Talk:Shatranj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Chess Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-Importance on the importance scale.
Knight chess piece 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid priority within strategy games for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
Strategy games To-do:
پ This article is about a person, place, or concept whose name is originally rendered in the Persian script; however the article does not have that version of its name in the article's lead paragraph. Anyone who is knowledgeable enough with the original language is invited to assist in adding the Persian script.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Persian).

Contents

[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)

May I correct the correction: the mainstream theory by Murray is that Chatrang was Persian version of Indian game Chaturanga. Shatranj was the name when Arabs conquered the Persian empire. So this theory is Chaturanga -> Chatrang -> Shatranj.Cazaux 14:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference to Shatranj being well known in the 3rd century is almost certainly false. "By the third century, Shatranj was well known in the Sassanid Empire, as evidenced in the biography of its founder Ardashir I, who ruled from 226-241. His court biography, the Karnamak-i Ardeshir-i Papakan, ..." According to HJR Murray, the Karnimak is the oldest reference to chess, yes; however, there is no proof that it was written in Ardashir's time. Considering the number of literary references that fabricate chess mastery by any number of historical figures who could not have known the game, HJR Murrary concludes that the reference in the Karnimak is without value before 600AD.

I've just recently been through this section of HJR Murray, but unfortunately it was via inter-library loan, and I don't have the book anymore. Could someone who does have it fix this section? I don't want to introduce an uncited assertion. Mlwilson 04:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I fixed the text according to Murray. Andreas Kaufmann 17:15, 12 October 2007 (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)

[edit] Afghanistan Claim

Afghanistan also lays claim to chess. Someone should change the article. They dont tell you but alot of this names are given are Dari words from afghanistan; Rukh, Shah mat, Wazir, Asp. Iran tries to tie it in with persia

[edit] Dilaram Problem revisit

This problem and its solution seem to have been solved severally in Dec 2005 and later, but going through the page history, I find that all solutions have 2. Bf5 - but this is not possible - it would need to jump over the N at g4.

I hope I am not missing something elementary here. Most likely there is a problem in the board setup (a citation would help).

Also, I couldn't find any other place where the N could be so it can reach h6, and let the B go from h3 to f5.

In order to present a consistent page, I am editing in an alternate (less dramatic) mate while historical sources to the problem are being looked up. My edit is: 1. Rh8+ Kxh8 2.Bg2+ Kg8 3. Bd5+ Kf8 4. Rh8#. Note that 2. Bf1 3. Bxc4+ also works, but winning the Knight is not a big deal. Also, Bg2 is more forced, the delaying move Rh2 is avoided.

But this solution is rather lame; the pawns don't move, neither the white N. I am sure the 2-rook sacrifice was the original solution. So I feel it must be the initial board that is not right. If someone has access to the historical source, pls fix. I am presenting the present solution only as a stop gap to preserve consistency. mukerjee (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The bishop in Shatranj (which was called Alfil) moved differently then in modern chess. It moved 2 squares diagonally and could jump over the pieces. Please see a move diagram for Alfil in this article. So, the solution was correct. Please see here as a reference. Andreas Kaufmann 19:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!! I was indeed missing something elementary!! Fixed the text now with a brief clarification. mukerjee (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)