[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Shatranj. The widely played Arabian predecessor of modern chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I would assume that the transposition rule is not being used, since as the rules are stated here it seems to be presented as a nonstandard variation.
http://www.chessvariants.org/historic.dir/nilakantha.html
contains my Comment on Nīlakaņţ·ha’s Intellectual Game and its unusual rule - which attempts to avoid stalemate. I suppose Pritchard's rule variation should also have a page of its own. Stalemate rules are more complex than most people think - see my 2005-03-08 Comment on this page.
oops this game needs a ratings boost, where are you shatranj lovers!
Where can i find the openings for shatranj? I only managed to find two of them, the Mujannah and the Mashaikhi. There are surely more, aren't they?
There are cetainly much more Shatranj openings. You can find a lot of them in Murray's book 'A history of chess'.
I would like to comment here that I find it interesting that proposals to add some of the win conditions from Shatranj to regular chess are seen as 'too radical'. Here I mean no stalemate and barring the king. I am curious why anyone would feel that, particularly when they play variants? If these actually reduce the number of draws, why not use it in variants?
Repeating my [2007-04-16] comment to Wildebeest Chess.
Endgame Position White: King c1, Knight e1 and Black: King a1, Pawn a2, Rook e2.
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
4 | |///| |///| |///| |///|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
3 |///| |///| |///| |///| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2 | p |///| |///| r |///| |///|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
1 |/k/| |/K/| |/N/| |///| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
a b c d e f g h
1.Nc2 check Rxc2 check and Black has won in Shatranj by the Bare King rule, which has only one stated exception. The Zillions Rule File for Shatranj (correctly) scores the game as a win for Black.
2.Kxc2 stalemate draws the game in my two recent 'Shatranj Kamil' variants. R. Wayne Schmittberg has just confirmed that White wins in Wildebeest Chess. And so we all agree to differ.
I would like to see some comments relating to certain legal positions in the game. Example: my previous comment. Another example follows my [Rule 5] Bare King Loss in Shatranj Kamil (64).
My choice of rules is specific to the mix of pieces in each chess variant. Since a King and a single promoted Pawn can force stalemate in Shatranj Kamil X, I have dropped the Bare King Loss Rule and kept [Rule 4] 'Stalemating your opponent wins the game, except when you have only a lone King. Then the result is a draw.'
My [2005-03-08] comment on this page 'BLOCKADE STALEMATE IN 20 MOVES' is unlikely to happen in a real game, but it demonstrates the need for precise and complete rules. Even in those chess variants which allow Kings to move into check and be captured, it is possible for a player to reach a position with no legal moves.
Can you explain why a single promoted pawn forcing stalemate would be a reason for dropping the Bare King Loss rule? I don't see the connection. An approach I am seeing is you have something like 3 types of win conditions with 3 different scores: 1. Checkmate, resignation = 2 points. 2. Shatranj type minor wins = 1 point. This includes stalemate or baring the king. 3. Positions that are normally considered draws in FIDE or Shatranj = 1/2 point. This would include things like 3 move repetition check, barring a king and then next move having your king barred, and so on. Of course, one player would only get he half point. 4. A genuine draw, based on obscure positions. My proposal to deal with this is to allow one player to pick a color and their opponent only get 1/2 point for the draw, or they can take the 1/2 point for the rare draw and their opponent picks the color. This approach, while a tad more complicated, handles more situation and actually allows room for handicapping. If people want me to post it in greater detail, I can put it up here.
The next chess is cliche only hours after being spoken, and it's my fault. Almost certainly the next Chess is already within CVPage. We ought to think of the one after that, the way Computers succeeded in killing off FIDE Mad Queen 8x8. The same few objectors who keep popping up reviling the elementary likelihood seem like ringers from Orthodox Chess circles, Editors should take reasonable note. Face it, there are economic consequences when 8x8 forms are abandoned before 2012 or 2020. Joyce's ''Star Trek'' intellect, will, emotion. Hutnik notes the emotion in each individual island of contributor. The brains are all the articles. The will probably escapes CVPage itself, but there are appreciative offshoots. Not only Muller's programs, Strong's once ChessV, Hutnik's IAGO, or the unknown party Hutnik recently addresses with knowledge of Michael Howe. Not singling any out, but surely some strong candidate elsewhere than those sees the handwriting on the wall for ''Mad Queen'' alone. That's what reviving 1990's CVPage Track One seeks, even harking back to Centennial, an early candidate that alone would be improvement enough to FIDE-Lawed 8x8, ruined by over-repetition. What did it take to get from Shatranj to Mad Queen? The Courier Bishop. Period. (& it was always there for 300 yrs.: I left out always with you until the close of the age)
As-Suli, the great predecessor. Shatranj openings The Torrent, The Strongly Built, the Slave's Banner. Great As-Suli (880-946) diabused players of blind belief in the strengths of those openings. Jacobus de Cessolis 'The Game and Play of Chesse' second only to the mediaeval Bible in copies made. Shatranj was once more popular percentagewise than OrthoChess ever became, that provisional derivation of Shatranj still played today. Well, OrthoChess had its years too 1500-1900, and now 100 years of rough sailing. Marshall Attack in the Ruy Lopez, King's Gambit, Guioco Piano, Sicilian all colourful names for openings to be put on the shelf, or to pasture, or buried at Sea, as the 5, 10, 100 settled-on CVs available assume command, so as to have realized Chess return to her cultural-rootedness and full contemporary relevance -- as time of Shatranj glory when Chess ascendant.
H. G. Muller wrote on Wed, Oct 15, 2008 06:36 PM UTC:Standard Staunton-style piece set for this game:
Take a look at this: http://www.mobygames.com/game/amiga/distant-armies/screenshots Nice. And old.... (1988) :)
How about Fischer Random Shatranj, and they could have skipped the whole Mad Queen phase. Or Alexandre Random Shatranj. That refers to one of the great French -- and others British -- players, Alexandre, who secretly crawled inside (fooling most but not E.A. Poe) the Turk automaton a while for Maelzel, Alexandre who started random back-ranks in 1820s. Friend of Beethoven (just remember m.m.), Maelzel had purchased the Turk through Napoleon's stepson, and Alexandre also made first Chess encyclopedia. The automaton Turk spanned 1769, invented by Wolfgang von Kempelen, to 1854, when he burned to death in the Chinese Museum at Baltimore, his last words ''Echec! Echec!,'' recorded by Poe's doctor's son standing in the burning stairwells. Over 85 years Turk played Napoleon, Ben Franklin, P.T. Barnum. Bobby Fischer had nothing new, nothing at all, all talk and no cattle, no concern for the masses of chess players wanting new challenges. Paul Morphy was more innovative for his time, connecting Europe and America. There are several random embodiments from 1820s to 1990s before Fischer's slight tweaking announced at Argentina. But nobody properly went back to Shatranj, and asked what need for so powerful Queen anyway? Otherwise, if not Random Shatranj, there are probably some good solid four to six pairs of pieces, probably Rook, Knight, Bishop, possibly Falcon, and up to two, or three, more for 13 x 8 as the next logical size. Then no stand-alone Centaur (BN), Champion (RN) or Queen-type (RB), none of them. Shatranj with occasional centred Rook randomized in starting array would be power enough; and Shatranj was good enough chess for Chaucer, who may never have formally mentioned it like Shakespeare. (When Shakespeare has Ferdinand and Miranda play Chess in 'The Tempest' in the West Indies, America, it is already Modern Chess not Shatranj, although right on the cusp.)
Joe Joyce wrote on Fri, Jun 5, 2009 06:25 PM UTC:George, you won't get me to disagree with your first sentence. I'm always happy to see more shatranj variants played. As for the central rook, I'm currently playing a game of ShortRange Courier with its designer, David Paulowich, and it uses no queen, but rather a rook in its place in the center of the board. Aside from the rooks [3/side] there are no longrange pieces in the game.
Greg Strong wrote on Fri, Jun 5, 2009 11:42 PM UTC:Joe, I think that a 'randomized' Shatranj might be interesting, especially how it greatly affects the measly 8 squares that each elephant can target. I'm not sure George agrees; his messages are so complex, I frequenetly not sure what side of an issue he's on :) I would certainly dispute the notion that Fischer wasn't innovative. In addition to Fischer Random, which is a fantastic way to 'save' chess while escaping from the fact that you need to memorize hundreds or thousands of lines to be a well-rated player these days, how about Fischer clock? It's a great idea, and is widely used for getting better results from computer vs.computer matches.
H. G. Muller wrote on Sat, Jun 6, 2009 10:19 AM UTC:Standard Shatranj is an excessively boring game. It is very slow, the Pawns and Ferzes merely crawling over the board, and the draw rate between equally skilled players is about 70%. (For Mad Queen this is about 30%, for Capablanca-type variants only 16%.) Having watched many Shatranj blitz games, I can imagine why there was such an incessent drive to modernize some of the pieces. I don't think shuffling would solve anything. And it certainly would not have to invoke Fischer, as there is no castling, and none of the special rules invented by Fischer to preserve castling in Shuffle Chess would have to be applied. (i.e. no reason to require K between R in Shuffle Shatranj.) Elephants would still remain useless pieces under normal shuffle rules, which would keep color-bound pieces on different colors. It would be more interesting to allow Elephants on the same color, so they can defend each other (as in Xiangqi), then they could be used in fortress building. But the risk is that the game might become even more difficult to win then, in absence of Cannons to penetrate the fortress.
I suppose, the mentality of modernity isn't compatible with historical Shatranj. This doesn't mean that the game is totally uninteresting. We still like to watch costume films about the 18th century, but nobody would like to dress up like that anymore and dance silly minuets. We are all products of our time. Should we analyze the variants created on this site, we would get a picture of the collective psychology of modernity. In my view, many variants are somewhat overbearing and high-flying, i.e. simply over the top. But far from all, of course. /Mats
The linked comment is vintage Betza, usually even better expressed in his polished articles. Betza comments always as ''gnohmon'' and had this to say over seven years ago at Chaturanga in 2002. http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=513 ''My average of the two skills is higher than the divine Parton or superhuman Fischer.'' Like Gilman for many years, Betza did not use formal identification, and so could not revise his words. I think there are some contradictions in terms here Betza would not fully defend. Yet this comment shows Betza's coherent/confused mindset the year he left. By August 2003, no more all-too-profound Ralph Betza. Also some of this particular comment by Betza would be deliberate obfuscation by him just short of sabotage -- conclusion that I can justify and cross-index another time. A couple significant sentences, midst the true account, he knows to be untrue or does not really mean for effect, in hyperbole not for purpose of satire.
The Shatranj Shuffle. Would our new CV have saved Shatranj from extinction? The Shatranj Shuffle is the simple technique to randomize the back-rank of the mediaeval game. Similar expedient is to be lifesaver of OrthoChess64 such as RNBQKBNR, or RKRBQNBN, or QRBNNKRB, or anything else you want up to 960 beauties. BNRKRNQB is another one still your basic Mad Queen chess64, now within chess960, or any other loose -- rather than strict -- prior-named random Orthodox rules-set. For Shatranj Shuffle, (Shatranj never having had the powerful Queen or long-range Bishops) F is Ferz the one-diagonal and A is Alfil the two-diagonal-only leaper. Those two complement in their inimitable way. There is no castling in pure Shatranj. The only subrule restriction in S.S. starting array is that the Alfils must be on opposite colours. That's it. Here are some Shatranj Shuffles, also known as S.S. Saviours: ARKFNRNA, NAARKRFN, RNAFKRNA. Ferz (queen) reaches 1/2 the squares, and that's why promotion is to another Ferz, just like in the year 1400 -- but decidedly NOT the year 1492 by which time Mad Queen(Rook + new Bishop) had taken root. Does Alfil (elephant) still reach 1/8 the squares, regardless where back-ranked initially? Of course, that's the math of it, and the Shatranj Shuffle gives many more opportunities._____________________________________________
How many? Let's see. (8 factorial) divided by 2 for the indistinguishable Rooks, divided by two again for the indistinguishable Knights. Times four-sevenths (4/7) for the Alfil same-colour restriction. That gives 5760, but we need one more division by 2 for the mirrors. 2880. 2880 starting line-ups, and 2879 of them are new. 2880 permutations, far more than a chess 96 or 100 or random chess960. If Shatranj Shuffle had been implemented in time, we would still in due course be happily Alfil-two-stepping today. [The original 2880 is confirmed correct. Shatranj Shuffle is now also known as Shatranj2880.]
Shatranj2880 preserves Alfil bindings. Shatranj Shuffle opposite sides' 8 r__n__a__k__f__a__n__r starting arrays are perfect mirrors. That goes 7 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ for the four Alfils (elephants) as well. Each 6 __ __ __x__ __ __ __x team has one White- one Black-cell Alfil. In 5 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ the perfection of mediaeval game, there can 4 __x__ __ __ __x__ __ NEVER be Alfil x Alfil.In two words,IM- 3 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ POSSIBLE, for their respective bindings never 2 __ __ __x__ __ __ __x impinge. In board to left, we use the standard 1 r__n__a__k__f__a__n__r RNAKFANR for convenience of familiarity. a b c d e f g h Imagine also the mediaeval game was checkered, which was not always the case. The White's Alfils are c1 and f1, Black's c8 and f8. Now c1 and f8 are on black SQUARES. Follow f8's binding-path as f8-d6-b4-d2-f4-h6 and two what we might call ''offshoots'' h2 and b8. Each of the four Alfils reach their particular 8 squares for 32 all together, half the board. Notice f8-Alfil has route that just nips White's c1 (at d2) but he does not hit him. Both f8 and c1 stay on Black squares but never correspond by reaching exact same squares. Their bindings are all of them independent of one another. There can neither be AxA nor even Alfil defending Alfil. NOT IN ALL RECORDED HISTORY. Shatranj2880 adds 2879 more initial arrays with the SAME CHARACTERISTIC free-ranging Alfils -- proven valid piece interaction for a thousand years from 600 to 1500 -- and good enough for any right-thinking person for the longer-term foreseeable future. __________________''Can we speculate that, had the later, very efficient malaria protist lived in Europe during antiquity, classical culture with its influence on modern civilization worldwide would not have developed?'' --Ricardo Guerrero microbiologist
These comments are appropriate for Shatranj because its inventors are dead for over 1000 years and cannot complain about our superimposition of Shatranj Shuffle2880. To diehards Shatranj Shuffle can be the game for the ages with its liberal modifications. Alexandre appears to have invented random chess in the 1820s. The 1920s saw international tournaments for basically the same idea as Free Chess of Brunner. Chessplayer Fischer forced King to castle at c1 and g1 and called random chess revived for the 1990s Chess960.
It's still being played, so let's compare chess960 with old Shatranj2880 from the last two comments here. Now 2880=3x960. How so? Square-colour-requirements of Shatranj Alfil and OrthoChess Bishop are comparable. No difference there. Likewise 2 Rooks and 2 Knights are pairwise indistinguishable both cases of 960 and 2880. Chess960 requires King between two Rooks, and 2880 does not, the only remaining difference with Shatranj2880. How does that make for the factor of 3x? This chart shows Rook combinations and # allowable King placements each case in Chess 960:
ab 0__bc 0__cd 0__de 0__ef 0__fg 0_ac 1__bd 1__ce 1__df 1__eg 1__fh 1__ad 2__be 2__cf 2__dg 2__eh 2__gh 0__ae 3__bf 3__cg 3__dh 3__af 4__bg 4__ch 4__ag 5__bh 5__ah 6.
There are 28 combinations for Rook. If there were no exclusions invalidating King placement, there would be remaining 6 squares for the King each case of Rooks. 6x28=168. Allowance of 56 of the 168 seen in the list, 1/3 of them, is precisely the Chess960 Fischer-agonized methodology. And shows why 960 times 3 equals the 2880, where there are no castling and restriction of K in the same game (Shatranj and OrthoChess being basically the same in the sense of 6-piece and 64 squares).
It tends not to be noticed that C960 castling is a 2/3 reduction, because of the other accompanying reduction for Bishop-same-colour. Instead of every King placement, C960 permits only 56 of the 168 respecting the two Rooks' positioning. (In general, on 8x8 fixed castling is better, and by 8x10 free castling is better -- but that's an educated value judgment.) Since ShatranjShuffle2880 has no castling, it has 3 times the arrays available over C960, wherewith Rooks to King placements are not mattering. Hence the exact times 3, what we were trying to understand. (1) Incidentally with mirrors 168x2 = 336, and that number 336 keeps recurring, chiefly just because it is 8x7x6, such as at Man & Beasts 04, http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=23281. (2) Technically 960/40320 = 0.0238 = 1/42, the fraction being exact. So C960 uses only 1/42 of pure (8 factorial), representing every possible permutation, and most of the 960 are still ugly as a bulldog.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.