Tory notion of the kingly office), and that too, both in a direct line, like the Rook, or diagonally like the Queen." Then the author adds-" At non debet exaltari cor ejus ad dilatandum gressus suos in bello ne fortè in bello moriatur." "He ought not to display his valour so far as to rush forward into the mêlée, lest he should get knocked on the head." Now this last is merely a sensible common-place piece of advice well known and acted upon by every good Chess-player since the days of Buzurjmihr. We are told, indeed, that Charles the Twelfth of Sweden despised such timid counsels as the foregoing, both on the mimic war arena of the Chess board, and on the real battle field. Is there one of our readers who does not know the consequence? The next authority adduced is that of a Hebrew scribe of the 16th century whose name is unknown.1 His Tractate on Chess, entitled "Delicia Regis," will be found in Hyde, pp. 39 to 71. This is the least felicitous of all the references to which the authors of the 'Essays" have had recourse. They call it "An Ancient Hebrew Treatise on the Game!" Now we can very easily prove that it is far from being ancient. In the first place, the author tells us that he composed the work purposely for the benefit of two dissipated young friends that were strongly addicted to card-playing; and we know that card-playing, at least as a popular amusement, is not many centuries old. Secondly, the Israelite describes not the Medieval but the Modern game, as given 1 In a work entitled "Literatur des Schachspiels," by Anton Schmid, 8vo., Wien, 1847, the authorship of this treatise is attributed, I know not on what authority, to "Jedahaiah Hapenini Ben Abraham Badrasi," said to have been born at Barcelona, about A.D. 1250. This is clearly an error, of very easy refutation. In fact Herr Schmid himself, under the article "Delicia Regis," has the words "seu de Shahihidio historia prosaica Anonymi." In his next edition Mr. Schmid may safely say that the author is not only "Anonymous," but quite modern. by Ruy Lopez. Lastly, and what is of particular importance, he allows the King the privilege of Castling,1 and he further tells us that the Pawns may, at pleasure, move one or two squares at starting! Now, had the authors of the "Essays" carefully perused this work, they would have found the strongest reasons for concluding that so far from being an "Ancient Treatise," the author could not have composed it till about the middle of the sixteenth century. I may here add, that the writer of the "Delicia," whoever he was, bears a strange resemblance in style, sentiments, absurdity, and egotism, to the effusions of the anonymous author of the Asiatic Society's MS. already described. These peculiarities will be further noticed when we come to treat of Timurs "Great Chess.' Finally, in the third volume of the Chess Player's Chronicle (p. 127), we have a problem from the Museum MS. 7,515, which is intended as a decisive proof that up to about the thirteenth century, the King was permitted to move only when checked, and then his range of action, either to escape or capture an enemy, was confined to one square in a right line-he could neither move nor take angularly!!! As this problem still further exhibits to us the peculiarities of the Mediæval game we shall here insert it, and see how far it bears out the idea of this imaginary law of Chess, among our ancestors. . 1 By the term "Castling" I mean the modern mode of castling, which is not older than the first half of the sixteenth century. The words are "Si visus sit locus aliquis inter ipsum (Regem sc.) et Ruchum suum, vel Ruchum Regina; poterit concedere ad domum unius eorum; et Ruch stabit juxta ipsum ad instar muri ahenei munitissimi." "Cum initio proficiscuntur, Pedes incedit primo, quorum pes est pes rectus per domum post domum recta tendunt; nec revertuntur cum incedunt; quamvis in principio sit illis privilegium eundi per duas domos." Hyde, p. 65. I 1 Black B. may take R. vaulting over W. K., in which case mate is given in three moves. It is needless, I trust, any more to remind the reader of the peculiar moves of the Queen and Bishop, which are here well exemplified. Now let us see how far the above problem bears out the assertion of the authors of the "Essays" respecting the regal restrictions aforesaid. Their line of argument appears to me to savour strongly of the non sequitur; * A neater version of the problem will be found in the Persian MS., No. 16,856, fol. 42B, which being further modified so as to suit the modern board, appeared in the Chess Player's Chronicle for last January. which we may express thus-"Here we see that the King moves when he is checked; therefore the King must not move unless he is checked!" Again, Again, "the King here moves in a straight line," (because, O courteous reader, he cannot move otherwise), "therefore the King is not allowed to move angularly!" I have only to add, that I have examined some three hundred Oriental problems, scattered over the various manuscripts to which I have alluded in Chapter 8, and nowhere have I met with the least hint of what the authors have asserted. In numerous positions, and several openings, I have found the King close behind his men, and not unfrequently in the very midst of them. He moves if he is checked, as a matter of course, and his move is straight or angular according to whichever is most advantageous. The only restriction is, and ever has been, in both the Medieval and modern game-not to move into check. On End Games, won by Force. In the Shatranj the game was won in three different ways. The first and most common was by a checkmate, as with us. Secondly, when one player had succeeded in capturing all his opponent's forces, provided he had any of his own remaining, however small, he was declared the winner of the game. Lastly, a player won, when he succeeded, under certain restrictions, in giving his adversary stalemate. It will not be difficult to assign good reasons why the winner should have been allowed so 1 1 This second kind of victory is still acknowledged in Persia, as appears by a letter written from Paris to the Editor of the Chess Player's Chronicle, Vol. VI., p. 287. The writer says, "I have played several games here with some young Persians sent to Europe by the Shah for their education. They told me that with them, if at the end of a game either King is left alone against the adverse King with any force, however small, the King who has lost his forces must immediately surrender; the game being considered lost." much latitude in the Oriental game. With us, for example, the circumstance of a King and Pawn against a King, is, under certain conditions, a sure victory; but not so in the Shatranj (that is, if victory depended on a checkmate), for suppose the Pawn had become a Queen, the latter possessed not the mating power. Also, with us a Knight and Bishop, or two Bishops, against a King, can mate; but not so in the Oriental game, where, as we have shown, the Bishops were of very little value. From these considerations, and many more that might have been alleged, it is evident, that in the Shatranj if the victory depended solely on giving checkmate, a won game among good players would have been a rarity; and it could have occurred chiefly between a first-rate player and one decidedly his inferior. Let us now examine the nature of a victory gained by stalemate, which of necessity happened more rarely than one would at first sight imagine. Of course stalemate could not be given, as with us, to a King that had lost all his pieces and Pawns; for, as we have just seen, he, by that very circumstance, was deemed vanquished, and so that game was at an end. In order to express ourselves more distinctly, let us speak of White as the winning party, and Black as the King about to be stalemated. Well, then, when Black got stalemated, it being understood all along that he had still some of his forces remaining, but unable to move, the player of Black was allowed to make his King change places with any piece or pawn out of such forces, provided, of course, that he did not in so doing go into check. The piece or pawn that changed place with the Black King was called "fidā," "victim," or "sacrifice;" because from the nature of things, there was every probability of his being captured in a very short time. If Black King could not |