=

of a very simple arithmetical demonstration. We have seen that assuming the Pawn as the unit of measurement, their aggregate value amounted to 8. The Bishop was worth between 1 and 2, say 1; then the sum of the two Bishops = 34. The Queen was between 2 and 3, say 2. Lastly, the sum of the two Knights 8, and that of the two Rooks = 12; hence the whole amount of the forces = 8 + 312 + 232 + 8 + 12 = 341. Dividing this last sum by 4, we shall find that the Knight formed between 4th and th part of the whole forces. Again, dividing the same sum by 6, we shall find that the Rook was something between th and 'th of the aggregate strength of the mimic army.

Let us now examine the relative value of the same pieces in our modern game. Assuming as before the Pawn as the unit of measurement, their amount will still be the same as above 8. The Queen is about = The Queen is about = 11;'

1 I have adopted this scale of our modern game, with some modification from those given by Mr. Pratt in his edition of Philidor, 1826, and by Mr. Tomlinson in his useful little work, entitled "Amusements in Chess," London, 1845. In Tomlinson's work the value assigned to the Knight is 3·05, and the Bishop 3.50. This I hold to be erroneous, as giving an undue superiority to the Bishop over the Knight. I adopt, therefore, Mr. Pratt's scale, allowing the Knight 34, and the Bishop 34, and I much doubt whether this be not too large a distinction, for in practice the Knight and Bishop are generally admitted to be of equal value. Again I differ from both of these savans as to the value of the Queen. Pratt makes the Rook 5·55, and the Queen only 10, as much as to say that the two Rooks are worth more than a Queen and a Pawn! whereas it ought to be, as a general rule, quite the reverse, so far as the Pawn is concerned. In practice the Queen, especially in the early part of the game, is equal to two Rooks and one Pawn, as every good Chess-player knows; and it is only when the board has become somewhat cleared of the men that the two Rooks combined approximate or equal the Queen. I have set down the latter then as 11, and I rather think 12 would have been the more correct figure, I have not taken the King into account in either of the preceding scales, as he has precisely the same power in both the medieval and modern game. His value, as an attacking piece was, in the oriental game, a little more than that of the Knight, and in our game it is somewhat less, for our King is compelled to act with more caution owing to the increased power of the Queen and Bishops. In fact our final results would have been as nearly as possible the same whether we reckoned the King or not in our calculations. To conclude, then, the player who

11; the

the Rook 51, consequently the two Rooks = 11; Knight 31, or, the two Knights together = 6; the Bishop 31, or the two Bishops = 7. Hence the aggregate value of the forces on our board is = 8 + 111⁄2 + 11 + 61⁄2-1⁄2 + 7 = 44; and dividing by 31, the nominal value of the Knight, we find that the latter is only between theth and th part of the whole forces. Dividing in like manner by 5 we have the fractional value of the Rook, which is exactly th of the united forces.

The Five Classes of Chess-players.

"The Arabs and Persians divided Chess-players into five classes, viz.—1st, the 'Aliyat or 'Class of Grandees,' of whom seldom three exist at the same time. It is stated in the old Arabic MS. that 'Adali for some time remained alone of his class, and that the same thing happened to Al-'Arī, a more recent Arabian player, and also to Ibn Dandan and Al-Kunāf, both of Bagdad. The second class consists of such players as are able to win only two or three games out of ten when playing even with one of the 'Aliyat; the difference between the two classes being reckoned equal, on an average, to a Pawn that is, a player of the first-class could give to the very best of the second class a Rook's Pawn, and to the weakest of the same class the King's Pawn. The third

gave the odds of the Knight in the Oriental game deprived himself of four out of 344; whereas the same odds in our game amounts only to the giving up of 3 out of 44. He who gave the odds of the Rook in the former game, gave up 6 out of 344, whereas with us it is only 5 out of 44. It follows, then, that the odds of the Knight in the medieval game was equivalent to that of the Knight, a Pawn, and very nearly half a Pawn in ours. In like manner we find that the odds of the Rook in the former equalled the odds of the Rook and two Pawns in our game. Finally, the odds of the Knight in the Shatranj was very nearly equivalent to that of the Rook in the modern game.

class consists of players to whom one of the Grandees can give the odds of the Queen. The fourth class consists of those to whom one of the highest can give the odds of a Knight. (Here the hiatus occurs in the MSS.; but we know from other sources that), The fifth class consists of those players to whom one of the class of Grandees can give the odds of a Rook.

It appears to me (if I may be allowed a very brief digression) that this same classification of players among the Orientals must have tended greatly to promote a sound knowledge of Chess; and I should consider the system well worthy of being introduced and enforced at all our Chess-clubs. To all true lovers of the noble game, especially to the young and rising players, the prospect of attaining a higher grade would prove a much more effective stimulus for exertion than the mode of playing for a shilling, which prevailed in my younger days. I believe, however, shilling play is now less common in the metropolis than it was twenty years ago. I myself have ever set my face against a proceeding so degrading to Chess; and, when a member of the St. George's Club, I believe I induced many others to follow my example. То young players, then, I would say, avoid the shilling' men as you would the plague, and play the strict game, for honour. The mode is very simple: we shall suppose, for instance, two players, A and B. Well, A thinks, perhaps justly, he could give the odds of the Pawn and move to B; but the latter, out of self-conceit or vanity, will listen to no such proposal; the consequence is, that A is in a fair way of falling into a careless habit of play, which is the inevitable result of playing even with an

1 I have known some of the shilling gentry who, when they lost, were always destitute of small change. Never play, thou, O reader, with any such a second time.

inferior player. Then the plan which I would recommend is-let the two agree to play carefully a match of ten games; and if, out of the ten, B should only win two or three, (drawn games not to count), it will amount to a tolerable proof that he is of a class inferior to A.

CHAPTER X.

SHATRANJ CONCLUDED.

On the Openings or Battle Array-End Games or Positions won by force-End Games drawn by force.

In order fully to appreciate the system of tactics adopted in opening the game of Shatranj, the reader must bear in mind, once more, that the Pawns could never advance more than one step on the first move. From this restriction on the part of the Pawns, together with the very limited range of the Queen and Bishops, it will be easily perceived that no formidable collision of the forces could have taken place till at least from ten to fifteen moves had been made on either side. Hence, in order to save time, and to prevent useless exchanges, it was agreed that the first player should make his (let us say) twelve moves all at once, without, however, crossing the middle line of the board; after which the adversary was entitled to play up in succession an equal number of counter moves, such as he might deem most conducive to ultimate victory, being also restricted to his own half of the board.

1 This was uniformly the rule in the Chaturanga, and with a slight exception, peculiar to India, it still prevails all over Asia at the present day. So far as I can discover, it was the rule in the Shatranj, when the players from the commencement made alternate moves, as we do: but, as stated in p. 91, when the players agreed to take up a strategic position, then a Pawn might, in so noing, move one or two squares at pleasure. This of course had nothing to do with our "vexata questio" of one Pawn taking another "en passant," for in the Medieval game, neither party crossed the frontier line. It is possible however that from this Oriental custom, of the "Ta'biyat," arose the present privilege of our Pawn's moving one or two squares, on the first move.