The adverse Queen, being on the opposite square at the extremity of the board, was necessarily of a different colour-hence the two Queens could never by any chance encounter one another. That this was the case in Europe, in the twelfth century, we know from a line in the older Latin poem given by Hyde (p. 180):

Nam Regina non valebit impedire alteram.1

The Fil, or Elephant, which we call Bishop, moved two squares diagonally. He attacked and commanded only the square next to him but one; he had no power over the intermediate square; hence his attack, like that of the Knight, could not be covered or warded off by the intervention of another piece. It will be found, by a slight inspection, that his power extended over only seven squares of the board (one leap of two squares at a time), besides the one on which he originally stood. It will also be found, on examination, that each of the four Bishops had a diocese, or circuit, of eight particular squares for himself, out of which he could never move. It so happened also that the eight squares belonging to any one Bishop never fell within the range of any of the other three; hence a Bishop could never, by any chance, encounter an adverse Bishop, even when running on the

1 From an expression used in the fourth line of this old poem, one might be led hastily to infer that the Kings and Queens were then placed opposite to each other, as in the modern Asiatic game, viz.:

"Rex paratus ad pugnandum, primum locum teneat ;

Ejus atque dextrum latus Regina possideat."

The inference, however, would be quite erroneous; for the author speaks of the pieces as viewed by one person from only one side of the board, viz., that on which the Black are drawn up. This is most clearly proved by the line above quoted respecting the Queens, from the same poem; for if the two Queens stood each on the King's right hand, as in the modern Persian game, they would have to run on the same colour, and consequently would be liable to be attacked or impeded by each other.

same colour. Here, again, we can throw light on a line of the older Latin poem in Hyde:

Firmum pactum Calvi tenent, neque sibi noceant.

The precise nature of the moves and powers of the Bishops will be best understood by the aid of the following diagram. Let a and b represent the White Bishops; also c and d the Black Bishops; then it will be seen at once to what particular squares the powers of each extended. For instance a, the White Queen's Bishop could move to K's. 3rd; then to K's. Kt.; then back to K's. 3rd; then to K. Kt. 5; then to K. 7; then to his own 5th; then to Q. R. 7; then back to his own 5th; then to Q. R. 3rd, and thence home. This trip cost him ten moves, and he visited only seven different houses during his journey. A similar rule applies to each of the other Bishops.

It will be seen further that there are thirty-two squares which no Bishop could possibly penetrate; and that the White Bishops could not touch any square on the 2nd, 4th, 6th, or 8th horizontal files. Of course a similar rule applied to the Black Bishops, reckoning from their own side of the board. The Bishops, in the Chaturanga, for obvious reasons, moved on the thirty-two squares that became so many blanks in the Shatranj.1 Lastly, a King placed on any of the blank squares, or on any square of the even horizontal files, reckoned from his own side of the board, was secure from the attacks of a hostile Bishop.

Lastly, when a Pawn reached the opposite extremity of the board, he obtained the rank of Farzin only, and never that of any other piece. He commenced thenceforth to move diagonally, one square at a time, being, of course, restricted to the colour of the square on which he had landed; hence, in many of the end-games given in the Oriental MSS. above described, we find two or three Farzins on either side of the board, of which more hereafter. Here, once more, the older Latin poem in Hyde agrees with us :—

Cum Pedester usque summam venerit ad Tabulam,
Nomen ejus tunc mutetur; appelletur Ferzia;
Ejus interim Reginæ gratiam obtineat.

Here we have the Arabic or Persian word Farz or Farzin slightly modified, although the term Queen had already become common. I may further observe that this standing rule of promoting the Pawns to the rank of

It will be remembered that when the Chaturanga was modified into the Shatranj, the Bishops, which then occupied the four corner squares, changed places with the Rooks; the consequence was that the former assumed a new career. It will be further observed that the five compartments where the Vrihannaukā might have occurred in the primæval game, are now so many blanks.

Farzin, in the medieval game, sweeps away at once the whole rubbish that has been written about the nonantiquity of a "plurality of Queens," which Philidor and his sapient editor, Mr. Pratt, seemed to consider as a modern innovation.-Vide Pratt's Philidor, 1825, p. 514. Let me not be here misunderstood, when I speak of Philidor. I fully admit that he held the first rank in Chess-playing, but it does not thence follow that he ranked high in scholarship. Having now explained the moves of the pieces in the Shatranj, I shall henceforth discontinue the use of the terms "Farzin" and "Fil,' using instead the well-known appellations of Queen and Bishop, the reader always bearing in mind their exact powers, and very limited range, on the board.

Relative Value of the Pieces.

In order to convey an idea of the relative powers or exchangeable value of the pieces, the Arabs and Persians have adopted the following quaint and practical method, founded upon their smaller denominations of money, viz., the silver dinār, or diram, or dirham, equal to our sixpence; the dang equal to our penny; and the tasu, equal in value to our farthing.

The King, they say, is beyond all value, on account of his rank, but in reality from the nature of the game. The value of the Rook is one dinär or six dāngs; that of the Knight is four dängs. On these two points all our eastern MSS. agree. The value of the Queen, however, is less decided, as one MS. estimates her at three dāngs, and another only at two dangs and a half; perhaps two dangs and three tasu, or twopence three farthings, is near the mark. The value of the Bishop is between a dãng and a half and two dangs, we shall say one dang and three

tasu, or a penny and three farthings. The average value of the Pawns is one dang or penny each, but the two centre or Royal Pawns are worth a penny farthing, and, according to some, the King's Pawn is worth three halfpence. Again, the two side Pawns are worth only three farthings each. Finally, the nominal value of any particular piece or Pawn is liable to undergo considerable modifications according to circumstances. Thus it may happen that on certain occasions a Knight or even a Queen may be of more value than the Rook. So a Pawn, as it advances towards the opposite side of the board gradually assumes a value approaching to that of the Bishop; and ultimately that of a Farzin.

For the purpose of farther illustration of Oriental play, I shall here add two very fine positions, deservedly celebrated in the East. The first is by 'Adali Al Rūmi, a player of the very highest class, who flourished in the first half of our tenth century. The position is from fol. 4a of the Asiatic Society's MS., in which 'Adali's pieces are black; but these I have altered into white, simply because with us now-a-days, it is customary to make the white the winning party in our chess problems. The reader will perceive that the problem is a shade too good to have occurred in actual play-; but, as the saying is, "if not true it is well invented." Of 'Adali himself I have not been able to find any account. From the first part of his name it is evident that he was an Arab; and from the second, I infer that he was born in Asia Minor or Rumelia. The term Rum is rather vague, being applied to the Turkish Empire at large, as it had previously been to the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire.