Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

PcSaba[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Michael Nelson wrote on Mon, Jul 28, 2003 09:33 PM UTC:

Ivan Derzhanski is almost certainly right.  Ancient peoples would think of
a move of three squares as including the starting square but more modern
people with a better understanding of zero would think of a move of two
squares not including the starting square.  There may be areas of
confusion in ancient sources espaecially compilations from multiple
sources--this might be the real origin of the rule in Tamerlane that the
Bishop cannot move one square, for example.

Comparable examples in other fields: 

Julius Ceasar often sent coded messages using the alphahbetic substituion
A=D, B=E, C=F, etc. He and his contempories described this as advancing
four letters, we would say three.

According to the New Testament, Jesus died on Friday, was in the tomb
Saturday, and rose from the dead Sunday--expressed in the creeds as 'On
the third day he rose from the dead.'  No doubt we would say 'On the
second day . . .' if we hadn't heard it so many times the other way.

Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on Thu, Jul 31, 2003 01:35 PM UTC:

I have also noticed that apparent original Bishop in Senterej. But, like
Ivan Derzhanski, I agree that this is apparent only.
The Senterej move is most likely the regular Shatranj rule. I remember
that in Murray's you can find several other examples where the old
'Alfil' is given an aslant '3 steps' move.
Since, there is no other Senetrej source confirming your 'Saba' move, we
better be careful. 
Of course, you may argue that we don't have the proof either that the
Alfil in Senterej was exactly like in Shatranj. 
True, but it is not the right way to make History. We should explain and
select the most probable version with all elements we have. And the
regular Shatranj move is the most probable, just for what Ivan explained,
and because the tight relationships between Arabs and this African region
in history (slave trade for instance).
The very original feature of Senterej is the mobilization phase(Werera),
which is a local evolution of the Ta'biya process invented by the Arabs
to speed up the old game (other example is found in Burma, see
http://www.chez.com/cazaux/sittuyin.htm)

I think that this page desserves a re-writing. I do not like the idea to
let people think that a different move existed somewhere, here in
Ethiopia.
It is just the too much frequent process for which legend is transformed
into history.

Regarding Chess Variants, we have a responsability here. Please, amend
this text, put all necessary caution, don't let uniniated people believe
that this move existed in Ethiopia. I know it is frustating but we don't
have the right to call that faeric piece a Saba.

Peter Aronson wrote on Fri, Aug 1, 2003 04:54 AM UTC:

Tony, Ivan and me had a e-mail conversion about the mobilization phase, that alas, none of us had time to edit into an article. But the gist of it was that we suspect that the mobilization phase was in fact the same thing as the Ta'biya, described by someone who didn't know exactly what was going on. Simultaneous set up of fixed positions makes a lot more sense than simultaneous movement.

Tony Quintanilla wrote on Fri, Aug 1, 2003 05:35 PM UTC:

I fully agree with the excellent comments, starting with Ivan's original comments. Thanks to Michael for the interesting clarification of the counting issue. As Jean-Louis says, we must not transmute legend into history. Consequently, I have removed the Saba from the Piececlopedia. As noted by Peter and Jean-Louis, Senterej as a regional variant remains interesting on other grounds, such as the Werera.

4 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.