or rather three distinct pieces with kingly power on the board at once-1st, the original King, or the Shāhanshāh, "King of Kings;" 2nd, the Prince or legitimate successor, viz., the King's pawn promoted, and lastly, the Corporal, after he had won all his honours and had become an Adventitious King. The latter two, however, merely laboured in the field with the King's moves, and power, and thus contributed to gain the victory. Should the King be driven from necessity to seek shelter in the Citadel or projecting square, either of the Princes were allowed to exchange place with him, and the game might thenceforth continue, but if it should appear more expedient, it might be declared drawn, at the option of the fugitive King's owner.

CONCLUSION OF THE GAME.

The Great Chess differed a little from the common game at the close of the contest. A King could not be stalemated as long as any of his pieces remained, for, as in the common game, he might change places with any remaining piece if possible, in other words, if he could do so without going in to check. He did not lose the game by being merely stripped of all his pieces, and pawns; for he had still the chance of making his escape to the citadel, which, as already stated, constituted a drawn game. The victory here then consisted in giving the adverse King checkmate, or stalemate was equally sufficient if the latter had lost all his army.

ON THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE PIECES.

Commencing with the right-hand corner next to you, there place the Elephant; leave the next square empty. On the third square place the Camel, and leave the fourth empty. On the fifth square place the Vinea, and

leave the sixth empty. In the seventh place the Vinea again, then pass over a square and place the Camel; then leave a square empty, and lastly place the second Elephant in the left-hand corner. On the second row place the Rukh on the right-hand square from which projects the Citadel; then the Knight; then the Scout; then the Giraffe; then the Wazir; then the King; and on the middle square of the second rank. Next to the King comes the Farz; then in succession the Giraffe, the Scout, the Knight, and the Rukh. In the third rank, on the right-hand square, in front of the Rukh, place the Rukh's Pawn; then the Knight's Pawn; then the Scout's Pawn; then the Giraffe's Pawn; then the Wazir's Pawn; then the King's Pawn; each of these being in front of the piece which he represents. After the King's Pawn comes that of the Farz; then the Elephant's Pawn; then the Camel's Pawn; then the Vinea's Pawn; and, last of all, on the left hand, place the Corporal or "Pawn of the Pawns." The adversary, of course, arranged his pieces and Pawns precisely in the same manner, as may be seen in the plate.

There was another mode of arranging the pieces slightly differing from the foregoing, which consisted merely in this: The Wazir and Farz changed places with the Vineæ and the King drew back to the middle square on the first row, his Pawn falling back at the same time to the middle square of the second row. This slight alteration in no ways affected the general principles of the game; the only result from it was that the Vineæ now ran upon those squares which in the other arrangement they could not have touched.

I have now given the anonymous author's account of Timur's game, which, it must be confessed, has in it considerable claims to ingenuity, though not to perfection.

I have of course avoided the author's verbiage and endless repetitions, my main object being to render his meaning clear to the comprehension of the English and non-Oriental reader. Any two persons ordinarily versed in the common game may now easily play the Great Chess. It is much to be regretted that we have not a complete copy of the author's work, which, so far as we can judge, must have contained, amidst much nonsense, a vast deal of interesting information. Of the precise time at which he wrote, it is difficult to form even a conjecture, save that it must have been either during or subsequent to the reign of Timur. One thing, however, is obvious, and that is, as his style clearly shews, that Persian was not his native language. I consider him to have been a renegade Jew, for his idiom and mode of expression are altogether Hebrew. His theory is, that "this Perfect Chess," as he uniformly styles it, "was the invention of the Great Hermes who lived in the time of Moses. The Greeks, according to him, carried it (the Perfect Chess) to India in the time of Alexander the Great's expedition to that country. The game proved by far too scientific and refined for the "stupid Hindūs "—therefore Sassa Bin Dahir abridged it for them. Finally, this abridged form of the game reached Persia in the time of Naushirawan. I may here add, that on this last point all Oriental writers agree; but none except this anonymous scribe attributed the invention to the Sage Hermes.

The author concludes this chapter with the following peroration, which I here translate as literally as possible. "Now that I have made clear to you who invented 'the Perfect Chess,' and where it was invented, and why the Sage did invent it, and the vast benefits resulting from the invention; on all of which I have said something;

and I have explained the nature and form and mode of moving the Chessmen ; and I have detailed the number and powers of the pieces and Pawns-I will now tell you in whose time the game of Chess was received in India and who abridged it there, and why it was there abridged, so that all men may completely abandon the absurd notion that the Hindus were the inventors of Chess, for they never had in them sufficient wisdom to effect such a result. In fact, this Perfect Chess' is the invention of the Philosopher Hermes, and they (the Hindus), completely spoiled the same by their abridgement thereof "-credat Judæus!—

VALUE OF THE PIECES AND PAWNS.

The anonymous author has nowhere given us a detailed statement of the comparative value of the pieces in this great game, that part of his work being lost. We may, however, form a rough conjecture on this point, from careful perusal of his description, which is really plain and perspicuous. Let us assume the Knight as our basis of measurement-for that piece has never changed in value nor in any other respect, since he was first stationed on the board of the Chaturanga-assuming therefore the Knight to be worth Ten dängs, to use the Oriental mode of reckoning, we consider the following approximate scale to be not far from the truth. the same time we shall give once for all the Arabic and Persian names of the Pieces, as well as the English names, so far as our language possesses them.

At

The value of the Pawns, owing to the peculiar mode in which they attained promotion, as a general rule bore some definite proportion to that of the pieces which they represented. For instance, when placed on the board as mere Pawns, before starting, we may assume the Rukh's Pawn— the very highest to have been worth about two dangs; and the Elephant's Pawn, which is the lowest, about one half of a dang or only a fourth part of the value of the Rukh's Pawn. Then the intermediate Pawns may be roughly estimated in proportion. The King's Pawn and the Pawn of the Pawns were each a shade better than that of the Knight-probably equal to that of the Scout. We must always bear in mind, however, that the value of each Pawn was constantly increasing after every move he made in advance, in proportion to the degree of probability he had of reaching the extremity of the board and of thus attaining the full rank and power of the piece which he represented. The Pawns of the Rukh, Giraffe, and Scout were, of course, the most valuable. Next to these came the Pawn of the Pawns, and those of the King, Knight, and Wazir; while those of the remaining pieces were of proportionally less value.

In all good copies of Ibn Arab Shah's "Life of Timūr,” a diagram of the board, with the pieces arranged there