Jump to content

Talk:History of chess/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Section on Persian history of the game

Persian section

The Persian section is a cut-and-paste from this website: http://blog.chess.com/mohajeri/history-of-chess-in-iran

I thought Wikipedia had rules against that.

Persian Origin of Chess

Chess Talk Page

Professor Lewis is a prominent scholar in middle eastern studies so when he says that chess was invented by Persians his opinion should be considered. Please note the most reliable sources in Wikipedia are: [peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses]. Iranic (talk) 09:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's reliable source, of course but he is not an expert in chess. Most of chess books used to support in this article states chess came from India. There's no consensus between where exactly chess came from but majority states India so I believe another theories should be cited carefully to avoid confusion.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
His statement is a single unsupported sentence in which chess is lumped in with backgammon. Lacking any backing, it cannot override facts. J S Ayer (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The book is not a "history of chess". Books solely focused on the topic take precedence. --NeilN talk to me 21:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The most authoritative book on chess history is the one by Murray, which I don't have. But based on A Short History of Chess by Davidson and Chess: A History by Golombek, the game that became modern chess went from India to Persia, where it underwent significant changes. But it didn't get close to modern chess until about 1500 in Europe. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we should say that the first known ancestor of chess was played in India. I don't know that we should even call it chess at that point. J S Ayer (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
That makes sense. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, as one can't neglect that Ferdowsi is simply writing a tale which may not be based on historical fact. In fact, the oldest known reference points to Shah Ardashir as being a master of the game, his rule was from 224 - 241 AD. This would indicate that chess was invented some time before his rule, and long before Ferdowsi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:100:DCB0:EDCE:F987:85F4:6DF6 (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

That would indicate that chess was invented before his time only if the document dated from Ardashir's epoch. Since it dates from several centuries later, it only proves that chess was well established when the document was written. Edison Marshall in his novel The Conqueror has Alexander the Great mention chess. This does not prove that chess was known to Alexander, it proves that it was known to Edison Marshall. J S Ayer (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

If a late document stated that Alexander played chess, that can indeed be evidence that chess existed in Alexanders time. But Edson marshall is only an example. And one can be used to make the point that there is no reason for the assertion that Ferdowsi's reference to 'Hind' should be regarded as a reliable reference to historical origins of chess, rather than a tale meant to inspire Persian natioanlism. Mind that the oldest verifiable chess pieces have been uncovered in Persianate regions, and 'Hind' actually referred to parts of southeast iran up until the 11th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:180:6548:6126:BDE3:6138:240 (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Slideshow of pictures of chess

A link to chess paintings was added, and immediately removed as spam. I took a look at it, and see no reason why it should be considered spam. It isn't advertising anything. It is a large collection of paintings of people playing board games, and of chess pieces, and perhaps other things (I didn't look at all fifteen hundred images). There may be reasons to oppose linking to it, but I think "spam" isn't one. J S Ayer (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Do I have the permission to put this link again ? JMRW67 (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a link to a personal website added by the owner of the website - that is spam. It is also inappropriate due to WP:ELNO criteria 11. noq (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I checked the reference; it deprecates links to personal websites because those generally contain material only of interest to the author and his family and friends. This does not appear to me to come under that heading. Does anyone else have an opinion? J S Ayer (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not just because the information may only be of interest to the author and family and friends but also because they are not WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of Shāh Māt

Concerning this section:

Chess was introduced to Persia from India and became a part of the princely or courtly education of Persian nobility.[1] In Sassanid Persia around 600 the name became chatrang, which subsequently evolved to shatranj, due to Arab Muslim’s lack of ch and ng native sounds[2], and the rules were developed further. Players started calling "Shāh!" (Persian for "King!") when attacking the opponent's king, and "Shāh Māt!" (Persian for "the king is helpless" – see checkmate) when the king was attacked and could not escape from attack. These exclamations persisted in chess as it traveled to other lands.

I find it suspicious that "Māt" in Arabic (مات) is connected to Māta, "he died". Astabada (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Meri was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Shenk, David. “The Immortal Game.” Doubleday, 2006.

Chinese theory of origin of chess

Hello all! Have you ever heard about Sam Sloan theory about origin of chess in china? Some material was added to portuguese article and I removed because it used a poor reliable source. But I read it and it seems tha Sloan wrote a book about it and have debunked Murray theory in some way. For example, that Murray couldn't speak pahlavi and used another paper of H.J. Raverty as source to say chess is indian by origin. Seems that Raverty is not an expert in pahlavi neither. Anyway, I'd like to know if you guys mind to point out some source about this theory. Nowadays, I'm using this source to sustain that chinese theory it's not completely accepted by scholars. Regards!OTAVIO1981 (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Why, yes, we have. The discussion is in the archive. The second paragraph in the article's section on China mentions the theory of Chinese origin, and points out the lack of textual or archeological evidence of chess in China earlier than a century after the earliest solid evidence of chess in India. J S Ayer (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much!I just read this discussion and it seems portuguese article handle this matter properly. I added a link to Banashak's article that pointed out what you said. Regards, OTAVIO1981 (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

JS Ayer, you know the rules of Wikipedia. You need to refute the claim that references to xiangqi precede refs in India. The warring states claim is fully referenced on xiangqi page. Refute it please. Luan Hanratty (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Chinese origin of chess is considered unlikely by most chess historians and lacks evidence, as stated by J S Ayer. Quale (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Quale, your point is a logical fallacy: argument from authority and does not address the merits of the claim. Please refute the facts stated above and in the article. Luan Hanratty (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The Xianqi article simply doesn't say what you claim it says. There's no evidence whatsoever that the supposed mention of a Chinese game called xianqi in the first century BC refers to a precursor of chess. Read the article again, carefully. Quale (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The Xianqi article says this: "References to a game called xiangqi date back to the Warring States period; according to the first century BC text Shuo yuan (說苑), it was one of Lord Mengchang of Qi's interests." The reference for this claim has five BCE sources all referring to a game called Xiangqi. We don't know the rules of this ancient xiangqi but your insistence on completely excluding it from the article despite it sharing the same name as the modern game is unreasonable. All these ancient references to the game with the same name as Chinese chess, which far predate the earliest Indian references, deserve a mention at the top of the article because they are not just relevant but absolutely critical to the history of chess and its origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luan Hanratty (talk • contribs) 10:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

There seem to have been at least three games named Xiangqi, making the relevance of a name with no description quite questionable. J S Ayer (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Without the rules there is absolutely no evidence that this is a precursor to chess. In fact I think we also don't know what the board looked like or what pieces were used, so the claim that this was an ancestor to chess is entirely speculative. There is also ample reason to believe that it was not, and this is the conclusion of most chess historians. The Li theory is already given appropriate weight in the article in a paragraph in History of chess#China. Quale (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Common sense and Occam’s razor would suggest that because the ancient game and the early-medieval game share the same name, they are linked in other ways and share some of the same features. Two of those sources on the xiangqi page say that the pieces were the same — having scholars, elephants, horses, catapults etc. Other sources in that reference say it was a strategy and fighting game. You obviously have not read the reference. Here it is: http://www.banaschak.net/schach/origins.htm Given this information and given Occam's razor, it would be less likely that the ancient and early-medieval games of xiangqi share only the same name but none of the same features. Luan Hanratty (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Banaschak agrees that there is no way to ascertain whether the various ancient games had anything in common with Chinese chess as we know it. He agrees that the first mention of a game that is clearly in this family is by Tang Minister of State Niu Sengru, just as the article says. As for games with the same name being the same game, the Chess Variants website lists two very different games called Martian Chess and two very different games called Courtyard. In Germany, both chess and latrunculi have been known by the same name.
The early history of chess is indeed obscure, and I regret that, and hope for the discovery of solid evidence that will cast light on the subject. J S Ayer (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is spurious. ludus latrunculorum may be called chess but it has almost nothing in common with chess. Xianqi and international chess on the other hand clearly share so many features that either one came from the other or they share a common ancestor.

Regarding Niu Sengru, he was referencing the ancient emperor Shennong who supposedly played xiangqi as we know. So it is a secondary source but then in the study of history since when are secondary sources rejected? Murray uses plenty of them. Luan Hanratty (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about common sense and Occam's razor, it's about reliable sources and avoiding undue weight for minority theories. The Banaschak paper you refer to says this: "Although I will refrain from speculations on the connections between Chinese Chess and the Indian and Persian chess-games, the reader is invited to draw whatever conclusions himself." You are invited to draw whatever conclusions yourself, but you can't put them in a Wikipedia article. Please read the policy prohibiting original research. You are not permitted to make claims that are not found in the sources. Quale (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Granted the first line of my edit could be construed as original and I'll remove that particular sentence. However, it's ironic that you mention reliable sources. The sources in the Banaschak paper regarding ancient xiangqi, provide far more evidence than the sources references backing the claim that: "Precursors to chess originated in India during the Gupta Empire.” I’ve looked at these references and they do not provide better or even good evidence.

1. Leibs (2004) p 92 — “The game was invented in India during the 6th century” This is all it says regarding the origins. No explanations or anything.

2. Forbes (1860) — refers to this “long-debunked theory” by a colonial professor who claimed chess was invented in 3000 BC https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cox-Forbes_theory The theory is soundly refuted in the article as well as in the Oxford Companion to Chess (1992).

3. Robinson, Dindy, Estes, Rebecca (1996) — “Two popular games, chess and badminton, come from India, as well as gambling with dice.” Again, this provides nothing to support the assertion. It’s not even a chess book, it’s a book on art.

4. The Murray book, A History of Chess published in 1913, is a credible reference yet only cites two seventh century texts. The book does not mention Chinese chess at all which seems a large oversight considering the the popularity of Chinese chess and its similarities to international chess. But this is an understandable oversight as Murray would not have had access to Banaschak's sources, Murray lived at time when China was still very much inaccessible to Westerners, he may not even have played Xiangqi or even knew of it. India however had been colonised for nearly three centuries and thus was far more accessible and familiar to western historians.

The first three references are so weak that I’m suggesting they are removed. These, and even Murray’s sources, are far weaker than the references on the origins of xiangqi. Luan Hanratty (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Murray discusses Chinese chess in some detail (pages 119–134) and cites far more than two seventh century Indian texts, as you would know if you had actually read A History of Chess rather than just repeatedly claiming things that aren't true. (It's a 900-page tome, so it would be a little stretched out and thin if it didn't contain a little more research than you state.) I don't see anything in Banaschak that claims that the earliest games called xianqi were substantially similar to chess. In fact Banaschak notes that it is difficult to ascertain whether some of the earliest recorded uses of "xianqi" even refer to a game. In other cases the nature of the game is unknown, so claiming that it is clearly an ancestor to chess is entirely speculative. Murray wrote this in A History of Chess, p. 122: "But Siang-k'i can also mean the Astronomical Game, and in early times it was the name of an astronomical game. This makes it necessary to examine early references to the game Siang-k'i with great care, in order to discriminate between this game and chess." He then gives a Chinese reference to the Astronomical Game that claims it was invented by Wu-Ti in the 6th century, when the pieces were "called after the sun, the moon, the planets, and the star-houses (sin-t'shen). This does not agree with the present time." So for xianqi to have been an ancestor of chess in the 1st century BC, it would have had to have become a very different astronomical game that was not an ancestor of chess six centuries later, then at some later point become an ancestor of chess again. This last bit would have to happen very quickly since the oldest references to Indian chess are found near the 6th century. But in fact xianqi was not a single game. San-ku-siang-king (Manual of the three siang-k'is) that Murray states is from the Tang dynasty (618–970), demonstrates that siang-k'i was used to describe more than one game. Murray states (p. 123) that the earliest certain reference to Chinese chess is in the Huan Kwai Lu (Book of Marvels) from near the end of the 8th century, and then quotes a passage that describes the pieces and moves, which are clearly related to chess. There's more, but I can't type it all in here. Quale (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see what Murray wrote about Chinese chess. I do not have a copy.

You wrote that Banaschak does not show that the earliest games of xiangqi were similar to chess. You are wrong here. We do know from the Banaschak sources that ancient xianngqi was a strategy game using elephants and other animals (sources 2 & 4) and that in Tang times the old pieces were replaced with the ones in the modern game (source 1). They key word is replaced. This is a fair and worthy source for inclusion in the article and I will write a new edit to reflect this precisely. This information, in addition to the very fact that the ancient game and the medieval game share the same name and far pre-date the Indian references in the article, makes xiangqi not just worthy but essential for inclusion in the origin section. Luan Hanratty (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well if you haven't read Murray, why did you write that he "cites two seventh century texts. The book does not mention Chinese chess at all"?? We are supposed to assume good faith, and I'd really like to work with you to improve this and any other chess article that you are interested in, but we can't collaborate if you're just going to make wild claims with reckless disregard for the truth.
In fact we simply don't know for certain whether chess originated in India or China. We can't even definitely say that chess didn't start in Afghanistan, since although Afghan origin is definitely a fringe theory lacking any real evidence there is also no absolute evidence to refute it either. Mainstream chess historians favor Indian origin so I think it is correct for this article to primarily report that expert opinion. Chinese origin is a minority view of note. I have read some of Banaschak's writings on the web in the past, but I haven't studied them in detail.
I'm going to try to step back here for a bit to let this settle down and to see if J S Ayer or others have anything to add. I will leave you with the note that repeating over and over that "the ancient game and the medieval game share the same name and far pre-date the Indian references" is not a winning argument. Chess historians have already examined this issue. The medieval game does not pre-date the Indian references, and I haven't yet seen any evidence that the ancient game is at all related to chess. (Banaschak may offer some of this evidence, I will try to examine it when I have time.) Also, the games don't really share the same name since at least three if not more games were referred to by the same name, and at least one of them was not related to chess. It's as if you claim that because Alexander the Great is reported to have found apples in Turkey that Apple and Apple are more than 2000 years old. They have the same name, but they simply aren't the same things. In the case of xianqi it is really more akin to three different names that are spelled the same. Quale (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Address the issues please Quale. I wrote that Murray cites two Indian sources because I was looking at an excerpt from Murray. I forgot to mention that it was an excerpt, but that was where he made his main justification. You haven’t provided anything to the contrary yet. How about a quote from him. If you have it. Prove it.

You wrote: "Mainstream chess historians favor Indian origin so I think it is correct for this article to primarily report that expert opinion. Chinese origin is a minority view of note." Can't you see the shortcomings of this point. You are simply appealing to authority — an anonymous authority at that, and this is fallacious. Knowledge of logical fallacies is a basic part of arguing. It’s not a strong point because we still don't know a) who are these people? b) what they wrote to refute the Chinese origin theory? c) if these anonymous authorities have properly researched the Chinese origin theory? d) why is Banaschak not getting credit for his research and evidence? And so on

You also ignored the important points I made in the last comment. Luan Hanratty (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hanratty, you wrote, and I quote exactly: "4. The Murray book, A History of Chess published in 1913, is a credible reference yet only cites two seventh century texts." That's a blatant lie, and you should be ashamed of your dishonesty. If you are going to continue to dissemble, then this discussion is pointless.
Murray examined the possibility of Chinese origin of chess in detail and found that theory lacks evidence, and that the evidence instead favors Indian origin for chess. I can't summarize a 900 page book on this talk page, and I won't write a complete summary of the 44 pages he devotes to chaturanga and early references to chess in India or the 14 pages he wrote about chess in China. If you are not familiar with Murray's work then you are in absolutely no position whatsoever to make claims about what Murray did or didn't do. It has already been explained to you multiple times by two people that "xianqi" does not refer to a single game. Even Banaschak agrees on this point. In fact Chinese writers have used "xianqi" to refer to at least three different games, possibly more, and if there is evidence that these games are closely related in anything other than their names I am not familiar with it. One of the games is Chinese chess, but one of the other games called "xianqi" is the so-called Astronomical Game, which does not seem to be an ancestor to chess. It is also Murray's conclusion the oldest references to xianqi refer to the Astronomical game or something similar, which in his view makes those oldest citations not related to modern chess. At least one Chinese text written c. 1085 takes pains to emphasize that an early reference to xianqi around 600 refers to a game that is not similar to (modern) xianqi (i.e. Chinese chess). It is not enough to simply claim that there is a first century reference to xianqi, it also has to be shown that the thing that was referred to is an ancestor to chess.
The evidence that chess came to Europe from India via Persia is essentially irrefutable, so if an older ancestor to chess originated in China it must have traveled to India some time before the sixth century. Of course if chess originated in India then it is also clear that it must instead have traveled the opposite direction from India to China around or after the sixth century. Unfortunately even though chess traveled from one area to the other I don't think there is any good evidence demonstrating in which direction that transfer occurred, or when or how. If any such solid evidence were found I think it would go a long way to resolving the questions concerning possible Chinese origin of chess.
As far as who the people are who hold the majority theory that chess arose from chaturanga in India, you already know some of them. In 1913 Murray literally wrote the book on the origin of chess, but three quarters of a century later Hooper & Whyld wrote "The earliest evidence of a recognizable form of chess, CHATURANGA, is around AD 600. Before that, all is speculation." Since you mentioned The Oxford Companion to Chess in an earlier comment, I assumed you were familiar with its entry on "History of chess". Hooper & Whyld mention Needham's speculation that early Chinese divination games were developed later into chaturanga and Chinese chess, but I don't think there is any evidence that this is true aside from guesswork. The bulk of the Oxford Companion entry discusses early Indian writings and the movement of chaturanga to Persia and finally to Europe. Harry Golombek also has written supporting the Indian origin of chess, although he mostly adopts Murray's work and I wouldn't consider it a fully independent view.
Richard Eales, "Chess, The History of a Game" (1985), has the advantage of being published after Needham's work, so he can examine Needham's arguments. (Murray wrote a half century before Needham published his theories around 1962.) Eales devotes about three pages to examine the evidence that early ancestors to chess were first developed in China. Some quotes: p.33 "This so-called 'Chinese origin of chess' raises a number of problems. .... The earliest reference to its [Chinese chess] existence occurs in the Yu Kuai Lu of Niu-Sung Ju, written around the year 800. ... The problem with Chinese chess is that it differs more from the Indian forms of the game than any of the other Asiatic derivatives, in Burma, Indo-China or Malay. Only the Japanese chess, shogi, is more distant and that was a later derivation from China." Later p. 33 "Unlike the Persians, the Chinese do not preserve any tradition of receiving chess from India, so there is no positive documentary evidence to resolve the issue. ... the central fact that Chinese chess can only be proved to be in existence by c. 800, almost two centuries after its appearance is documented in India and Persia." Eales discusses some specifics of Needham's theory, writing on p.34 "Needham's theory at this point requires a leap of faith" and "Thus, to consider the divination theory unproven it is only necessary to believe that chess might have been invented independently, as a game of military symbolism from the beginning. No one has shown that this could not have been the case." He then goes on to discuss dating problems, as Needham requires that Wu-Ti's "image-game" be invented in 562, then modified into chess (chaturanga) and established as far away as Persia by 600, an impossibly short time. Needham argued that chess arose from a Chinese divination game and that astronomical symbolism clung to it throughout its later centuries, but it is not true that chess is associated with astronomical symbolism. Almost all chess legends have military or political meanings, and almost none of them have any connection with divination or astrology. On p. 35 Eales sums up with "Unless further evidence is forthcoming, it remains probable that chess was devised, as Murray thought it was, in northern India. Since the earliest evidence cannot be placed prior to 600, the provisional date of its invention must be in the sixth century; it could have been earlier, but to propose earlier dates is mere guesswork in the present state of knowledge." Eales finishes the section by disagreeing with Murray's contention that chess was the invention of a single individual, saying that gradual development by many people seems more likely, although we will probably never know for certain. (Golombek also criticized Murray's claim of single invention.) Quale (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Mobile phone?

"A player whose mobile phone rings, thereby loses." Could we have a source, please? J S Ayer (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2018

Please change

A manuscript explaining the rules of the game called "Matikan-i-chatrang" (the book of chess) in Middle Persian or Pahlavi still exists.[citation needed]

to

A manuscript explaining the rules of the game called "Matikan-i-chatrang" (the book of chess) in Middle Persian or Pahlavi still exists. [1]

which provides the proper citation. Bbradt (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK Discuss 03:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Peshotan Behramjee Sanjana, "Ganjeshāyagān, Andarze ātrepāt mārāspandān, Mādigāne chatrang, and Andarze khusroe kavātān : the original Pehlvi text, the same translated into the Gujarati and English languages, a commentary and a glossary of select words"

Greco-Roman origin of chess

There should be a link to this Wikipedia article: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ludus_latrunculorum#Chess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.182.47 (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This should be the very first sentence in this Wikipedia article, History of Chess. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are these two Wikipedia articles not directly linked ? It is Censorship to hide the connection. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about it and given that you have already made several edits as a guest, why not become a member? Once you complete the initial qualification period of ten edits in four (I think) days, you will be able to edit protected articles. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Could you do it for me please ? One sentence will do it. Simply insert the above link into the Origin section where it begins Precursors.. Thank you in advance. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, how does this look:
Precursors to chess may have originated in the Roman Empire and the Gupta Empire. The Romans had a two-player strategy board game called ludus latrunculorum which is said to have resembled chess but may have been a game of military tactics. It is first mentioned by Varro in his De Lingua Latina (“On the Latin Language”), where he mentions the game in passing, comparing the grid on which it was played to the grid used for presenting declensions. In the Gupta Empire, its early form in the 6th century was known as chaturaṅga, which translates as "four divisions (of the military)": infantry, cavalry, elephantry, and chariotry. These forms are represented by the pieces that would evolve into the modern pawn, knight, bishop, and rook, respectively.
If you would like anything added, deleted or amended, please just use the above extract for demo. Btw, I was a guest editor myself for 15 years before I became a member this year, after I retired (bliss!) from work. There are definite advantages to being a member and one of them is being able to edit all articles. In a very short space of time, I became a reviewer and a rollbacker which give me considerable clout in my on-site capabilities. It's worth considering and I think you would do well once you understand the community mindset. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
At best the Roman game deserves a passing mention since the rules are not documented and no reliable sources consider it a major precursor of chess. Thanks for the lesson in wikipedia community values. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The content is reliably sourced and it has received only a passing mention. No Great Shaker (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Your edit attempts to give equal emphasis to the well documented connection to Chaturanga with a very tenuous and speculative claim to a link to an ancient game with unknown rules. Beyond being vaguely related to military strategy we known nothing about the Roman game and connecting it with chess does not fit with what is known about chess history. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

In that case, reword the paragraph so it is clear that the Roman game was a potential precursor and the Gupta game a likely one. The facts are that the Roman game existed and has been likened to chess so it is relevant, especially as it is reliably sourced. I'm signing off for now and will leave it with you to restore and suitably revise the wording. No Great Shaker (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus required

The inclusion of the Roman game as a potential precursor, suitably and reliably sourced, has twice been removed by an editor who apparently doesn't like it despite the reliable source and relevant usage of the same information in another article. Would other editors please comment? Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I would begin the History section like this:

The history of chess can be traced back at least 1500 years, and the earliest origins are uncertain. The earliest predecessors may have been Greco-Roman board games which were brought to India through the remnants of Alexander's empire, see Ludus latrunculorum. Early predecessors of the game evolved in India before the 6th century AD; a minority of historians believe the game originated in China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.182.47 (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

No. Ludus has no known connection to Chaturanga or any other game in the chess family. It is pure speculation and mentioning it right at the beginning alongside the well known and documented Chaturanga/chess connection is WP:UNDUE. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Ludus used the same 8x8 chessboard as today, and the Ludus wikipedia article is well sourced by scholars. It is certainly a possibility which is well described in wikipedia already, and a link to it definitely belongs here. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so referencing other articles is not a valid argument for inclusion. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I correct you, Wikipedia is not the source; well referenced scholarly sources are there provided. Do you want to remove the Ludus article from Wikipedia too ? It is a form of censorship to try to isolate the Ludus article to which there should definitely be a link here. I above propose a minimal one sentence link to Ludus. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
There is no sign that latrunculi was known in the eastern longitudes where chaturanga evidently originated. We do not know what board latrunculi was played on; it looks as if that my have varied. We have already rejected an attempt to connect chess to the tafl games. We might want to mention that chaturanga is now suspected of being a fusion of the little-known Greek game petteia or poleis with Indian elements, possibly a race game played on the ashtapada, perhaps also influenced by the Chinese liubo. J S Ayer (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I correct you, we know Ludus was played an 8x8 board. The simple one sentence link to Ludus which I propose above, would allow wikipedia readers to see for themselves what scholarly experts have published on the possibility of its being a precursor to chess. It must not be censored and it definitely belongs right here. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The article about Ludus latrunculorum is interesting and it was all new to me. It is in a way reassuring to see that board games with a generic resemblance to Go, checkers, etc. were played in the Roman empire.

The source that made the most serious attempt to connect it with chess was Samsin. But Samsin explicitly admits that there are serious missing links. That is, ludus was played before chess, and it has some superficial physical resemblance, but that's all he has got. He doesn't, for example, have evidence that ludus spread to what is now Persia, though he evidently thinks it was possible.

One can't prove a negative in archaeology. Perhaps, indeed, chess existed hundreds of years before the oldest evidence that we know of, in regions where we have not yet found it, etc. (I saw the same difficulty in reading the article about Backgammon.) But Wikipedia is for summaries of current knowledge, not for speculation about what might have happened. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

We know that several RECONSTRUCTIONS of latrunculi specify a board of 8x8 squares. R. C. Bell mentions surviving boards from Roman Britain of 7x8, 8x8, 9x10, and 10x11. The Stanway board has been reconstructed as 8x12. J S Ayer (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The origin of chess is uncertain, and scholarly theories should all be mentioned and not ignored. There must be a direct link added here to the Ludus wikipedia article. I have proposed above a simple minimum one sentence link to Ludus, which should be used here. China gets a mention and so should Ludus.47.201.182.47 (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The policies and guidelines for writing Wikipedia articles make it clear that, where there are multiple theories in play, they should not "all be mentioned and not ignored". Another contributor to this discussion has already mentioned WP:UNDUE, which is probably the most important such policy. WP:FRINGE is a guideline that is helpful for interpreting this policy in some situations. In a nutshell, one must be careful about what theories one presents and how one presents them. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I am simply asking for a link to a very pertinent and informative wikipedia article, that of Ludus. There is no question that at least a link to Ludus belongs here. Ludus is even recognized on the first page of Philidor's classic 1774 work. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually there is a valid question as to whether a link even belongs. Here's the Philidor book: https://books.google.com/books?id=OWUQAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=philidor&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQp__G8aHjAhUYXn0KHXMyBDAQ6AEINjAC#v=onepage&q=ludus&f=false . Where's the ludus latranculorum reference? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
It is in the first sentence Ludus Latrunculi. It has for hundreds of years been considered the origin of chess. This belongs here in wikipedia. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, "I will not venture to give my opinion on the conformity with the Latrunculi of ancient Rome". Several other writers have specifically disavowed any connection with the Roman game, e.g. Duncan Forbes in the Chess Player's Chronicle. https://books.google.com/books?id=7C8CAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA219&dq=ludus+latrunculorum&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7zt2g9KHjAhXPfX0KHaeVAqcQ6AEITDAG#v=onepage&q=ludus%20latrunculorum&f=false . So at the moment if the game is to be mentioned at all it should say that it is *not* connected to chess. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
You are not reading it closely, Forbes is pooh-poohing any and all claims to the origin of chess. He proposes nothing. Forbes says he thinks he can show that chess was invented in India but admits he cannot say where or when. Also, note Forbes was not a historian. Philidor, in contrast, writes that scholars considered Ludus latrunculi to be the origin of chess. Regardless, it is an open question, and there should be a link in this wikipedia article to the wikipedia article regarding Ludus, for readers to see all scholarly opinions. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Philidor's book enjoyed a great run of popularity (it was in print for more than 100 years), but it has been out of print for about a century and a half. Not only do we not get any points by citing Philidor, but many, or perhaps most, of our readers don't know who Philidor was. (That's why they're looking things up in Wikipedia.)
To get some more perspective on this, look at the one-sentence mention of David Li's theory of the Chinese origin of chess in our opening section, and the whole subsection that we devoted to discussing that theory later on. This was in spite of the fact that Li's theory, as one critic politely put it, "is based on nothing at all". But we had to mention it, because it was featured in an interview of Li in Chessbase in 2005, and so a fair percentage of our readers will have heard of it, and will expect to see a discussion of it, yea or nay. We don't have total control over what material to use; we have to deal with what readers have seen while reading reliable sources.
By comparison, Ludus is obscure. For us to bring it up, when none of our readers have ever heard of it, can serve no useful purpose. Uncountably many implausible theories about the origin of chess have come and gone over the years, but, mercifully, we are allowed to ignore most of them. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bruce leverett: It is true that multiple theories should not all be mentioned and, equally so, should not all be ignored. I see nothing in WP:UNDUE that completely rules out all mention of Ludus latrunculorum in this article, only that it should receive minimal coverage as a minority viewpoint. The main criterion, as in everything else, is that the information is reliably sourced. I have no problem with HOW the information is presented in this article but it should be included, as a "passing mention" if nothing else, for the sake of completeness. You cannot blandly state that chess originated during the Gupta period. Other possibilities must be mentioned. For example, I have a book called World of Chess (1974) by Anthony Saidy and Norman Lessing, which mentions the claim for a chess-like game found in Tutankhamen's tomb. They go on to Alexander the Great and the idea (admitting there is no hard evidence) that he introduced a game like chess to northern India which ultimately became chaturanga, first dated c.600 CE. They do not, however, mention Rome.
I think a history article must consider possibles, even if only lightly, but must make clear that they are minority views. Being in the minority does not mean being wrong. The origins section should briefly mention Tutankhamen, Alexander and Ludus latrunculorum. Re the latter, I certainly think the views of Philidor should be taken into account. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Would all participants please note that I have invited a sysop to join this discussion as adjudicator given the breach of WP:CANVAS that has taken place on top of earlier concerns around reversion of content that was already under discussion here. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

How was Maxbrowne2's post at WT:CHESS a "blatant breach of WP:CANVAS"?? (He expressed a clear concern & opinion at a Project board. Nothing manipulative about that.) --IHTS (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Instead of an invitation using the recommended Template:Please see, he is stating his own case while seeking to denigrate the opposing case by talking about "fringe theories" and asserting that there is a "complete lack of evidence", which is untrue. He is therefore seeking to influence potential attendees ahead of them seeing the discussion and that breaches WP:CANVAS. You will note that I changed his message to the template invitation without offering any opinion or seeking to influence people before they read the discussion, as is required by WP:CANVAS. I see my correctly worded invitation has been reverted and I have been told to piss off. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Things don't exist in a vacuum, editors post for a reason. He clearly stated his concern & opinion. (If having an opinion is a "blatant breach" of policy, we'll all be banned.) Chill! --IHTS (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we should agree to disagree. The policy and the template are there for good reasons and have been drafted accordingly. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I see that indeed, WP:CANVAS discourages one from: "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." So perhaps it would have been more judicious for him to use the template. But this cuts both ways. Perhaps you should have posted the template before he got there. At any rate, WT:CHESS was the right place to go. If you are disappointed at the response from denizens of WT:CHESS, it isn't because of any problem with WT:CHESS. Bruce leverett (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bruce leverett: I have no problem with anyone from WP:CHESS. Your responses are constructive and welcome. I don't believe you were influenced by the non-neutral invitation. Perhaps I should have beaten him to it in posting the template but it wasn't immediately apparent that this would escalate, given that it began as a friendly discussion between the IP and myself. Funnily enough, a friend said to me only the other day that you should never help anyone because it always backfires. Ha! No Great Shaker (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Just add a mention and link to ludus latrunculorum so wikipedia readers can see it and judge for themselves all scholarly viewpoints. That is all I ask. I suggested above how to write it. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Support suggested opening by 47.201.182.47 providing that reliable sources are cited. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources are already cited in the wikipedia article ludus latrunculorum 47.201.182.47 (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
There isn't much to say. Everything in Ludus latrunculorum#Chess is pure speculation and based on no evidence. It's more plausible in my opinion that Chaturanga developed from earlier Indian board games that had no connection to latrunculi. Board games were independently developed several times in history by different cultures, and not every early board game has a connection to chess. H.J.R. Murray rejected the idea that the Roman games were precursors to chess for several reasons: insufficient documentation of those Roman games (the board sizes are not known with conflicting examples in evidence, pieces and piece movement unknown, rules unknown), no documentary evidence of transmission of latrunculi to India, and linguistic evidence indicates chess was a game of Indian and Persian origin. (The bit "ludus latrunculorum was often used as a medieval Latin name for chess" uses A History of Chess as a reference which might suggest that Murray supported the idea that latrunculi is an ancestor of chess, but he did not. Piece names, terms used for check and checkmate, etc. are all of Persian origin.) That said, Averbakh is important and his views might deserve a brief mention even when they are not mainstream. But fringe views have to be carefully presented as such. Quale (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Averbakh and Samsin are two excellent references and both form the core of the thesis of the Greco-Roman origin described in the link Ludus latrunculorum which definitely belongs here. Also, Philidor wrote that learned experts agreed on the Greco-Roman origin. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
The "thesis" is pure speculation based on nothing, with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Latrunculi was a two-player board game with the board configuration unknown, pieces and moves unknown, rules unknown. A few people have speculated that it might have traveled to India based again on no evidence other than it could have happened. If it wasn't related to chess, and there's no evidence it was, then the thesis is false. If it didn't travel to India by about 500 CE, and there's no evidence it did, then the thesis is false. It's speculation piled on top of speculation with no evidence at any level that suggests that it's true. Quale (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
You need study the Wikipedia article, the sources cited are not stupid people, and you are ignoring their reasons. Ludus latrunculorum 47.201.182.47 (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
As noted earlier by User:MaxBrowne2, Philidor explicitly refuses to endorse the idea of Greco-Roman origin.
As I explained earlier, Samsin, presumably because he is a careful scholar, doesn't claim to have proved Greco-Roman origin either.
How are you getting past all this? What are we missing? You can't add up a bunch of No's and get Yes. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Chaturanga is the earliest known game in the chess family, and I think speculations about its origin belong there, not here. Philidor wrote several centuries ago, and expert knowledge has shifted noticeably since then. Murray's History, admittedly a century old now, is still substantially unchallenged. J S Ayer (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Philidor said that he himself did not know, but he continued and added that scholarly authors had studied it and believed chess was indeed traceable to Greco-Roman. Samsin did not claim to have proven it but he continued and added that the possible origin of chess was indeed Greco-Roman and gave reasons. Chaturanga might have been a predecessor but no one knows the origin, and the origin is the subject of interest here, so this link definitely belongs here Ludus latrunculorum . 47.201.182.47 (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
You descriptions of what Philidor said and what Samsin said do not match the copies of Philidor and Samsin that I have on my screen. I have to conclude that we can't have a useful discussion of this. Unfortunately, I cannot be of any further assistance to you. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
You don't read plain English the way I do. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I think a large problem, unaddressed until now, is that the article Ludus latrunculorum urges that the Greek game variously called petteia, psephoi, or polis is one of the sources of chaturanga, and that latrunculi is the same game. That last leap is one too many for me. According to our article History of games, it is, but the reference is to Homo Ludens 1994, and an essay by Ulrich Schädler, which I have not seen and cannot evaluate. J S Ayer (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Alexander's Empire profoundly mixed with and influenced India for centuries. It is inconceivable that common popular Greco-Roman board games did not have a lasting effect in India. Pettiea and latrunculi board games certainly were brought into India. The link Ludus latrunculorum is perfectly plausible and belongs here as a viable origin of chess. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
There is discussion of the origins of Chaturanga in Chaturanga#Origin. My reading of that section suggests that this is not a settled matter, and that there are different opinions based on scant evidence. Most of it seems to be conjecture, "it could have happened this way", "it makes the most sense to me that it happened this way". Unfortunately compelling evidence to decide these questions does not seem to be available. I should note that that section was just added by J S Ayer. If another editor has WP:RS material to add to that section, it would be welcome. Quale (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Good, Yes, there we have it again, the Greeks brought it to India. Ludus latrunculorum definitely belongs here. Please now go ahead and use the opening wording that I had suggested above. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

OK Who will now go ahead and write the opening as I suggested, or will Wikipedia continue trying to censor and hide all this ? 47.201.182.47 (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Block

Please note that the IP who initiated this discussion has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It's interesting to look at the editing history of ludus latrunculorum. A series of good faith edits led to chess being given undue prominence in that article. This appears to have appealed to those who have what may be politely described as Eurocentric views. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Chess isn't given an enormous amount of attention in ludus latrunculorum. I think one problem in several articles is that we have no article on petteia, perhaps because so little is known about it; it would amount to a stub with a lot of learned guesswork. J S Ayer (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Giving a whole section titled "chess" and name dropping Philidor, Ruy Lopez and Averbakh is most definitely undue weight in an article which is supposed to be about ludus latrunculorum. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

70% figure India

The introduction appears to state that 70% of the population in India plays chess but this doesn't seem correct since the source mentions that it's "70% among the 121m Indians considered ABC1 by advertisers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.244.168.161 (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia:

I believe that origin of chess should be stated as: "A Matter of Controversy, . . .. " Britannica.

It is very clear in the Encyclopedia Britannica that Chess history does NOT have a clear origin. Ref. Cite Pg. 1101, Vol 15. Macropaedia. "The origin of Chess is a matter of controversy." "Game pieces found in Russia, China, India, Central Asia, Pakistan, and else where that have been determined to be older than 6th century." All this said the Chess Article does state that Chess originated in India. It appeared around the 6th century AD. Thus, if one chooses to read beyond the first line in the first paragraph it is clear that the best answer to origin of chess is unknown or a matter of controversy.

Soltis, Andrew E.. "chess". Encyclopedia Britannica, 11 Jun. 2021, https://www.britannica.com/topic/chess. Accessed 11 October 2021.

I of course realize that this will be debated as see in the edits on the page. James Powell, P.E., MSME — Preceding unsigned comment added by James1024512 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability of Ivan the Terrible banning chess

Looking into the claim that Ivan the Terrible banned chess reveals a handful of forum posts making this claim with no evidence to back them up. The book, Ivan the Terrible by Kazimierz Waliszewski is the source of the claim that he died playing chess (at least in the Ivan the Terrible Wikipedia article), but makes no mention of him banning chess in the book. I have a hunch that this claim is a apocryphal legend that makes his death ironic. I would love to see a reliable source for this or this claim removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonharrisoncode (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That claim was added in an edit by User:BrownieBrown. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Ivan the Terrible would get you killed for looking at him funny, so it's certainly possible that he banned chess at some point. I'd look into the biographies to see if any of them confirm this claim. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
From my research the claim seems to stem from the Stoglav of the Russian Orthodox Church. This included a ban from playing games, dancing, playing musical instruments or basically doing anything fun. For the most part this only applied to clergy or exceptionally religious people, I doubt that an ordinary citizen would have been arrested or made to answer to an ecclesiastical court just for playing chess. For the status of the Stoglav in 16th century Russian law, the relationship of religious law to secular law, Ivan's status within the church, etc I'm way out of my depth, you'd have to ask a Russian historian. In any case it's an oversimplification to say that "Ivan the Terrible banned chess". The story that he died while playing chess with Bogdan Belsky (or at least while setting up the pieces) seems to be well attested, so it appears he didn't think the ban on games applied to himself. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Unclear parts

First, the shogi part mentiones the 'independently invented rook, bishop and queen of modern Western chess', which arose in dai shogi and the first two of which were transferred to regular shogi. It remains unclear which actual shogi pieces these are. It's especially puzzling why the rook had to be independently invented, since it seems that it acted essentially like a modern rook already in the earliest chaturanga and never stopped doing so in xiangqi.

Also, while the Chinese and Japanese varieties are presented in some detail, some others are either not mentioned at all, not even with a wikilink, or only in passing - the Korean one, the Burmese one, the Vietnamese one, the Ethiopian one, etc. Again, this seems like an inconsistency, for which I see no reason. --82.137.115.143 (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

One more thing - the article Courier chess mentions that it played a part in the evolution from medieval to modern chess, with the so-called Courier being the first piece to move as a modern-day bishop (which, I suppose, is why the bishop is called a courier or runner in many languages). However, Courier chess is not mentioned in the section on the 'Origins of the modern game' in this article.--82.137.115.143 (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Supposed Arabic etymology of Shah mat

The sources presenting an Arabic etymology seem outdated, and the statements implausible, given the obvious Persian origin of shah (and not sheikh).--82.137.115.143 (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Confusing wording about Indian names

'In some parts of India the pieces in the places of the rook, knight and bishop were renamed by words meaning (in this order) Boat, Horse, and Elephant, or Elephant, Horse, and Camel'

As the article explains elsewhere, the Bishop was originally called the Elephant, so it's not that it was originally called Bishop and then renamed to Elephant, but vice versa - the name 'Bishop' is a European innovation, whereas the parts of India where it's called the Elephant are the ones keeping the original name. I don't know if there are any parts of India where it's called something like a Bishop even now, anyway.--82.137.115.143 (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

ChessZone

In two places we are citing something called "The History of Chess", from a website called ChessZone. One of them is the diagram of the supposed starting position of chaturanga in the Origin section.

The ChessZone website is gone, and I cannot find "The History of Chess" or any parts of it online. It was a collection of articles by various authors. They were, as far as I could tell, not peer-reviewed and generally appeared to be works in progress. (This is also discussed in Talk:Chaturanga.) Other sources (reliable ones this time) will have to be found, or if not available, material that cited ChessZone may have to be dropped. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Secondary sources

This article has dozens of citations of Encyclopedia Britannica. This is scandalous. Instead, we should be using secondary sources, per WP:SECONDARY. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Chess Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2022

Chess Page: The Edward Lasker sentence in section: 'Persia' is not a proper source. His presumption was pure speculation, based on zero information/sources, centuries after the fact. This subjective addition lowers the validity of an otherwise good article, into a seemingly lopsided opinion piece. 2A00:23C5:2710:8A01:25E5:21C7:2778:DDCA (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Our unknown interlocutor has a point. Lasker's comment is offered simply as a comment, based on the objective impossibility of determining the moves of the various pieces simply by studying the equipment, but perhaps it should go, or be removed to a footnote. J S Ayer (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
The cited source is Bell's book. The relevant part of that book does not mention Edward Lasker, but after the translated passage, Bell adds, "Perhaps the twenty-four hours were spent in bribing the Indian ambassador rather than in heavy thinking." Another cited source, Wilkinson (1943), writes of the same story, "Buzurgmihr, the Persian counselor, aided somewhat by the indiscretions of the envoy, solved the problem within a week." Murray has other versions of this anecdote (pp. 151-7), which do not mention anything about indiscretions of the envoy.
Murray notes that the strongest objection to the literal truth of the story is the near impossibility of figuring out the rules of the game from looking at the equipment (board and pieces). Perhaps this is what twentieth-century writers have had in mind when the talk about "indiscretions of the envoy" or "bribing the ambassador". Perhaps we should take an approach closer to Murray's, rather than that taken by Bell and Wilkinson. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 Note: Closing request while under discussion, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Further on Wajurgmitr

I apologize; I own both The Adventure of Chess by Edward Lasker and Richard Bell's two books in one, and was confused. Lasker did not say that possibly the Indian ambassador had been plied with liquor. J S Ayer (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to make an appropriate correction to the article, of course. Thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Makruk the most archaic?

We can easily document each of the archaic features of Makruk, but who wants to take responsibility for saying that it is the most archaic surviving form of chess? At the moment someone is demanding a citation for that. J S Ayer (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is a link to the edit in which this claim was first made, by User:IanOsgood: [3]. He cites Murray, without giving a page number.
Murray's discussion of Siamese chess is on pages 113 to 117. It does not explicitly support the claim. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both! J S Ayer (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm rereading my copy of Murray and also can't find the reference that originated the statement. I admit, that statement is probably synthesis (though self-evident, in my opinion). I'll try to find a better reference or milder statement that would allow Makruk to be linked here. --IanOsgood (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_chess/Archive_3&oldid=1263566222"