Talk:Shatranj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	SG Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
Strategy games To-do: edit  Create: Close Combat: The Russian Front • Close Combat: Battle of the Bulge • Close Combat: Invasion Normandy • List of units and buildings in StarCraft Expand: HeroQuest (board game) • Boku (game) • Qubic • Death Stacks • Entropy (board game) • Fitchneal • Five Field Kono Copyedit: Crossings (game) • Gonnect • Quoridor • Company of Heroes • Dark Reign • Myth (computer game) Cleanup: Abalone (board game) • Age of Mythology • Battle Realms • Outlive • Stronghold (2001 game) • Fleet Command • Combat Mission (computer game series) Cite Sources: Colonization (computer game) • MacHack (chess) Update: List of strategy video games More...

Contents 1 Piece Names 2 Origins 3 Question 4 The Dilaram Problem

[edit] Piece Names

The naming has gotten a little messed up. E.g., should we talk about

• a fers (the original name for the piece, though I have seen it "firz"),
• a vizier (what it meant to the Arabs),
• a general (the english equivalent of vizier),
• or a queen (the modern english chess term)?

I'm inclined to go with "queen" because it will be familiar to a reader, and it addresses the historical connection between the modern chess queen and the corresponding piece from Shatranj.

Elephant is problematic because the piece name appears to have lost its meaning when it left India. I'd be more comfortable calling it a bishop or a "fil".

Jake 01:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest to stick to the naming as found in "Piececlopedia" on chessvariants.com. They use name "Alfil" for bishop predecessor and "Ferz" for queen predecessor. The same names are found in "Fairy chess piece" Wikipedia article. Andreas Kaufmann 10:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As nobody objected I will change the terminology to use words "Alfil" and "Ferz". This is by the way names of these pieces as they are mostly used today by fairy piece problemists. Andreas Kaufmann 21:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, much better. Nice edits. Jake 02:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've added a table of pieces as for the Chaturanga article. --Ant 00:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

The popular contentions has long been that Shatranj came to Persia from the Indian game of Chaturanga. However, modern scholars now view this theory with reserve. (See origins of chess.) (from the Shatranj article)

However, the article on Chaturanga says that Chaturanga is the direct ancestor of shatranj which was the form that brought chess to medieval Europe.

The two articles seem to disagree, which is probably not what we want. The origins of chess article agrees with the second view but also offers counter-explanations.

Whatever shall we do? Reediewes 06:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I corrected this, mainstream theory (by Murray) is that Shatranj was Persian version of Indian game Chaturanga. Other theory, that Chaturanga didn't exist at all and all chess-related games originated from proto-Xiangi is not yet established/proved. Andreas Kaufmann 06:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I've corrected some poor grammer in the last paragraph, and forced section endings come after the diagrams, rather than have some of the diagrams overlap the next section, an improvement (I think...)

this bothers me however...

"However, white wins by sacrificing two rooks: 1. Rh8+ Kxh8 2.Bf5+ Kg8 3. Rh8+ Kxh8 4. g7+ Kg8 5. Nh6# (black king can't move on h7, because it is attacked by Alfil on f5)."

I've phrased it into better English but see no Alfil on f5. (or any piece for that matter) Can somebody who understands this properly consider this and correct it if its wrong please. --Shoka 19:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Alfil moves to f5 on move 2.: 2.Bf5+. I use "B" (Bishop) for Alfil and Q (Queen) for "Fers", in the same way as other sources do. Thanks for improving the style and grammar, English is not my native language. Andreas Kaufmann 20:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. The puzzle is explained. All is well. --Shoka 22:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Dilaram Problem

The sequence of movements currently in the article:

1. Rh8+ Kxh8 2.Bf5+ Rh2 3. Rxh2+ Kg8 4. Rh8+ Kxh8 5. g7+ Kg8 6. Nh6#

makes no sense.

As I read it, I thought "why is 2.Bf5+ not followed by 2. ..., Kg8 ?" I thought over it and couldn't find an explanation. Then I came to this discussion page and find you talking about the sequence "1. Rh8+ Kxh8 2.Bf5+ Kg8 3. Rh8+ Kxh8 4. g7+ Kg8 5. Nh6#" which does make sense.

It looks as if the last one was the original sequence of movements in the article but someone changed it to the first one.

I think we should change it again to the original sequence. What do you think? By the way, the Spanish article about Shatranj also has the wrong sequence.

Carlos M. 05-Aug-2006

The move 2...Rh2 only delays checkmate by one move, but doesn't help otherwise. I reverted changes to original version, as it makes easier to understand the idea of this problem. Andreas Kaufmann 18:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)