This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized
`by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the
`information in books and make it universally accessible.
`
`https://books.google.com
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 1
`
`

`

`LaiW}nNeyAN“Aim.SSNralad
`
`S\S<n| \AXaoBis|eeea
`
`Ti§
`
`|ol
`
`````
`
`（)
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Cº. ººlº
`
`ºn
`
`Cºlº
`
`on
`
`in
`
`ºn
`
`ºn liºn
`
`ºf
`
`ºil
`
`in
`
`as
`
`in ºil
`
`- R Mº Cº. ººlº
`
`ºn
`
`tº
`
`de
`
`lº
`
`lºs
`
`º
`
`is
`
`NDA
`
`ºn
`
`ºne tº
`
`Siº ºr
`
`in a
`
`ºs º
`
`ºc.
`
`|
`
`Lº Gº tºº ºld sº
`
`State tº
`
`ºn tº ºr sº ºn
`
`is
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 3
`
`

`

`38 Guin, 14 hav
`
`• Gyan. 4//m
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 5
`
`

`

`N.
`
`Cººl
`
`- ||
`
`||
`
`and
`
`ºn
`
`ºne ºn Sºlº
`
`nº
`
`ºn
`
`tº
`
`-
`
`ºne is
`
`<366 23:596,4800 10
`
`<366 23:596,4800 10
`
`Bayer. Staatsbibliothek
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 6
`
`

`

`//15
`
`
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 7
`
`

`

`THE HISTORY OF CHESS.
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 10
`
`

`

`CHATURANGA.
`
`The Primaval Hindú Chess,
`
`With the Pieces arranged on the Board as they stand at the
`
`commencement of the Game.
`
`º
`
`|
`
`lº
`
`& I Wºlſ
`
`* | * | f | #
`
`# #| #| ||
`
`flºh Hº
`
`“egº
`
`Wide Chapter III, page 18.
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 11
`
`

`

`THE
`
`ISTORY OF CHESS,
`
`FROM THE TIME OF THE
`
`EARLY INVENTION OF THE GAME IN INDIA,
`
`TILL THE PERIOD OF
`
`ITS ESTABLISHMENT IN WESTERN AND CENTRAL
`
`EUROPE.
`
`BY
`
`D UN CAN FOR BES, LL.D.,
`
`PROFESSOR OF ORIENTAL LANGUAGES IN KING's college, LoNDoN.
`
`L ON DO N :
`
`WM. H. ALLEN & Co., 7, LEADENHALL STREET.
`
`1860.
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 12
`
`

`

`LEwis AND son, PRINTERs, 21, FINCH LANE, CORNHILL.
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 13
`
`

`

`TO
`
`SIR FREDERIC MADDEN, K.H., F.R.S.,
`
`KEEPER OF THE MSS. IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM,
`
`AND TO
`
`HOWARD STAUNTON, Esq.,
`
`OF STREATHAM, SURREY.
`
`GENTLEMEN,
`
`There are two excellent reasons why I should have
`
`dedicated to you the following chapters on Chess.
`
`In
`
`the first place, you have, each of you, done the Good
`
`Cause, “some yeoman service,” and, if I well recollect,
`
`you have promised to do something more. Secondly, you
`
`are, in a remote degree, the authors, or, at all events,
`
`the prompters of this work of mine ; barring, of course,
`
`its faults and shortcomings, which are all my own.
`
`You will recollect, that, some six years ago, I drew
`
`up, at your suggestion, a few Essays on the Eastern
`
`origin of the Royal Game, which, from time to time, ap
`
`peared in the columns of the “Illustrated London
`
`News.”
`
`Those hasty sketches were then favourably re
`
`ceived, by the lovers of Chess literature, both in this
`
`country and abroad. They were subsequently repro
`
`duced in our own “Chess Player's Chronicle;” and
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 14
`
`

`

`iv
`
`-
`
`PREFACE.
`
`were even deemed not unworthy of being translated into
`
`the manly and energetic language of our kinsfolk of
`
`Germany.
`
`Within the last two years, I have, at leisure times,
`
`carefully revised my original sketches; and, to use the
`
`words of Dr. Johnson, I have endeavoured “to make them
`
`better,” in three ways, “by putting out, by adding, and
`
`by correcting.” The adding process, (whether an improve
`
`ment or not, I must leave you to judge), is certainly the
`
`most conspicuous; for the octavo tome now before
`
`you is at least seven times the size of the original
`
`brochure.
`
`I am quite sensible, however, that the work
`
`has still many faults, both of omission and commission;
`
`and all I can say is, that I believe the design to be good.
`
`I think I have proved that the GAME or CHEss was in
`
`vented in India, and nowhere else, in very remote times;
`
`and from that source I have endeavoured to trace its dif
`
`fusion throughout the various regions of the Old World.
`
`In my account of the “Modern Oriental Chess”
`
`(chapters XVI. & XVII), you will perceive that there
`
`still remain some blanks to be filled up.
`
`For obvious
`
`reasons, I have been unable to procure any reliable de
`
`scription of the game as now played in the Japanese
`
`Empire, which, for more than two centuries, has been
`
`closed against all good Christians.
`
`I may say the same
`
`respecting the vast regions inhabited by the Tartars and
`
`Mongols, extending from the Caspian Sea to the Great
`
`Chinese Wall; also of the countries situated between
`
`India and China (with the exception of Burmha), which,
`
`though not absolutely forbidden ground, are rarely
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 15
`
`

`

`PREFACE.
`
`W
`
`visited by Europeans, and these visitors not necessarily
`
`Chess-players.
`
`Such deficiencies, however, may be
`
`supplied in the course of time, especially those regarding
`
`the Japanese Game, now that we have established a
`
`friendly intercourse with the government and people
`
`of that interesting country.
`
`It remains for me briefly to notice my mode of spelling
`
`Oriental words and phrases in the following work.
`
`I
`
`have adopted the admirable system propounded nearly
`
`eighty years ago, by the eminent Sir William Jones,
`
`viz. –“ pronounce the vowels as in German or Italian,
`
`and the consonants, as in English.”
`
`Thus the three
`
`vowels, a, i, and u, if unaccented, have the same sounds
`
`as in the English words “fat,” “fit,” and (oo in)
`
`“foot ” respectively. The same, accented, are sounded
`
`long, as in “far,” “police,” and “rule.”
`
`The vowel e,
`
`is always sounded as ea in “bear;”
`
`and o as oa in
`
`“boat.” The consonants require very little notice. The
`
`combinations kh and gh are the only sounds that differ
`
`from our own ; Kh is the German “ch * in “buch,”
`
`and gh is the German g in the word “sagen.” The
`
`Oriental scholar will at once perceive the object of dis
`
`tinguishing some letters, such as k, s, t, &c. by a dot
`
`underneath, but this does not in any perceptible degree
`
`affect their sound. A few words have become so in
`
`veterately established in our language, by evil custom,
`
`that it would be sheer pedantry to disturb them; such
`
`for instance are “Caliph,” and “Caliphate,” instead of
`
`Khalifa, and Khilāfat.
`
`By rigidly following Sir William Jones's system in
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 16
`
`

`

`vi
`
`PREFACE.
`
`Oriental words and phrases, I have been enabled alto
`
`gether to discard Asiatic characters from my work.
`
`To the Oriental scholar, such characters would be su
`
`perfluous—to the non-Oriental, useless.
`
`Besides, I am
`
`not the least ambitious of obtaining for myself that sort
`
`of vulgar reputation for profound learning which consists
`
`in merely exhibiting one's knowledge of a multitude of
`
`uncouth alphabets.
`
`GENTLEMEN, I commenced, as you may observe, with
`
`al)EDICATION; but I find that I am imperceptibly drift
`
`ing into a PREFACE, which last, they say, nobody ever
`
`reads.
`
`I will, therefore, at once conclude, wishing you
`
`long life and prosperity; and hoping that you will bring
`
`down to the present day, from the points at which I have
`
`stopped short, the History of the “most excellent game
`
`that the wit of man has yet devised.”
`
`I am, Gentlemen,
`
`Yours sincerely,
`
`ID. FORBES.
`
`58, Burton Crescent,
`
`AUGUST, 1860.
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 17
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS.
`
`CHAPTER, I.
`
`PAGE
`
`INTRODUCTION.—Three periods of Chess—The Primaeval—The Mediaeval,
`
`and the Modern
`
`CHAPTER II.
`
`CHATURANGA, or the Primaeval Hindú Chess—Ancient Writings of the
`
`Hindús
`
`-
`
`e
`
`º
`
`e
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`e
`
`CHATURANGA CONTINUED–Translation of the Sanskrit Text—Moves
`
`and Powers of the Pieces—Technical Terms of the Game, Illus
`
`CHAPTER III.
`
`tration of the position, called Vrihanmaukā
`
`CHAPTER IV.
`
`CHATURANGA contLNUED–Theory and Practice of the Game—Cases of
`
`Uncertainty
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`e
`
`-
`
`11
`
`18
`
`26
`
`CHATURANGA concLUDED–Gradual Change into the Shatranj, or Me
`
`diaeval Game—The two Games contrasted
`
`•
`
`-
`
`e
`
`34
`
`CHAPTER. W.
`
`CHAPTER WI.
`
`SHATRANJ, or MEDIAEVAL CHESS—Introduction of the Game from India
`
`into Persia, in the Reign of, Naushirawān—Firdausi's Shāhnāma—
`
`Arrangement of the Pieces on the Board—Their Moves and Powers
`
`46
`
`CHAPTER WII.
`
`SHATRANJ contLNUED—On the Invention of Chess in India—according
`
`to the Historians of Persia and Arabia
`
`CHAPTER VIII.
`
`SHATRANJ continued—Account of Oriental ManuscriptWorks on Chess
`
`in the British Museum, and in the Library of the Royal Asiatic So
`
`ciety, &c.—Oriental Problems by the Caliph Mu'tasim Billāh and
`
`'Ali Shatranji
`
`-
`
`e
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`59
`
`74
`
`CHAPTER IX.
`
`SHATRANJ contLNUED—Theory and Practice of the Shatranj, or Me
`
`diaeval Chess—Relative Value of the Pieces—On the Giving of Odds—
`
`Of the Five Classes of Chess Players—Oriental Problems by 'Adali and
`
`Dilārām
`
`.
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`89
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 18
`
`

`

`viii
`
`CONTENTS.
`
`CHAPTER X.
`
`PAGE
`
`SHATRANJ concLUDED–On the Openings or Battle Array—End Games
`
`or Positions Won by Force—End Games Drawn by Force—Diagram
`
`of Battle Array—Six Problems illustrative of End Games Won or
`
`Drawn, per force
`
`e
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`... 106
`
`CHAPTER XI.
`
`Enlargement of the Indian or Primaeval Chess Board—Various Altera
`
`tions in its Form, and in the Manner of Playing the Game—Timür's
`
`Great Chess Board—Hyder Ali's Chess Board
`
`-
`
`-
`
`. 135
`
`CHAPTER XII.
`
`Introduction of Chess from Persia into Arabia—Art of Blindfold Play—
`
`Chess at the Courts of the Ummiya, and ‘Abbāside Caliphs—Progress
`
`of the Game towards the West
`
`.
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`. 164
`
`CHAPTER XIII.
`
`On the Introduction of Chess into the Lower Empire by the Persians
`
`. 184
`
`On the Introduction of Chess into Western Europe by the Arabs .
`
`. 199
`
`CHAPTER XIV.
`
`CHAPTER XV.
`
`Early References to the Game of Chess in Europe—Chess in France and
`
`Germany—Chess in Scandinavia—Chess in England—Chess in Italy—
`
`Chess in Russia .
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`. 216
`
`Modern Oriental Chess—Chess in Abyssinia—Chess in Syria and Arabia
`
`.
`
`-
`
`. 238
`
`CHAPTER, XVI.
`
`—Chess in Egypt—Chess in Persia—Chess in Hindústān
`
`CHAPTER XVII.
`
`Chess to the Eastward of Hindústān-Chess in Burmha-Chess in Su
`
`matra–Chess in Java–Chess in Malacca—Chess in Borneo—Chess
`
`in China
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`. 258
`
`CHAPTER XVIII.
`
`Essay on the Chaturanga, by Sir William Jones—On the Burmha Game
`
`of Chess, &c., by Captain Hiram Cox–Conclusion
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`. 284
`
`APPENDIX.
`
`A. Review of Mr. N. Bland’s “Essay on Persian Chess,” by D. Forbes .
`
`i
`
`B. On Greek and Roman Chess, by Herbert Coleridge, Esq.
`
`-
`
`.
`
`xvii
`
`C. Description of Dr. Lee's two Arabic MSS. on Chess, by Mr. Bland. xxxiv.
`
`D. “Chess among the Irish,” with comments, &c., by D. Forbes
`
`.
`
`xl
`
`E. “Chess among the Welsh,” by D. P. F., Esq., with Remarks, by
`
`Duncan Forbes
`
`•
`
`e
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`...
`
`xlvii
`
`F. “Chess among the Araucanians,” by James Mill, Esq., with Notes
`
`and Remarks, by Duncan Forbes
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`e
`
`-
`
`-
`
`Explanation of the Three Folding Plates at the end of the Volume
`
`...
`
`.
`
`liv
`
`lx
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 19
`
`

`

`CHAPTER X.
`
`SHATRANJ CONCLUDED.
`
`On the Openings or Battle Array—End Games or Positions
`
`won by force—End Games drawn by force.
`
`IN order fully to appreciate the system of tactics adopted
`
`in opening the game of Shatranj, the reader must bear in
`
`mind, once more, that the Pawns could never advance
`
`more than one step on the first move." From this restric
`
`tion on the part of the Pawns, together with the very
`
`limited range of the Queen and Bishops, it will be easily
`
`perceived that no formidable collision of the forces could
`
`have taken place till at least from ten to fifteen moves
`
`had been made on either side.
`
`Hence, in order to save
`
`time, and to prevent useless exchanges, it was agreed
`
`that the first player should make his (let us say) twelve
`
`moves all at once, without, however, crossing the middle
`
`line of the board; after which the adversary was entitled
`
`to play up in succession an equal number of counter
`
`moves, such as he might deem most conducive to
`
`ultimate victory, being also restricted to his own half of
`
`the board.
`
`* This was uniformly the rule in the Chaturanga, and with a slight excep
`
`tion, peculiar to India, it still prevails all over Asia at the present day. So
`
`far as I can discover, it was the rule in the Shatranj, when the players from the
`
`commencement made alternate moves, as we do; but, as stated in p. 91, when
`
`the players agreed to take up a strategic position, then a Pawn might, in so
`
`noing, move one or two squares at pleasure.
`
`This of course had nothing to
`
`do with our “vexata questio” of one Pawn taking another “en passant,” for
`
`in the Medieval game, neither party crossed the frontier line.
`
`It is possible
`
`however that from this Oriental custom, of the “Ta'biyat,” arose the present
`
`privilege of our Pawn's moving one or two squares, on the first move.
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 20
`
`

`

`HISTORY OF CHESS.
`
`107
`
`These preliminary
`
`manoeuvres
`
`the Arabs called
`
`“Ta'biyat,” which signifies “the drawing up of troops
`
`in battle array.”
`
`This term corresponds in some degree
`
`with our word “opening,” with this serious difference,
`
`that in the “Ta'biyat’’ all the pieces and Pawns remain
`
`on the board, each on their own side, up to the tenth or
`
`fifteenth move, more or less, which I believe seldom or
`
`never happens in our game, except possibly in a few dull
`
`and cautious openings, such as what we call the “French
`
`Game,” or “King's Pawn One Game,” which leads to
`
`a system of tactics somewhat resembling that of the
`
`Shatranj or mediaeval game.
`
`In the old Arabic MS., in the British Museum (No.
`
`7,515), we find no fewer than eleven diagrams of
`
`“battle-array,” mostly named after the old masters who
`
`established them; or from some peculiarity in their own
`
`nature, just as we speak of the “Evans Gambit,” the
`
`“Scottish Gambit,” “Bishop's Opening,” &c.
`
`There is
`
`nothing said about the order in which the moves had
`
`been played up. Nor is this of any consequence; all we
`
`have to consider is the strategic position taken up by the
`
`first player, that of the opponent being supposed to
`
`exhibit the very best defensive position.
`
`It would be
`
`quite out of place here to give diagrams of all the
`
`“Ta'biyats,” nor would a mere dry rehearsal of their
`
`names prove of any interest to the generality of readers.
`
`I shall, therefore, confine myself to an examination of one
`
`very neat opening from the Asiatic Society’s MS., folio
`
`2B, which will amply suffice to explain this part of our
`
`subject. The following diagram shows the position of
`
`the respective armies drawn up in battle array, after ten
`
`moves have been played upon either side.
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 21
`
`

`

`108
`
`HISTORY OF CHESS,
`
`TA’BIYAT.
`
`Position of the Pieces in the Shatranj after ten Moves.
`
`BLACK.
`
`a
`
`#
`
`…”
`
`º, ºn
`
`2777
`
`ºv
`
`WHITE.
`
`Here White had the move, and, from the use he has
`
`made of it, we may clearly infer that he had in view one
`
`great and leading principle which is equally applicable to
`
`our own game. This consists “in cautiously pushing on
`
`the Pawns, so as to make room for the co-operation of
`
`the pieces, taking great care, however, not to compromise
`
`the safety of the two central Pawns.” We see that each
`
`of the Bishop's Pawns has moved two squares, so as
`
`to allow the two Knights to occupy a very attacking
`
`position.
`
`By-and-by, when the two centre Pawns can
`
`with safety be advanced, the places where they now stand
`
`will be occupied by the two Bishops, which is the best
`
`position for the latter.
`
`Observe also that in two moves
`
`more the W. Rooks may be doubled, one at Q. Kt., and the
`
`other at Q. Kt. second.
`
`Lastly, the King and Queen will
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 22
`
`

`

`HISTORY OF CHESS.
`
`109
`
`move up in the rear of the centre; for in this game the
`
`King took an active share in the combat, and scorned to
`
`shut himself up in a corner as with us.
`
`The position assumed by the Black is evidently defen
`
`sive. The Knights are less advanced, and the Queen
`
`has moved to her B.’s second square.
`
`It looks as if
`
`Black expected an attack on the Queen's side, which the
`
`menacing situation of the White Rooks seems to warrant.
`
`Still, from the peculiar nature of the openings in the
`
`Shatranj, it is evident that no rapid or brilliant attack
`
`could possibly take place as in our Gambits.
`
`In the
`
`Oriental game the armies were advanced into close
`
`quarters before the engagement commenced, and thence
`
`forth the final victory really depended upon a series of
`
`skilful manoeuvres, such as might tend to lead the enemy
`
`into an unfavourable position.
`
`In fact, the Oriental
`
`game, though less brilliant than ours, appears to me to
`
`have been calculated to form better players in the true
`
`sense of the term—that is, players who excelled in carry
`
`ing the contest through the middle stage of the game—
`
`a rare secret, which neither books nor preceptors can
`
`teach.
`
`From the very nature of the openings in the mediaeval
`
`game, it is evident that what we call “Castling the
`
`King,” was entirely out of the question.
`
`In fact, I have
`
`never met with any allusion to this step throughout the
`
`whole of the Oriental works on the subject of Chess that
`
`have fallen under my notice.
`
`Neither have I seen or
`
`heard of another privilege of which the King sometimes
`
`availed himself in the earlier stages of the modern
`
`European Chess—viz., a Knight's move, which he was
`
`allowed to make once in the course of a single game.
`
`Finally, in a series of Essays on Chess, which appeared
`
`in the “New Monthly Magazine,” for 1822, it is as
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 23
`
`

`

`110
`
`HISTORY OF CHESS.
`
`serted that, “five or six centuries ago, the King among
`
`us was not allowed to move except when he received a
`
`check; ” and what is still more singular, if true, we are
`
`there told that “about the commencement of the thir
`
`teenth century, the Rey had the move of our present
`
`King, with the restriction that he could neither move nor
`
`take angularly, but always directly”!
`
`Now, in the
`
`Oriental game, I can safely say that the King was never
`
`placed under any such restriction, which would, in fact,
`
`amount to a violation of one of the main principles of
`
`Chess.
`
`I think it much more probable, then, that the
`
`able author or authors of the “Essays” alluded to, have
`
`drawn inferences from the early writers whom they con
`
`sulted, such as the latter never intended to convey.
`
`In
`
`this opinion I am the more confirmed on examining the
`
`various passages which they have adduced in proof of
`
`their assertions, passages which, in every instance, tell
`
`strongly against them.
`
`Let us examine a little more in
`
`detail, what they have brought forward on these points.
`
`The first quotation by the authors of the “Essays” is
`
`from a Latin MS. in the King's library, where the
`
`monkish rhymer, speaking of the King's moves, says,
`
`“Ante retroque ferit hostes et sternere quaerit.”
`
`Now,
`
`this assuredly does not look much like passiveness or
`
`confinement on the part of the King. The meaning is
`
`clearly that, “the King smiteth his foes in all direc
`
`tions, and seeketh how he may destroy them.” Then
`
`there is a quotation from the “Moralitas Innocentii
`
`Papae”—viz., “In isto ludo Rex vadit circum quoque
`
`directe et capit undique semper directe,” &c."
`
`This
`
`* The meaning of “circum quoque directe,” is clearly “in every direction—
`
`all around;” and, “capit undique semper directè,” signifies that “the King
`
`may take straight, or directly, or unhesitatingly, whatever he can safely lay hold
`
`of in any of the eight circumjacent squares. The authors, it would appear, have
`
`confounded the two terms direct2 and recte, which are by no means synonymous.
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 24
`
`

`

`HISTORY OF CHESS.
`
`111
`
`means that “the King moves about everywhere, uncon
`
`ditionally, and captures the foe in a downright manner.”
`
`The meaning of the adverb directe is not merely in a
`
`straight line, like the Rook, but in a straightforward
`
`unceremonious manner, neither
`
`crookedly,
`
`like the
`
`Knight, nor “per insidias,” like the Bishop.
`
`Again, we are told, that, “a Latin poem on this game
`
`among the MSS. in the Bodleian Library, confirms the
`
`belief of the passive power of the Rey, unless driven
`
`from his square by an adverse check.”
`
`“Contra ipsum [Regem] non audebit nisi Scachum dicere.”
`
`Now if this be a specimen of their mode of confirmation,
`
`it really confers little strength on the argument.
`
`This
`
`line is merely part of the sentence, and must be taken in
`
`connection with what has gone before, viz.:
`
`“Habet [Rex] mamque potestatem cunctos interimere,
`
`Contra ipsum non audebit nisi Scachum dicere.”
`
`This clearly signifies that—“the King has the power to
`
`slay or capture any or all [the rest of the pieces]; but
`
`none shall dare [to slay or capture him], but simply to
`
`say, check /*
`
`-
`
`The next quotation by the authors of the “Essays” in
`
`support of their position is strangely enough the most
`
`complete refutation they could possibly have hit upon.
`
`It is from a “Hebrew Oration on Chess, by Abben
`
`Jachiae of blessed memory,” (v. Hyde, part 2nd, p. 11),
`
`viz., “Rex quidem incedendo a domo in domum in
`
`dominio suo, unicam legem habet, uttam obliquè quam
`
`recte” in cursu suo faciat omnia quae lubet.”
`
`“The
`
`King in marching from house to house on the board, is
`
`guided by only one simple law or rule of conduct, that is,
`
`to do all things that please him;’ (the good old-fashioned
`
`* Hence arose the popular maxim that, “the King can do no wrong;” a
`
`maxim highly approved of by the Bombas and Pio Nonos, and generally acted
`
`upon by them in the literal sense.
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 25
`
`

`

`112
`
`HISTORY OF CHESS,
`
`Tory notion of the kingly office), and that too, both in a
`
`direct line, like the Rook, or diagonally like the Queen.”
`
`Then the author adds—“At non debet exaltari cor ejus
`
`ad dilatandum gressus suos in bello me fortè in bello
`
`moriatur.” “He ought not to display his valour so far
`
`as to rush forward into the mêlée, lest he should get
`
`knocked on the head.”
`
`Now this last is merely a
`
`sensible common-place piece of advice well known and
`
`acted upon by every good Chess-player since the days of
`
`Buzurjmihr. We are told, indeed, that Charles the
`
`Twelfth of Sweden despised such timid counsels as the
`
`foregoing, both on the mimic war arena of the Chess
`
`board, and on the real battle field.
`
`Is there one of our
`
`readers who does not know the consequence?
`
`The next authority adduced is that of a Hebrew scribe
`
`of the 16th century whose name is unknown."
`
`His
`
`Tractate on Chess, entitled “Delicia Regis,” will be
`
`found in Hyde, pp. 39 to 71.
`
`This is the least feli
`
`citous of all the references to which the authors of the
`
`“Essays” have had recourse.
`
`They call it “An Ancient
`
`Hebrew Treatise on the Game !” Now we can very
`
`easily prove that it is far from being ancient.
`
`In the
`
`first place, the author tells us that he composed the work
`
`purposely for the benefit of two dissipated young friends
`
`that were strongly addicted to card-playing; and we
`
`know that card-playing, at least as a popular amusement,
`
`is not many centuries old.
`
`Secondly, the Israelite
`
`describes not the Mediaeval but the Modern game, as given
`
`1 In a work entitled “Literatur des Schachspiels,” by Anton Schmid, 8vo.,
`
`Wien, 1847, the authorship of this treatise is attributed, I know not on what
`
`authority, to “Jedahaiah Hapenini Ben Abraham Badrasi,” said to have been
`
`born at Barcelona, about A.D. 1250.
`
`This is clearly an error, of very easy
`
`refutation.
`
`In fact Herr Schmid himself, under the article “Deliciae Regis,”
`
`has the words “seu de Shahihidio historia prosaica Anonymi.” In his next
`
`edition Mr. Schmid may safely say that the author is not only “Anonymous,”
`
`but quite modern.
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 26
`
`

`

`HISTORY OF CHESS.
`
`113
`
`by Ruy Lopez.
`
`Lastly, and what is of particular im
`
`portance, he allows the King the privilege of Castling,"
`
`and he further tells us that the Pawns may, at pleasure,
`
`move one or two squares” at starting ! Now, had the
`
`authors of the “Essays” carefully perused this work,
`
`they would have found the strongest reasons for con
`
`cluding that so far from being an “Ancient Treatise,”
`
`the author could not have composed it till about the
`
`middle of the sixteenth century.
`
`I may here add, that
`
`the writer of the “Delicia,” whoever he was, bears a
`
`strange resemblance in style, sentiments, absurdity, and
`
`egotism, to the effusions of the anonymous author of the
`
`Asiatic Society’s MS. already described.
`
`These pecu
`
`liarities will be further noticed when we come to treat of
`
`Timürs “Great Chess.”
`
`Finally, in the third volume of the Chess Player's
`
`Chronicle (p. 127), we have a problem from the Museum
`
`MS. 7,515, which is intended as a decisive proof that up
`
`to about the thirteenth century, the King was permitted to
`
`move only when checked, and then his range of action, either
`
`to escape or capture an enemy, was confined to one square
`
`in a right line—he could neither move nor take angularly!/?
`
`As this problem still further exhibits to us the peculiari
`
`ties of the Mediaeval game we shall here insert it, and
`
`see how far it bears out the idea of this imaginary
`
`law of Chess, among our ancestors.
`
`By the term “Castling” I mean the modern mode of castling, which is not
`
`older than the first half of the sixteenth century. The words are “Si visus
`
`sit locus aliquis inter ipsum (Regem sc.) et Ruchum suum, vel Ruchum
`
`Reginae; poterit concedere ad domum unius eorum ;
`
`et Ruch stabit juxta
`
`ipsum ad instar muri ahenei munitissimi.”
`
`* “Cum initio proficiscuntur, Pedes incedit primo, quorum pes est pes
`
`rectus: per domum post domum recta tendunt; mec revertuntur cum incedunt;
`
`quamvis in principio sit illis privilegium eundi per duas domos.”
`
`Hyde, p. 65.
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 27
`
`

`

`114
`
`HISTORY OF CHESS.
`
`PROBLEM v. *
`
`^z.
`
`Ż * * %
`
`2.
`
`2
`
`%22%2%
`
`WHITE.
`
`White to play and mate in four moves."
`
`SOLUTION.
`
`1. R. to Q. Kt. 8th (check)
`
`1. K. to his Q. R. Q.1
`
`2. R. to Q. R. 8th (check)
`
`2. K. takes R.
`
`3. Q. to her Kt. 7th (check)
`
`3. K. to his Q. R. Q.
`
`4. B. to his own 5th square (Mate)
`
`* Black B. may take R. vaulting over W. K., in which case mate is given
`
`in three moves.
`
`It is needless, I trust, any more to remind the reader of the
`
`peculiar moves of the Queen and Bishop, which are here well exemplified.
`
`Now let us see how far the above problem bears out
`
`the assertion of the authors of the “Essays” respecting
`
`the regal restrictions aforesaid.
`
`Their line of argument
`
`appears to me to savour strongly of the non sequitur;
`
`* A neater version of the problem will be found in the Persian MS., No. 16,856,
`
`fol. 42B, which being further modified so as to suit the modern board, appeared
`
`in the Chess Player's Chronicle for last January.
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 28
`
`

`

`HISTORY OF CHESS.
`
`115
`
`which we may express thus—“Here we see that the
`
`King moves when he is checked; therefore the King must
`
`not move unless he is checked l’”
`
`Again, “the King
`
`here moves in a straight line,” (because, O courteous
`
`reader, he cannot move otherwise), “therefore the King
`
`is not allowed to move angularly /*
`
`I have only to add,
`
`that I have examined some three hundred Oriental
`
`problems, scattered over the various manuscripts to
`
`which I have alluded in Chapter 8, and nowhere have 1
`
`met with the least hint of what the authors have asserted.
`
`In numerous positions, and several openings, I have
`
`found the King close behind his men, and not un
`
`frequently in the very midst of them. He moves if he is
`
`checked, as a matter of course, and his move is straight
`
`or angular according to whichever is most advantageous.
`
`The only restriction is, and ever has been, in both the
`
`Mediaeval and modern game—not to move into check.
`
`On End Games, won by Force.
`
`In the Shatranj the game was won in three different
`
`ways.
`
`The first and most common was by a checkmate,
`
`as with us.
`
`Secondly, when one player had succeeded
`
`in capturing all his opponent's forces, provided he had
`
`any of his own remaining, however small, he was declared
`
`the winner of the game."
`
`Lastly, a player won, when he
`
`succeeded, under certain restrictions, in giving his adver
`
`sary stalemate.
`
`It will not be difficult to assign good
`
`reasons why the winner should have been allowed so
`
`* This second kind of victory is still acknowledged in Persia, as appears by a
`
`letter written from Paris to the Editor of the Chess Player's Chronicle, Wol. VI.,
`
`p.287. The writer says, “I have played several games here with some young
`
`Persians sent to Europe by the Shāh for their education. They told me that
`
`with them, if at the end of a game either King is left alone against the adverse
`
`King with any force, however small, the King who has lost his forces must
`
`immediately surrender; the game being considered lost.”
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 29
`
`

`

`116
`
`HISTORY OF CHESS.
`
`much latitude in the Oriental game.
`
`With us, for
`
`example, the circumstance of a King and Pawn against a
`
`King, is, under certain conditions, a sure victory; but
`
`not so in the Shatranj (that is, if victory depended on a
`
`checkmate), for suppose the Pawn had become a Queen,
`
`the latter possessed not the mating power.
`
`Also, with
`
`us a Knight and Bishop, or two Bishops, against a King,
`
`can mate; but not so in the Oriental game, where, as we
`
`have shown, the Bishops were of very little value. From
`
`these considerations, and many more that might have
`
`been alleged, it is evident, that in the Shatranj if the
`
`victory depended solely on giving checkmate, a won
`
`game among good players would have been a rarity;
`
`and it could have occurred chiefly between a first-rate
`
`player and one decidedly his inferior.
`
`Let us now examine the nature of a victory gained by
`
`stalemate, which of necessity happened more rarely than
`
`one would at first sight imagine. Of course stalemate
`
`could not be given, as with us, to a King that had lost
`
`all his pieces and Pawns; for, as we have just seen, he,
`
`by that very circumstance, was deemed vanquished, and
`
`so that game was at an end.
`
`In order to express our
`
`selves more distinctly, let us speak of White as the win
`
`ning party, and Black as the King about to be stalemated.
`
`Well, then, when Black got stalemated, it being under
`
`stood all along that he had still some of his forces
`
`remaining, but unable to move, the player of Black was
`
`allowed to make his King change places with any piece
`
`or pawn out of such forces, provided, of course, that he
`
`did not in so doing go into check.
`
`The piece or pawn
`
`that changed place with the Black King was called
`
`“fida,”
`
`“victim,” or “sacrifice;” because from the
`
`nature of things, there was every probability of his being
`
`captured in a very short time.
`
`If Black King could not
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 30
`
`

`

`HISTORY OF CHESS.
`
`117
`
`change places with any of his forces without going into
`
`check, he was deemed vanquished.
`
`Finally, when White
`
`happened to give stalemate on capturing the last of
`
`Black's pieces, he of course won the game."
`
`The Arabs, and after them the Persians, call the End
`
`game “Mansilba,” which corresponds exactly with our
`
`words “position” and “situation,” being a “determinate”
`
`Chess problem, the solution of which is reduced to a
`
`certainty.
`
`It would appear that their best players
`
`prided themselves on their readiness of seizing on such
`
`positions as led to victory in a certain number of moves.
`
`Hence the epithet “mansūba-dān,” “a man cunning in
`
`positions,” or “a cunning chess-player,” came figuratively
`
`to signify a “prudent” or “far-sighted man.”
`
`So the
`
`term “mansūba-bä2,” literally “a position player,” de
`
`noted “a first-rate Chess-player,” and figuratively “a
`
`man of resource.”
`
`Such appears to have been
`
`'Ali
`
`Shatranji, of whom it was said that no mortal could
`
`either divine his coming move or perceive its purport
`
`when made.
`
`Hyde, from his utter ignorance of Chess,
`
`confounds the Mansiiba with the Ta'biyat ; although the
`
`former is simply the conclusion of a game, as the latter is
`
`the opening.
`
`Yea, even in the latest edition of Richard
`
`son's Persian and Arabic Dictionary we find the meaning
`
`attached to Mansiiba to be simply “the Game of
`
`Chess || ?”
`
`The following problem is interesting inasmuch as it
`
`completely disproves the assertion of the authors of the
`
`* An instance of this kind of victory will be found in our tenth problem
`
`further on. At the 8th move on the part of Black in that end-game he
`
`captures the White Knight with Rook, giving what we should call stalemate, and
`
`consequently making it according to our rules, a drawn game.
`
`In the
`
`mediaeval game, however, the mere capture of the White Knight won the game,
`
`and the consequent stalemate is of no account,
`
`-
`
`*
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 31
`
`

`

`118
`
`HISTORY OF CHESS.
`
`“Essays,” respecting the restrictions under which the
`
`King was supposed to move in the mediaeval game.
`
`We here find that the Black King,