and thus wins doubly according to the laws of Medieval Chess. In our modern game it requires three moves more to give checkmate, the only species of victory to which we are accustomed to submit, thus

9. R. to K. R. 2nd square 10. R. to K. R. square (check) 11. R. takes Kt. mate.

9. Anything he pleases 10. Knight interposes.

In the preceding solution it will be seen that Black's main object is to separate the White Knight from his King: hence the latter is in a manner forced to move as he does, so as to keep near his King. The position is well worth the reader's attention, as among the generality of Chess players it would be called a drawn game; or what comes to the same thing, the player of Black would have failed to give White checkmate within the restricted legal number of fifty moves. As I have already stated, I am not warranted to say that the Orientals tied themselves down, in such cases, to a limited number of moves; still the man who could not here mate in fifty moves, could not, very likely, do it in a hundred.

I now conclude this part of my task, viz., "The Theory and Practice of Medieval Chess in the East; and as the same system of play prevailed in Western Europe till the beginning of the sixteenth century, I think I may assume the credit of having laid a foundation on which the historian of the royal game, during the middle ages, will be enabled to rear a solid superstructure. Our modern game appears to have originated in Spain, at least the earliest records of it that we possess are found in the works of Vicent and Lucena, about A.D. 1495. An interesting account of the works of these writers is given in the "Chess Player's Chronicle," for 1852. Both of them are now very scarce, especially

that of Vicent,' and I much regret that I have never been able to get a sight of either. They consist chiefly, I am told, of Chess positions, with their solutions; and it would be interesting to ascertain whether these, or most of them, be not of Arabian origin, also whether some of the problems be not of the medieval sort; which last point could be easily determined by examining such as have a Queen or Bishop engaged in the contest.2

In a German work on Chess (chiefly moralities), by Jacob Mennel, printed at Costentz, A.D. 1507, and afterwards quoted in his great work by Gustavus Selenus, we have seven problems with their solutions, which are decidedly of the medieval kind. One of them has absolutely four Queens,3 together with several other pieces, on one side of the board; and the conditions of the solution are that, he who has the four Queens, &c., is to checkmate with a Rook on the fifth move. We see,

then, that a few years previous to A.D. 1500, the modern game began to appear in Spain, supposing always that

1 Vicent's treatise is so very rare that I believe it has never been seen by any person now living.

This point I am now able to decide from Mr. Staunton's "Chess Praxis." In page 10 of that valuable work, Mr. S., in speaking of the Queen, states"The exact period when she, in common with the Bishop, acquired additional power, has yet to be discovered; but from the circumstance that Lucena, whose work was published in 1495, recommends the student to learn both the old game (viego), and the new (la dama)—that one half of his problems are constructed on the principles of the old game," &c.

3 Sarratt, who assuredly was no Solomon in Chess literature, is pleased to take Jacob Mennel to book. In his preface to what he calls his "Translation of Gustavus Silenus," he, speaking of the seven problems above alluded to, says, 'among these there is one as remarkable as it is ridiculous, extracted from a work (deservedly consigned to oblivion) written in German verse by James Mennels, and published at Costentz, 1507. Mennels has favoured the world with many situations in which mate is effected by a Pawn; some of these present a ludicrous appearance; one party having six and sometimes seven Queens; but it must be observed that this same Mennels has deemed it meet to deprive the Queen of her horizontal and perpendicular powers, &c." Now the ignorance, inaccuracy, and carelessness, displayed in the above morceau, simply deserve our pity; they are altogether beneath contempt.

it was the modern game; and that a few years subsequent to the same period the mediæval game still lingered in Germany; hence we may say that, in round numbers, our present mode of play dates from the commencement of the sixteenth century.

CHAPTER XI.

Enlargement of the Indian or Primaval Chess Board, alterations in its form, and in the manner of playing the Game.

THE wise men of the East, like their occidental brethren, did from time to time attempt sundry improvements on the original Indian game. Among these innovations the following are mentioned, and more or less described, by Arabian and Persian authors :

1st.-Board of a Hundred Squares, No. 1.

This is the earliest deviation we meet with from the common board of sixty-four squares. It is mentioned in the works of 'Adali, and consequently must have existed as early as our tenth century. They call it the Shatranj al Tammat, or, "The Full Chess." The author of the Arabic MS. in the British Museum, No. 7,515, gives a very brief, but satisfactory, account of it. "It has an addition of two Dabbābas or Vineæ, together with two Pawns on each side, all the rest remaining as before. The Dabbabas are placed between the King and Bishop on the one side, and between the Farzin and Bishop on the other. The Dabbaba had the moves of the King, and its value was one half, together with one third of a

diram, that is, gths of a diram, or five dangs, being an intermediate value between the Knight and the Rook, as the author of the Arabic MS. in the British Museum distinctly states, and experience amply confirms. I believe that a King and Dabbāba could always mate an adverse King when left alone on the board. This cannot be effected by our King and Knight, or King and Bishop, in the modern game.

2nd.-Board of a Hundred Squares, No. 2.

Another board of 100 squares is mentioned in Firdausi's Shāhnāma. I believe this has arisen from the blunder of some copyist who confounded the Indian board with that described by 'Adali, or a similar modification of the same then used in Persia. Here the additional pieces are two Camels, together with two Pawns on each side; the Camels being placed between the Bishops and Knights. Their powers and moves were the same as that of the Dabbāba or Vineæ in Timur's Great Game, as we shall see immediately; that is a straight leap, like that of the Rook, over one square, but not commanding the intermediate square. Their value, though not stated, is easily ascertained, being intermediate between that of the Farzin and that of the Fil or Bishop, the latter being in all the varieties of oriental and mediaval Chess the weakest piece on the board.

1 Mr. Bland, in his Essay, briefly alludes to this variety of the game. I think, however, that he has not caught the exact meaning of the expression, "one-half together with one-third of a dirhem;" as he there suggests that “probably their value was proportioned to the side on which they stood." He evidently supposes that one of the Dabbabas was one-half and the other onethird of a dirhem, whereas the author clearly means that each of them was of the value of += § of a dirhem. As for the mere side of the board on which they stood, it could have made no material difference, for it is evident from the nature of their movements that they might have very soon changed places.