1 If he does not check, Knight's Pawn threaten's mate next move, if he moves R. to his own third square, then Q. moves as above, and next move Black Rook must either move away or take Pawn, which in either case finishes

the game.

2 From what I have stated a few pages back, the reader will, I think, concur with me in concluding that no restrictions on the King ever existed. Hence the beautiful simplicity, and scientific contrivance of the moves and powers of the King, Rook, Knight, and Pawns, as displayed in the ancient Chaturanga, have remained unaltered since the days of Vyāsa Muni and his pupil Yudhishthira down to the present time. The moves and powers of the Bishop and Queen have been merely extended, but no ways changed, in modern times.

3

We may here observe, that all the Oriental problems which are solved by giving checkmate, provided there be no Queen or Bishop on the board, are precisely the same as ours of the present day. For example, the following neat position from the old Arabic MS. 7,515, is believed to have been the composition of Damiano, though in reality it existed and had even been booked more than three hundred years before the latter was born. I have no doubt that both Lucena and Damiano are, in like manner, indebted to the Arabians for most of their problems, either in an unaltered state, or slightly modified so as to suit our modern game.

3 In Lewis's translation of "Carrera," page 218, the problem is given as Damiano's. It is also found in Stamma, who is sometimes given out as the author. Both Damiano and Stamma have altered the form of the problem, and cumbered the board with a number of useless pieces. The Arabian original is in far better taste.

PROBLEM VII., FROM THE OLD ARABIC MS. OF THE
BRITISH MUSEUM, NO. 7,515.

1 I suppose the authors of the Essays would here say that because Black King moves and captures Rook in a straight line, he was not then allowed to move or capture otherwise. The real cause, however, for his moving as above is a much more rational one-he cannot possibly move otherwise.

On End-Games Drawn by Force.

We have just seen that in the Shatranj a player might lose the game in three different ways-viz., by receiving checkmate, by being stripped of all his forces except the King, and by receiving stalemate under certain conditions. Even with this licence, we find that in the Oriental game the probabilities in favour of its ending

in a draw ́ were still very considerable; and this fact brings to light one of its defects or anomalies-proving at the same time that Chess, like all human inventions, ever has been susceptive of progressive improvement. As a ludicrous instance of inconsistency in the Mediæval Game, I may mention that it sometimes ended in a draw, not from an absolute numerical equality of forces, nor anything near it; but owing to the peculiar powers and limited range of some of the pieces, these being such that they could not encounter their adversary's, of which occurrence a curious instance will be noticed hereafter.

The laws respecting drawn games, as given in the MSS., have, as a matter of course, anticipated the existence of a plurality of Queens, averaging from two to five on either side. This arose naturally from one of the laws of the Mediæval Game which, as we have seen, compelled every Pawn to become a Farzin or Queen only, on reaching the opposite extremity of the board. The joint power of the Queens was considerably modified from the circumstance of their being all of the same colour, or of some of them running on black squares and the rest on white. When the Queens ran on what we should call the same colour, they were said by the Muslims to be " Muwafik," i.e., "concordant " "similar;" and when on different colours they were said to be "Mukhālif," "discordant," or "dissimilar." The books lay down several rules by the aid of which a player may know whether a Pawn, on queening, may prove to be similar or dissimilar to such Queen or Queens as he may already have on the board. Now this fact affords us the clearest possible proof that the Oriental board was not chequered with two colours till at least a comparatively recent period. Had the board been chequered

(and the wonder is that it should not have been so), it would be seen at once, without any recourse to rules or calculation, whether the newly-made Queen should prove Muwafik," or " Mukhalif."

cr

Amidst the numerous decisions laid down by the Persians and Arabs respecting such piece or pieces as can effect a draw against some other given piece or pieces; there are only two cases that agree exactly with ours. In the first place a perpetual check constitutes a drawn game as with us; or, what comes to the same thing, a perpetual persecution of the adversary's winning piece, as in the following problem.

PROBLEM VIII., FROM MS., 7515.-BRITISH MUSEUM.

Here the game is apparently lost on the part of

White, for the majority is decidedly against him; yet

by one dexterous move he manages to draw, thus. White moves his Rook to his Queen's Rook's square; and if Black Rook takes it, the White Queen mates by moving to her own seventh square. It is clear, then, that Black Rook must keep moving on the file on which he now stands, either to his Queen's 7th, or 6th, or 5th squares, for he has none else to go to; and the White Rook keeps moving in a parallel direction either to his own 2nd or 3rd or 4th squares accordingly; hence the game is drawn. If Black Rook allows himself to be taken, and moves one of his Queens to his King's 2nd square, he will lose the game, for his two Queens and Pawn have no chance against White Rook and Queen, especially in the situation in which the game now stands.

The second Oriental maxim respecting a drawn game which agrees with ours, is, that a Knight generally draws against a Rook, although, as we shall hereafter see, there are occasional cases in which the Rook wins.1 With regard to what we are about to state respecting Won and Drawn Games, the reader must always bear in mind the Oriental significance of these terms; otherwise he will feel rather startled, when, for instance, he is told that a Knight always wins against a Bishop, whereas with us, a Knight and Bishop combined find it somewhat difficult to gain the victory. Remember also that the Orientals had three ways of winning the game, viz.-1st. by a checkmate, as is the case in our own game; 2nd. by stripping the adversary of all his forces; and lastly by giving the adversary stalemate under certain restrictions and limitations.

The following are the principal decisions, respecting Won and Drawn games, as laid down by the Oriental 1st. A Rook wins against any piece or Pawn

masters.

1 An instance of this kind will be seen in Problem X.