, advancing one step direct in front, his piadah moving one step at the same time; this is said to be done by command of the king, that he may review and regulate the motions of the army; afterwards he can only move diagonally, in advance or retrograde, one check or step at a move, the saine as the Burmha chekoy.

No. 3. 3. Fil in Persic, Hust in Hindoostanee, elephants. They move diagonally in advance or retrograde, always two steps at a move, and have, what Mr Irwin calls, the motion of a rocket boy hopping over the head of any piece in their way, except the king, and taking any piece which stands on the second check from them in their range.

No. 4. 4. Asp, Persian, or Ghora, Hindoostanee, horse or cavalry. They have the same moves and powers as the English knight.

No. 5. 5. Rookh, Persian, or Ruth, Hindoostanee, war chariots. They have exactly the same moves and powers as the English rook or castle.

No. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. Piadahs, or peons, footmen; they have the same moves and powers as the English pawn, except that they advance only one step at a time on opening the game, and that when any of them arrive at the last line of checks on their adversary's section, should their own general have been taken, they are then called firz, and distinguished by a pawn of the adversary being placed on the same square with them.

When the king is checked by another piece, they say Shah, Shah, or Kist, (the latter an Arabic word;) and when check-mated, they say Shah-mat, which means the king is conquered or driven to the last distress; or sometimes boord or burd, the prize is gained or carried, though this expression is more generally used when all the pieces are taken except the king, and the game is consequently won.

I shall now make some observations on the foregoing games, and compare them with each other.

As far as record is to be admitted in evidence, the first, or Hindoo game, above described, is the most ancient, and, to my apprehension, it has great internal marks of antiquity, namely, the imperfections incident to rudimental science.

A view of the table, etc. will be sufficient to convince any one who has the least knowledge of tactics, or the science of chess, of the imperfections of the Hindoo game.

The weakest flank of each army is opposed to its antagonist's forteand the piece in each army which would be of most use on the flanks, is placed in a situation where its operatiors are cramped; and although it appears that two armies are allied against the other two, yet the inconvenience of their battalia in a great measure remains; besides, it also appears that each separate army has to guard against the treachery of its ally, as well as against the common enemy; for it is recommended, and allowed to either of the kings, to seize on the throne of his ally, that he may obtain complete command of both

armies, and prosecute conquest for himself alone. But if the battalia were as perfect as in the European game, the circumstance of using dice, to determine the moves, is fatal to the claim of pre-eminence, or of science, which attaches to the European game, and places the ancient Hindoo game on a level with back-gammon, in which we often see the most consummate abilities defeated by chance. Exclusive of the definition of the game in the Amaracosha, namely, that the four Angas or members are elephants, horses, chariots, and foot soldiers, there are contradictions in the rules given by Gotoma and others translated by Rad-ha-cant, which are irreconcilable, unless we suppose they treat of different games. The first says that "the king, the elephant, and the horse may slay the foe, but cannot expose themselves to be slain." Hence we infer that the ship and foot In another place the commentator

soldiers alone are vulnerable. says, "If a pawn can march to any square on the opposite extremity of the board, except that of the king or ship, he assumes whatever power belonged to that square, which promotion is called Shat-pada, or six strides." This contradicts the former rule. And again, "but this privilege of Shat-pada was not allowable in the opinion of Gotoma; when the player had three pawns on the chess board, but when only one pawn and one ship remained, the pawn might even advance to the square of a king or a ship, and assume the power of either." From the whole we may gather, that in this game there is much abstruseness with little science, which affords strong presumption of Its being rudimental.

I have placed the Chinese game the second in the series, because there is a record of its relative antiquity; but not from conviction, for the next improvement of the ancient Hindoo game appears to me to be that which at present obtains amongst the Burmhas, who are Hindoos of the Pali tribe, and derive all their literature and science from the common source. *In the Burmha game the first dawn of perfection appears, while the ancient Hindoo names, according to the

The chess men I had made at Amarapoorah, the Burmha capital, were the workmanship of some Cossays, natives of the kingdom of Munipore, who, as well as the Burmhas, are of the sect of Budda, and form the intermediate link between them and the Bengallies.

No. 5. 5. Rookh, Persian, or Ruth, Hindoostanee, war chariots. They have exactly the same moves and powers as the English rook or castle.

No. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. Piadahs, or peons, footmen; they have the same moves and powers as the English pawn, except that they advance only one step at a time on opening the game, and that when any of them arrive at the last line of checks on their adversary's section, should their own general have been taken, they are then called fire, and distinguished by a pawn of the adversary being placed on the same square with them.

When the king is checked by another piece, they say Shah, Shah, or Kist, (the latter an Arabic word;) and when check-mated, they say Shah-mat, which means the king is conquered or driven to the last distress; or sometimes boord or burd, the prize is gained or carried, though this expression is more generally used when all the pieces are taken except the king, and the game is consequently won.

I shall now make some observations on the foregoing games, and compare them with each other.

As far as record is to be admitted in evidence, the first, or Hindoo game, above described, is the most ancient, and, to my apprehension, it has great internal marks of antiquity, namely, the imperfections incident to rudimental science.

A view of the table, etc. will be sufficient to convince any one who has the least knowledge of tactics, or the science of chess, of the imperfections of the Hindoo game.

The weakest flank of each army is opposed to its antagonist's forteand the piece in each army which would be of most use on the flanks, is placed in a situation where its operatiors are cramped; and although it appears that two armies are allied against the other two, yet the inconvenience of their battalia in a great measure remains; besides, it also appears that each separate army has to guard against the treachery of its ally, as well as against the common enemy; for it is recommended, and allowed to either of the kings, to seize on the throne of his ally, that he may obtain complete command of both

armies, and prosecute conquest for himself alone. But if the battalia were as perfect as in the European game, the circumstance of using dice, to determine the moves, is fatal to the claim of pre-eminence, or of science, which attaches to the European game, and places the ancient Hindoo game on a level with back-gammon, in which we often see the most consummate abilities defeated by chance. Exclusive of the definition of the game in the Amaracosha, namely, that the four Angas or members are elephants, horses, chariots, and foot soldiers, there are contradictions in the rules given by Gotoma and others translated by Rad-ha-cant, which are irreconcilable, unless we suppose they treat of different games. The first says that "the king, the elephant, and the horse may slay the foe, but cannot expose themselves to be slain." Hence we infer that the ship and foot soldiers alone are vulnerable. In another place the commentator says, “If a pawn can march to any square on the opposite extremity of the board, except that of the king or ship, he assumes whatever power belonged to that square, which promotion is called Shat-pada, or six strides." This contradicts the former rule. And again, "but this privilege of Shat-pada was not allowable in the opinion of Gotoma; when the player had three pawns on the chess board, but when only one pawn and one ship remained, the pawn might even advance to the square of a king or a ship, and assume the power of either." From the whole we may gather, that in this game there is much abstruseness with little science, which affords strong presumption of Its being rudimental.

I have placed the Chinese game the second in the series, because there is a record of its relative antiquity; but not from conviction, for the next improvement of the ancient Hindoo game appears to me to be that which at present obtains amongst the Burmhas, who are Hindoos of the Pali tribe, and derive all their literature and science from the common source. *In the Burmha game the first dawn of perfection appears, while the ancient Hindoo names, according to the

The chess men I had made at Amarapoorah, the Burmha capital, were the workmanship of some Cossays, natives of the kingdom of Munipore, who, as well as the Burmhas, are of the sect of Budda, and form the intermediate link between them and the Bengallies.

« PreviousContinue »