Talk:Tafl games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Tafl games has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
May 16, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 16, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Generally one idea per sentence. Minimal jargon. Standard grammar. Other MoS issues (notably foreign words in italics) are followed.
2. Factually accurate?: Claims are referenced from reliable sources, gathered in footnotes (RS are explicit).
3. Broad in coverage?: Absolutely thorough. All evidence is presented, all related games are covered, without digressing outside reasonable scope. Where evidence and/or sources are lacking, the article does not attempt to fill the gap (no OR here).
4. Neutral point of view?: Alternative views of evidence are presented in best possible light without advocacy (NPOV clear).
5. Article stability? There is no history of disputes over content, or even style.
6. Images?: There are many clear illustrations that aid the reader in understanding the text. Arguably, more text could be provided, so sight impaired readers could hear descriptions of the pictures in an audio file of the article. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment: Namespace considerations are not relevant to GA nomination, however I concur with the current namespace allocation. Tafl games is the right title. A superset is Table game, of which the tafl games are but one sub-family (or genus). Several types of related game are discussed, and the core game and variants discussed in detail. The title therefore cannot be singular, as the content of the article makes clear. Perhaps, should more material become available, separate articles for some of the particular types of tafl game would be appropriate. Hnefatafl would be an obvious candidate for one of these. Were there to be two or three other articles for specific tafl games, this namespace could be changed to Tafl game and link to the detailed articles. We are not at that stage yet. I conclude by repeating I concur with the current namespace allocation. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.

Contents

[edit] Initial comments

Is this a complicated game or what?! I think the rules need a little more work as I only got the vaguest idea of what goes on. charlieF 13:25 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

well my native tongue is not english,so that explains the trouble.. the actual rules are very simple, but I couldn't make them easier..


Hnefatafl is one of family of similar games... in fact, the text and picture currently in this article actually discuss Tablut. Should this article perhaps be moved to "Tafl games"? Jeffhos 17:29, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've added a little information about brandubh, and a link to the "Early Irish Board Games" article from which the information came. In fact I ought to have taken out the "about which we know very little" comment as this, with the 7x7 boards found in Ireland, make this game reasonably well documented (compared to others). Snigfarp 9 July 2005 13:54 (UTC)

Further edits: I've taken out the link "Hnefatafl: the Strategic Board Game of the Vikings" as unfortunately this excellent article has disappeared from the web. --Snigfarp 11:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The word "castle" as a name for the central square was recently changed to "throne". In fact "castle" was the word employed by Linnaeus for this. The word "throne" has been used by more modern commentators. I'm not sure whether it comes from an historical source or not. --Snigfarp 09:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The rules depend on who has done the reconstruction. It is generally assumed that the soldiers can travel any distance, but some variants limit this. It is also generally assumed that soldiers cannot land on the King Square (in the middle), but it is unclear if the corner squares are also King Squares. (They might even be out of bounds to all, as that would be consistant with Celtic buildings, which were all round and therefore had no corners.) It is also unclear if soldiers could even CROSS the central King Square. If it was a throne of some kind, it would be arguable that nothing should be able to cross over it, that you'd have to stop there to navigate round the obstruction.

A common variant is to have the King escape in the corners (as they are marked the same way as the center square). If we assume this to be a reconstruction of a raid, however, the "escape" would be through the doors, which would be the squares in the middle of each side (where the "raiders" came in and fan out from). Having the King "escape" along any point along any edge appears to make the game too unbalanced and would make no logical sense, but this doesn't mean that it wasn't how the game was played. I doubt many Norse had degrees in game theory.

One of the very few points of agreement is that black starts off with twice as many foot soldiers as white (ignoring the white king). The initial layouts, however, vary wildly between reconstruction efforts and cannot be trusted as anything more than guidelines.

As there was commerce and migrations between regions and even between nations, there would need to be some level of unification between the rulesets, pieces and strategies. You almost couldn't have totally isolated evolution of games from a common origin, with a high level of interaction between players of different variants. Even if they evolved somewhat isolated, there would have been some borrowing of ideas - simply because people are people, and competition & rivalry would have been difficult otherwise.

The 19x19 format seems to be more akin to a sea battle than a raid, but it seems unlikely that converting the game to a naval format would have occured to invading Christians, as they had no naval fleets to speak of. This suggests (to me) that we're missing one or more variants that explain the transition from hall raid to naval battle. -- JD

The idea that the 19x19 games is a naval battle is a modern one. The original source for this game, the Corpus Christi College manuscript 122, mentions elements "city and citadel" and "dukes and counts" among other things, and this seems to suggest that contemporary players viewed this as a land conflict. --Snigfarp 07:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that the game is played incorrectly. Norsemen did indeed believe that Kings were more important than themselves even though they could vote out Kings (though this did change) hence warriors where usually loyal to their Kings and accepted the King's rings. The King is loyal to his people and the people are loyal to the King however the King has more power and is thus more important to his country. The capture of the King in the game is most likely correct. This article does not cite any references. --Hesselius 13:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact is, that we have records of games played both ways--tablut with the king captured on four sides, and tawlbwrdd with the king captured on two. So the rule seems to be whatever takes the fancy of the players in a given time and place, or to put it less flippantly, whatever works best with the other rules they've chosen to adopt. --Snigfarp 19:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

People did not model their games on real life precisely, but on what made for a good game. In any case, the Celts were perfectly familiar with square buildings. It would be misleading to give a single set of definitive rules for this game, since the rules clearly varied somewhat by time and place. This is typical of medieval games. The most historically accurate thing to do is to convey that variety. As to whether this should be under the heading of "Tafl," note that there was no medieval game specifically named "Tafl." In the Scandinavian languages and Old English, the word merely meant "board game." "Tafl" is the modern name for the descendents of the particular game played with a 2:1 ratio of forces. In that sense it seems perfectly logical to have an entry on "Tafl." Blueporch 00:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Blueporch

The article notes that 72 does not divide appropriately into a 2:1 ratio, but 48 and 24 seems to work. What is going on? Lcalc 22:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The board set-up image shows 2:1 plus the king, so 73 pieces would be needed (48 defenders, 24 attackers, one king). Right?Jackrepenning (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"No piece may not move directly onto the X other than the King."

A little clarification needed there, I think! Sergeirichard (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely that must be "No piece may move directly..."? Jackrepenning (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I tagged this article Unreferenced because it has a lack of in-text citations and makes several remarkable claims. I'll try to find references where I can, when I have time, but I will need everyone's help getting this article cleaned up. Thx Wilhelm meis (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reconstruction

"The following is one possible reconstruction of the rules of Tablut, staying as close to the original source as possible" What was the "original source"? Please provide a citation. Wilhelm meis (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC) I guess this point is now moot, since I found J. E. Smith's 1811 translation of Lachesis Lapponica and replaced the dubious rules with Smith's rules. Wilhelm meis (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Literary References

I would like to compile a list of literary references (such as sagas) that cover Hnefatafl and other Tafl games. Please list known literary sources here, along with the game named in the source, and any interesting quotes:

1. Hervarar saga, according to Murray, recounts a test of wits between King Heidrek and Odin in disguise:

'Who are the maids that fight weaponless around their lord, the brown ever sheltering and the fair ever attacking him?' (Answer: the pieces in hnefatafl), and 'What is that beast all girdled with iron which kills the flocks? It has eight horns but no head' (Answer: the hnefi or head-piece in hnefatafl)

Murray notes that much later versions gave rhymed answers that substituted chess for tafl. Sten Helmfrid [1] counters that the answer to the latter riddle is a die cast in the playing of hnefatafl (the eight horns referring to the eight corners of a six-sided die), providing an in-depth analysis of the earliest known version.

Another translation on the web: The Saga of Hervor and King Heidrek the Wise 11. The Riddles of Gestumblindi ... Then said Gestumblindi:

“Who are those thanes who ride to the thing, sixteen guys together. Across the land they send their men to seek a home for themselves. King Heidrek, guess my riddle.”

“Good riddle, Gestumblindi--I've got it. That's Itrek, who is also called Odin, and the giant Andad, sitting playing tafl.”

“It's getting hard for me now,” says Gestumblindi, “and I don't know what comes next.”

Then said Gestumblindi:

“What wives are they, their weaponless lord they smite down and slay. All day long the darker defend, but the fairer ones go forward. King Heidrek, guess my riddle.”

“Good riddle, Gestumblindi--I've got it. It's a game of hnettafl. The red pieces defend the king and the white ones attack.” ... Then Gestumblindi said:

“What beast is that which butchers wealth, is circled outside with iron. It has eight horns but never a head and much hazard hangs upon it. King Heidrek guess my riddle.”

“That's the die in hnettafl, also called the hun, or cub. It's horns are its corners.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilhelm meis (talk • contribs) 09:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


2. Jarl Rognvald Kali Kolsson famously proclaimed nine boasts recounted in the Orkneyinga saga, the first of which is skill at Tafl:

Rǫgnvaldr jarl kali Kolsson, Orknøsk jarl og skjald, d. 1158 [2]:

Tafl emk ǫrr at efla,
íþróttir kank níu,
týnik trauðla rúnum,
tíð er bók ok smíðir,
skríða kank á skíðum,
skýtk ok rœk, svát nýtir;
hvártveggja kank hyggja :
harpslǫ́tt ok bragþǫ́ttu.

Wilhelm meis (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Rígsþula 41. mentions children swimming and playing "tables" ("tafl" in the original Old Norse). Wilhelm meis (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Indeed, [ˈtapʰl̥] is the Icelandic pronunciation, and as Icelandic is by all accounts the closest approximation we have to Old Norse, this is the best indication available as to how the word would have been pronounced by the Vikings who played the game. Is there a better suggestion of what standard we should use to indicate pronunciation? If anyone has contradictory information on how the word was pronounced in medieval Scandinavia, I'd love to see it. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I should mention I have one dissenting source, Old English and Its Closest Relatives by Orrin W. Robinson, but I have found this particular source wanting in many aspects, and so have not given it preference. According to Robinson, however, the Old Norse pronunciation of tafl would have been approximately [tavl̥]. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The correct pronunciation is provided by Robinson. Modern Icelandic is not the same thing as Old Norse, and especially not when pronunciation is concerned. Modern Icelandic has changed its pronunciation even more since Old Norse than Swedish and Norwegian have.--Berig (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want confirmation about this, you should contact user:Haukurth who is an Icelander and who is very knowledgeable about Old Norse.--Berig (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Berig is right. In modern Icelandic it's a plosive but back in the day it must have been a fricative. Haukur (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Do we have a satisfactory source we can document (hopefully something a bit more thorough and reliable than my Robinson book)? Wilhelm meis (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I found this source from the London Philological Society, which references Grimm. I reckon that's about as good a source as you could ask for. Thanks for the talk! Wilhelm meis (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tablut interpretation

I've outlined a possible method of simplifying the rules, and finding a compromise between the "official" rulesets interpreted through texts and some of the exceptions adapted along the way. I wonder if we could adjust these for inclusion in the article, or perhaps use them as groundwork for a more concise explaination of how the game functions. So without further ado:

  • Tablut is played on a 9x9 grid, with the Swedes (white pieces / defenders) consisting of a king and eight guardsmen, and the Muscovites (black pieces / attackers) consisting of sixteen soldiers.
  • The eight guardsmen (Swede forces) start on the eight squares adjoining the "konakis," (the center square, or king's castle) in the form of a cross; the sixteen attackers (Muscovite forces) start in T-shaped groups of four at the center of each side of the board. [[3]]
  • The Swedish side moves first, and the game then proceeds by alternate moves. (this rule can be resolved to allow either side to move first)
  • All pieces move orthogonally. (any number of squares horizontally or vertically, assuming the path is open) No piece may ever pass over another piece in its path. Only the king my occupy the center square (the konakis) or any of the cornering squares of the grid. The Swede and Muscovite forces may not occupy any territory belonging to the opposing side, as marked on the grid. [[4]]
  • Optionally, dice may be rolled to determine the number of squares a piece may move at a time.
  • An opponent piece is captured by out-flanking (sandwiching) it either horizontally or vertically with two pieces. ("custodial capture") [[5]] The king is captured only when surrounded on all ends, or cornered. [[6]] A piece is not automatically captured when moving itself within enemy flanks. A captured piece is removed from the board and is no longer active in the play.
  • The Swedes win by locating their king to any of the four corner squares on the board; the Muscovites win by capturing the king.

68.209.235.149 (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


The above outlined rules have some substantial differences from those recorded in the original source material. As there are many modern variations, all of which lack the historical value of Linnaeus' rules (translated originally by Smith in 1811), the inclusion of modern reconstructionist rules opens a whole new can of worms: which rules do we include, and on what basis do we select them. This is why I opted earlier to forgo the unsourced reconstructionist rules that were in the article, eschewing them in favor of (a slightly condensed paraphrasing of) the rules as translated by Smith. Essentially, there are many modern variants (and most of those played on a 9x9 board are called Tablut), but the purpose of stating the rules of Tablut in this article is to provide the best possible indication that history affords as to how the tafl games were played historically. There are links to many modern variants in the "External links" section, and you are welcome to include a link to your own variant there if you wish, if they exist somewhere on the internet. Wilhelm meis (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Curious. Are these rules consistent with any modern interpretation in particular, that you would mind pointing out? This has been my standard play procedure, which I've opted in favor of by-the-book instructions. I feel the archaic interpretation of the game's rules presents too much imbalance, which leads me to believe they weren't interpreted very well. Of course, this is a game driven more by strategy than circumstance... 68.209.235.149 (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, there are numerous modern interpretations and variations. I think the issues addressed by those modern variations are adequately represented in the "Balance of play" section of this article and in the external links. Personally, I do not disagree that there are some serious flaws in Linnaeus' interpretation (as Schmittberger and Helmfrid so ably explained), but the fact remains that his is the sole historical source from which all later sets of rules were based, and so has great historical signifigance in this article. Again, criticism of imbalance of play in Linnaeus' rules is clearly stated in the section "Balance of play". As regards your rules stated above, there are several points that are at variance with Linnaeus' rules. I am sure this is quite intentional because, as you say, the modern variations are geared toward achieving better balance of play at the expense of sacrificing historical accuracy (which may be no bother at all to some players). Specifically, Linnaeus made no mention of who is to take the first turn, unless one is to interpret "the Swedes and the Muscovites take it by turns to move" as suggesting the Swedes go first because they were the first mentioned in that sentence, but such an interpretation may betray a dangerous set of assumptions. Also, at no point does Linnaeus make any mention whatsoever of the corner squares, and it is explained that if the king is in square b, he may escape by way of squares g or m, if these paths are not blocked. This explicitly states that the king's objective is to escape to the periphery, but not to the corners. It is not stated, but has been inferred, that the king cannot pass through the Muscovite camps, which may further suggest that the Muscovite camps are hostile spaces to all the Swedes (or it may simply be that it is not a legal route of escape for the king, to limit his method of escape for better balance). Linnaeus never mentioned dice at all, which would certainly have been the subject of much discussion if he had seen the game played with dice. For that matter, I have never heard of Tablut being played with dice, only oblique references to hnefatafl possibly being played with dice. And lastly, there is disagreement among modern variations on whether or not the king may be captured by only two Muscovites, and whether or not a piece may move between two enemies and avoid capture (although according to Linnaeus, the king could not be captured by only two Muscovites, and there is a strong suggestion that any piece moving into a space between two enemies would be captured). Again, there are many different modern variations, as one can see by exploring the external links in this article and browsing the Schmittberger volume. I don't think this article is the place to discuss in detail the endless permutations of rules adopted by modern gamers. I think that the article's current content is adequate in that regard. Again, if you have a published source for your rules, we can certainly link to it. If not, it should be classified as original research. If you find something specific lacking from the "Balance of play" section, we can address that as well. Thank you for your interest and contribution to the discussion. Wilhelm meis (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding the article

I'm thinking about expanding the article a little bit to discuss relevant saga passages. There are many important (although ambiguous) clues about how Hnefatafl was played in the Middle Ages, which I think would justify some discussion, but I don't want to get overly analytical or belabor the point. The changes I am considering include pulling the saga references in >Hnefatafl and variants >Hnefatafl down to a new section titled Hnefatafl in Saga literature. We may also eventually further expand the article to give some discussion to archaeological evidence as well. The following are the results of my proposed changes to the Hnefatafl subsection and the new Hnefatafl in Saga literature section:

Hnefatafl and variants >Hnefatafl

Hnefatafl was a game played in medieval Scandinavia that was mentioned in the Sagas. Vikings considered skill at Hnefatafl to be a valuable attribute, and Jarl Rognvald Kali Kolsson famously proclaimed nine boasts recounted in the Orkneyinga saga, the first of which was skill at Tafl.[9] Other saga references have contributed to controversy over the possible use of dice in playing Hnefatafl.[10] The rules of the game were never explicitly recorded,[11] and only playing pieces and fragmentary boards are extant, so it is not known for sure how the game was played. If dice were in fact used, nothing has been recorded about how they were employed. Archaeological and literary sources indicate Hnefatafl may have been played on a 13×13 or an 11×11 board.[12]

Hnefatafl in Saga literature

Hnefatafl was mentioned in several of the medieval sagas, including Orkneyinga saga, Friðþjófs saga, Hervarar saga, and others. These three period treatments of Hnefatafl offer some important clues about the game, and while numerous other references to Hnefatafl or Tafl exist in saga literature, these are incidental.[1] In Orkeyinga saga, the notability of Hnefatafl is evident in the nine boasts of Jarl Rögnvald Kali Kolsson, who tops his list with skill at Tafl.[2] In Friðþjófs saga, a conversation over a game of Hnefatafl reveals that the king's men are red and the attackers white, and that the word hnefi does indeed refer to the kingpiece.[3] The most revealing – and yet most ambiguous – clues to Hnefatafl lie in a series of riddles posed by a character identified as Odinn in disguise (see Gestumblindi) in Hervarar saga. One riddle, as stated in Hauksbók, refers to "the weaponless maids who fight around their lord, the [brown/red] ever sheltering and the [fair/white] ever attacking him," although there is controversy over whether the word weaponless refers to the maids or, as in other versions, to the king himself, which may support the argument that a "weaponless king" cannot take part in captures (see #Balance of play).[4] One may also note that the assignment of the colors of brown or red to the defenders and fair or white to the attackers is consistent with Friðþjófs saga. Another of Gestumblindi's riddles asks "what is that beast all girded with iron, which kills the flocks? He has eight horns but no head, and runs as he pleases."[5] Here, it is the answer that is controversial, as the response has been variously translated as "It is the húnn in hnefatafl. He has the name of a bear and runs when he is thrown," or, "It is the húnn in hnefatafl. He has the name of a bear and escapes when he is attacked."[6] The first problem is in translating the word húnn, which may refer to a die (as suggested by the former translation), the "eight horns" referring to the eight corners of a six-sided die and "the flocks" that he kills referring to the stakes the players lose.[7] Alternatively, húnn may refer to the king, his "eight horns" referring to the eight defenders, which is more consistent with the latter translation, "He has the name of a bear and escapes when he is attacked."[8] Wilhelm meis (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy

I know of two modern games based on Tafl: Breakthru (board game), and Thud (game). Does anybody know any other modern Tafl variants? Wilhelm meis (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Wilhelm, thanks for the reminder. I will definitely pass this for good article, though a couple of things need tidying.

There seems to be repetition of the "nine boasts" in moving from the Saga section to the Variant section. The Other games section could actually go above the Variant section. The logic would be to deal quickly with the well-known games, excluding them from further consideration, so the reader knows the focus is now always on tafl itself and its variants.

I thought about moving some history and etymology lower down the article, because many readers like to get to the "action". Wiki reviewers are often negative about etymology and history -- I disagree with them. I think this article is exactly right. The logical way into a topic is to understand terminology and literary history first.

Your research is excellent. Your prose is very clear. All key criteria for GA are met in this article, I can write that up for you with pleasure. Just let me know if you agree about the repetition and how you deal with it. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, thank you for pointing out the repititon of the "nine boasts". On another look, I saw that I could simply remove that sentence from the subheading "Hnefatafl" without losing meaning. I could go either way on the order of the "Variants" and "Other games" headings. It is the way it is, simply because some games didn't quite belong and so they got kicked to the bottom of the page. I'm just not sure how to lead into the detailed treatment of specific games by listing "Unrelated games" without it seeming as if they don't belong in the article at all. I think they do belong in the article for various reasons, but mainly to distinguish them from the class of games that is our primary subject. I agree that the terminology is important in the intro. I relegated it to the 2nd paragraph so folks could get the cliff notes in the first paragraph. If you see any other adjustments, feel free to be bold. Thanks again for the help! Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the "other games" do belong in the article. As a non-expert, my natural question is, "what does tafl mean in the context of game-names that include it?" Clearly it's "table" and chess and backgammon do indeed have names that are variants, even though their history and rules do not belong to the Hnefatafl class. The "other games" fit with the article in the study of the name, not in the study of the rules. I think that argues for them being mentioned earlier rather than later.
Got to go out just now, but I'll look more closely at your changes and try to wrap up GA by tonight, Australian time. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps rather than presenting them in a list form, we should condense them into a single paragraph and position it as the third paragraph of the intro, so the reader goes into it with the benefit of the etymology discussion. Wilhelm meis (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A possible third paragraph:

Several games may be confused with tafl games, due to the inclusion of the word "tafl" in their names or other similarities. Halatafl is the Old Norse name for Fox and Geese, a game dating from at least the 14th century. It is still known and played in Europe. Kvatrutafl is the Old Norse name for Tables (the medieval forerunner of Backgammon). Skáktafl is the Old Norse name for Chess. Fidchell or Fithcheall (Modern Irish: Ficheall) was played in Ireland. The Welsh equivalent was Gwyddbwyll and the Breton equivalent Gwezboell; all terms mean "wood-sense".[9] This popular medieval game was played with equal forces on each side and thus was not a tafl variant, but rather may have been the medieval descendant of the Roman game Latrunculi or Ludus latrunculorum.[10]

Wilhelm meis (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I like that approach Wilhelm! It wraps up the linguistic side, and introduces the historical reconstruction of the game itself. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)