Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Looking at the first line of the original document, it is hard to read but looks more like Grande than it does like Grant. The link shows both text and a scan of the original document. You can tell from the text that the word Grant or Grande is supposed to be at the top right of the left column of the first page, and in that scan, I see what looks like a d, but not anything looking like a t. Just in case a t might look like a d in this script, I checked the words "huestes," "bestias," and "touiessen" further down the column, and the t's in those looked more like t's. Curiously, it does not look like the word "acedrex" appears with "grant" or "grande" in the first sentence. However, the two words do appear together in the fourth line up on the last page, and it does look like "grant acedrex" there. If we do go with that as the correct name, we should still mention the name it has been known by in Murray, Gollon, and Pritchard.

Curiously, it does not look like the word "acedrex" appears with "grant" or "grande" in the first sentence.

The way I read it, it does, but it is broken over two lines: açe-drex. The word before it just seems gnt to me, with some curved line above it. On the 10th line of the second column there is another occurrence of the word grant ("la es tan grant que"), and it has the same final character. IIt does look like a t to me.

You can see the word "grant" on the 1st line of the document you showed. You can see the transcription on the txt file which is available from my website. From that 1st line we have: Aqui se comienc'a el iuego del g<r>a`nt Ac'e-drex. The (-drex) is on the 2nd line. It appears that the r has been omitted by the scribe. If you want to see a "d" you have one in "del" the word before. It is a round character. You have another "t" at the 2nd word of the 5th line, "todos". I suspect that what you took for a "d" is the "A" from Acedrex. We have a "t" and not a "de".

Indeed Murray used Grande Acedrex. Again I respect his work a lot, but his authority in that area is questionable. SInce 1913 they have been other works, like Sonja Musser on her PhD dissertation of 1441 pages. Gollon simply compiled the variants he loved and he used Murray there. Pritchard was not an historian and relied on Murray as a source. On the contrary there are several scholar references in Sonja Musser's PhD dissertion which are all citing that game as Grant Acedrex as it is indeed written twice in the codex (for 0 as Grande Acedrex). I can give for details for skeptical people. If you don't believe me you can ask Sonja Musser who is active on FB and she can be joined.

Now that I compare what looked like a d with the two beginning a's in aanca at the top of the second column, I can see that it is an a. The a at the end of aanca is the same shape, but smaller. The word before acedrex looks like it begins with a g and ends with a t. So, we could go with the name grant acedrex, but the article should also mention that the game has been referred to as grande acedrex in books by Murray, Gollon, and Pritchard.

the article should also mention that the game has been referred to as grande acedrex in books by Murray, Gollon, and Pritchard.

Agreed.

If we don't want to lose connection with earlier literature, we could simply call it "Grande/Grant Acedrex" in the title / index, and devote a sentence on the naming issue in the introduction.

Fergus you say: Now that I compare what looked like a d with the two beginning a's in aanca at the top of the second column, I can see that it is an a. The a at the end of aanca is the same shape, but smaller. The word before acedrex looks like it begins with a g and ends with a t.

>> Yes. You repeat what I explained in my answer to your first post where you intended to say that my information, i.e. the name is Grant not Grande, was wrong. So, I repeat, the word "grant" has its "r" missing. Yes, it does start with a g and ends with a t. I'm glad that you recognize your mistake.

You said after: So, we could go with the name grant acedrex but the article should also mention that the game has been referred to as grande acedrex in books by Murray, Gollon, and Pritchard.

>> Of course you could, I would say, you can. I appreciate your trust. The article could also explain that Murray didn't take the exact original title and that the others followed him. 

If interested readers come by here, there is a more recent book which has endeavoured to update the knowledge on "ancient and regional" chess variants, as Gollon said, it is the book written by me and Rick Kwolton during 6 years, reviewed by a dozen of experts in their field and deeply blommerized by Peter Blommers that I thank again: A World Of Chess, Mc.Farland, 2017

Have a nice day

I wish this game were more popular. It seems like an excellent design. The piece selection seems strange at first but after thinking about it I can see the beauty of it.

I imagine the aanca could have originated as an enhanced ferz, to go with the bigger board. Then the knights could have become unicorns by gaining a diagonal slide after their leap to complement the aanca. The crocodile is a fairly obvious addition. The giraffe and Lion both make knight-like leaps, suitable for the large board, and the Lion includes and extra 3,0 leap which removes it's color binding and forms a nice looking pattern.

The result of all that is eight pieces with a nice range of power and an aesthetically consistent set of moves. There are all of the 2,1 3,1 and 3,2 leaping moves, the rook and bishop moves, and bent rook and bishop moves (unicorn and aanca). The leaping pieces are differentiated in power by some of them having additional movements, but they don't ever feel like arbitrary combinations.

The initial setup is also elegant. The Pawns start as far apart as they do on the 8x8 board, and the pieces are all on the back rank. The promotion rule fits well with this setup and is another great innovation.

I think the main weak points, if there are any, would be the pawns and the king's leap. It seems unlikely that the king would benefit much from a 2 square leap on such a big board with so much empty space; and perhaps modern pawns would be better. But overall this variant appears to be carefully designed.

Are the rules described in this article correct?

No.