The History of Chess. H. J. R. Murray
They play chess, four persons at a time, with a pair of dice. Their arrangement of the figures on the chessboard is the following:
As this kind of chess is not known to us, I shall explain what I know of it. The four persons playing together sit so as to form a square round a chessboard, and throw the two dice in rotation. Of the numbers of the dice the 5 and 6 are not required. Accordingly, if the dice show 5 or 6, the player takes 1 instead of 5, and 4 instead of 6, because the figures of these two numerals are drawn in the following manner—
so as to exhibit a certain likeness of form to the 4 and the 1 in the Indian cyphers.
The name of King applies here to the Firzān (Minister).
Each number of the dice causes a move of one of the figures. The One moves either the Pawn or the King. Their moves are the same as in the common chess. The King may be taken, but is not required to leave his place.
The Two moves the Rook. It moves to the third square in the diagonal direction, as the Elephant moves in our chess.
The Three moves the Horse. Its move is the generally known one to the third square in the oblique direction.
The Four moves the Elephant. It moves in a straight line, as the Rook does in our chess, unless it be prevented from moving on. If this be the case, as sometimes happens, one of the dice removes the obstacle, and enables it to move on. Its smallest move is one square, its greatest 15 squares, because the dice sometimes show two fours, or two sixes, or a four and a six. In consequence of one of those numbers, the Elephant moves along the whole side on the margin of the chessboard: in consequence of the other number it moves along the other side on the margin of the chessboard, in case there be no impediment in the way. In consequence of these two numbers the Elephant in the course of his move occupies the two ends of the diagonal.
Four-handed chess. After al-Bērūnī.
The pieces have certain values, according to which the player gets his share of the stakes; for the pieces are taken and pass into the hands of the player. The value of the King is 5, that of the Elephant 4, of the Horse 3, of the Rook 2, and of the Pawn 1. He who takes a King gets 5, for two Kings he gets 10, for three Kings 15, if the winner is no longer in possession of his own King. But if he has still his own King, and takes all three Kings, he gets 54—a number which represents a progression based on general consent, and not on an algebraic principle.
In the main this is a description of the four-handed dice-chess to which I devote the next chapter. Falkener (139–42) thought that al-Bērūnī only refers to this game, and that he never saw the two-handed game in India. But Falkener treats al-Bērūnī in a very cavalier manner, going so far as to declare that he can have been no chess-player. On the other hand Sachau, Gildemeister, v.d. Linde, and v.d. Lasa all agree in thinking that al-Bērūnī did see both games in India, and the last two writers think that it is possible to infer from his describing the four-handed game in terms of the ordinary chess, that he regarded the former game as a modification of the latter. This seems to be going too far: al-Bērūnī, writing for Arabic readers, would naturally explain the Indian game by comparing it with the Muslim game that his readers knew. But I think it is quite clear that al-Bērūnī did see the two-handed game in India, firstly from the fact that he gives two descriptions of the Elephant’s move; secondly from the curious clause that the name of the King applies also to the Firzān. Four-handed chess is still played in India, and it is usual to use the ordinary set of chessman for the purpose. The two allies share out the men of one colour, and one uses the ‘Queen’ as a King. I believe that the clause refers to this custom, and that it accordingly presumes the existence of ordinary chessmen and consequently a knowledge of the two-handed game.
1. Indian Four-handed chess.
2. Indian (al-‘Adlī).
3. Indian (al-Bērūnī).
The Elephant’s Move in early Indian chess.13
The fivefold move of the Elephant has been felt to be a difficulty. Falkener suggested that al-Bērūnī must have obtained it from Japanese chess! But there was no necessity to go so far afield. The move exists in the Burmese and Siamese games, and Rudraṭa’s tour raises the presumption that it existed in the Punjab or at least in Kashmīr before al-Bērūnī’s visit. Moreover, the al-‘Adlī account shows that the move of the Elephant was not fixed in India. We have records of no less than three moves of this piece having been tried in India, and with the discovery of this uncertainty the difficulty that has been felt ought to disappear.
These three moves are exhibited in the diagrams on this page. The first, a diagonal leap, became the widest spread, and it is probable that it is the oldest move. It is the only one which passed westwards, and it exists in Chinese chess also. It became again at a later date the ordinary Indian move. Al-Bērūnī records it as existing in the four-handed game, though in connexion with the Rook. The appearance of the other two moves may have been due to a feeling that the original move was not in harmony with the value of the elephants in war. In actual life they were highly esteemed as one of the most potent divisions of the army; on the chessboard it must have soon become evident that the Elephant was the weakest of the major pieces. The obvious remedy for this want of verisimilitude was to increase the power of move of the chess-piece. Al-‘Adlī records one such attempt. The power is evidently increased, twice as many squares are now accessible to each Elephant, and one or other of the four Elephants on the board can now reach each of the 64 squares; the power is now estimated to be equal to that of the Firzān (counsellor). The attempt which al-Bērūnī records appears to be a later one, and it has proved more enduring. It has the advantage of fitting in with the peculiarly Indian idea that the elephant is a five-limbed animal, which has resulted commonly in the description of the trunk as a hand. The move also gives the piece a higher value which has been estimated as rather more than that of a Knight. This move appears to have been in the main associated with Buddhist centres, and its disappearance from India may be connected with the overthrow of Buddhism there.
Al-‘Adlī’s statement that in India the Elephants occupied the corner squares is the earliest reference to the uncertainty in the position of this piece, to which I have already referred. From a comparison of the existing information the following points become clear.
(1) In the four-handed game the piece with the Rook’s move stood next the King, and the piece with the Elephant’s move stood in the corner. The piece next the King retained the name of Elephant.
(2) Two authorities (al-‘Adlī and the late Vaidyanātha, see later) transfer this arrangement of the moves to the ordinary chess, so that the piece with the Rook’s move stood next the King, and the piece with the Elephant’s move stood in the corner. In these cases the names were also interchanged, and the Elephant stood on a1, &c.
(3) By the 17th c. generally the piece with the Rook’s move had been definitely fixed on the corner squares, but changes were introduced in the nomenclature. To-day three main divisions may be made. The original nomenclature, Chariot a1, Horse b1, Elephant c1, is the usual nomenclature in Northern India and in the Maldive Islands. The inverted nomenclature, Elephant a1, Horse b1, Chariot e1, is the rule in the extreme South of India among the Tamils, Telugus, and Kannadis. A new nomenclature, Elephant a1, Horse b1, Camel c1, is widely spread. It has been noted as far North as Delhi, and is the rule over the greater part of Central India and the Deccan.
From al-‘Adlī we learn that the Indian rules varied in two particulars from those of Baghdad. One of these variations relates to Stalemate, a situation without parallel in war, which is a consequence of the limited area of the board,