word Sow. The move of this piece was straight, like that of the Rukh, but it extended only to the square next to it but one. Like the Elephant it leaped over the intervening square, but did not command it. Its power was greater than that of the Elephant, as it could cover twenty-nine squares of the board, in addition to that on which it originally stood. The two Vineæ of each player ran upon the same squares. They could not touch any square on the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, or 10th ranks of the board from either player's side, and never could encounter the Vineæ of the adversary. All this does not savour much of perfection. This Rukh 3. The Rukh, i.e., the Rook or Castle. had precisely the same move as with us. He was the most powerful of all the pieces on the Great Chess-board as he had previously been in the common game. Placed anywhere on the board, he commanded nineteen squares, which no other piece could do. Of course he could easily cover all the squares of the board, like the Wazir. CLASS II. PIECES OF THE OBLIQUE MOVE. 1st. The Farz or Farzin. In the common game, the terms Farz or Farzin and Wazir are applied indifferently The Sow was employed by the Earl of Salisbury when he besieged the Castle of Dunbar, just about the time of Timur's birth. This castle was defended by the celebrated Black Agnes, the Countess, who, according to Hollinshed, "used many pleasaunt words in jesting and tawnting at the enemies' doings, thereby the more to encourage her soldiers. One day, it chanceth that the Englishmen had devised them an engine called a Sow, under the pretence or cover whereof they might approach safely to the walls. The Countess perceiving this engine, merrilie said that she would make the Englishmen's Sow to cast HER PIGS, and so she afterwards destroyed it." Tradition hath it that Black Agnes in person called out from the castle wall to the Earl of Salisbury "Beware thee, Montagou, and immediately the machine was crushed by a mass of rock hurled upon it from above. to denote the piece which we now call "Queen." In the great Chess, however, the Farz and Wazir were quite distinct pieces which must never be confounded, their functions being altogether different. I therefore translate Farz "Sage," or "Counsellor ;" and the Wazir I translate "General," or "Generalissimo," as he frequently discharges that office under Oriental sovereigns. The Farz moved obliquely or diagonally, one square, having precisely the shortest move of our Bishop. He could cover only one half of the board; and, as in the common game, he was one of the weakest of the pieces. 2nd. The Pil or Elephant. His move remained the same as it had been in the common game, only the station allotted to him was in each corner of the board, as had formerly been the case in the Chaturanga when he was called the Ship. He still continued to be the weakest of the pieces, as he could never command more than four squares, nor could he cover more than fourteen squares besides that on which he originally stood. Out of the whole hundred and ten squares of the board, there were fifty which no Elephant of either side could touch. 3rd. The Tali'a. This word has so many significations that it is difficult to fix upon the best English term to represent it. It means both a "secret spy or scout," and, collectively, the "vanguard" of an army, also a "reconnoitring party," and lastly, what we call the "out-posts." It corresponds on the whole, as an individual, to the Roman speculator or explorator, and so I use for it the term "scout." His move was precisely that of our Bishop, being the extreme of the oblique moves. His power, owing to the extension of the board, was proportionately greater than that of our modern Bishop. From a central position, he commanded fourteen squares, and from the least favourable position, ten squares. Of course he could cover only one half of the board; viz., those squares which (as we should say) were of his own colour. CLASS III. PIECES OF THE MIXED MOVE. 1st. The Faras or Asp. These words simply mean "horse," but I retain the well known term " 'Knight" instead. Amidst the numerous attempts made for altering the Chess board, this piece has always remained the same both in name, and in the peculiar mode in which it is moved ever since its first appearance in the primæval Chaturanga of the ancient Hindus. The Knight's move is the basis or primary of the mixed or composite moves. It is made up of the two primary moves of the two preceding classes, viz., that of the Farz combined with that of the Wazir; in other words, our Bishop's shortest move combined with the shortest move of our Rook. Its power on the Great Chess-board was somewhat diminished in comparison with that of the Rukh and the Scout; or, more correctly speaking, the powers of the latter pieces were somewhat extended, owing to the increased size of the board. Still, however, the Knight held the fourth place in value, even in the great game, as will be shewn immediately when we treat of the moves of the Camel and Giraffe. 2nd. The Jamal or "Camel." This piece had a move resembling that of the Knight, with merely this difference, that it consisted of the move of the Farz, combined with that of the Vineæ, i.e., the shortest move of our Bishop, combined with the shortest move but one of our Rook. Like the Knight, his move was no ways impeded by any piece or pawn standing in his way. From a central position, he commanded eight squares, like the Knight; but for several obvious reasons, we shall find, on examination, that he was decidedly inferior to the latter in value. In the first place, the Camel, like the Bishop and several other pieces, could never change his colour, consequently one half of the squares at least were free from his attack. Supposing the board were chequered, we should find, that if a Camel originally stood on a white square he never could move to a black. Secondly, the two Camels on each side, like the Vineæ, moved on the very same squares. Lastly, no Camel could encounter a hostile Camel; and as a further drawback he was of little avail for defending the King, owing to the straggling nature of his moves. He was valuable only in giving the enemy an occasional long shot, when they came within his appropriate range. 3rd. The Zarafa, the "Giraffe" or "Cameleopard." The Persians have a still more complex name for this beast. They call him Shutur-gaw-palang, or the "Camelcow-leopard;" for in certain parts of his body he bears a resemblance to each of these animals. I have never heard of his being employed in actual warfare, and his introduction upon the Great Chess board is a little out of character. Our business, however, is with his moves and power and the rank he held among the pieces. We have seen that the Knight's move consisted of the shortest of our Bishop's and Rook's moves combined ; and that of the Camel consisted of our Bishop's shortest move combined with that of the Vinea. Now, the Giraffe's move was a mere extension of this last in a straight direction, that is, he attacked or commanded, like a Rook, all the squares beyond that on which the Camel would have halted when moved from the same central point. He was subject to the following restrictions, viz., he was not allowed to stop short by making a Knight's move, which was his primary; nor L could he confine himself to the move of the Camel, which was his medial; nor, lastly, could he move at all, if, as in the case of the Knight and Camel any pawn or piece occupied either the diagonal or the next straight squares where the Knight or Camel could have moved. The reason assigned for these restrictions is, that if the Giraffe were allowed to make the minor moves of his primary and medial pieces (the Knight and Camel), as well as his own more extended moves, his power would have been altogether out of proportion to that of the other extreme pieces. As it is, he could, from the most favourable position command sixteen squares of the board, and from the least favourable, the corner square, he commanded thirteen squares; so that upon the whole, toward the end of a game when the board contained but few pieces, he was nearly equal to the Rook. From the nature of his moves, it is obvious that he could easily cover all the squares of the board; but whether, like the Knight, he could do so without going over the same square more than once, is a problem requiring solution. In further illustration of the oblique moves, the reader has only to cast his eye over Plate II., where he will see at once the precise nature, and the various moves of the Knight, Camel and Giraffe. Assuming the square marked with the cross +, as a common centre, we find that the Knight (represented by the letter K), can move, as we already know, to eight squares. The Camel also (marked C), moves to eight squares, viz., those in mediately beyond the Knight in a straight direction. Lastly, the Giraffe (marked G), moved to any square, in a straight direction, beyond that of the Camel. Had the board been coloured, we should have seen at once that the Knight changes his colour at every move-that the Camel always continued on the same colour-and |