The History of Chess. H. J. R. Murray
is given to the player whose King is stalemated, illogical as it is, reappeared in England from 1600 to about 1800. In India the rule has long been replaced by other conventions.14
The other relates to the ending which, following the usage of early English chess, I call Bare King. In early chess the player who was robbed of all his men lost the game. Occasionally it happened that at the close of a game both sides were reduced to the King and a single piece, while the player whose turn it was to move could take the enemy’s last piece, leaving his own piece en prise. Indian—and Medinese—players counted this a win to the first player on the ground that the opponent was first bared. Persian, and Arabic players generally, reckoned such an ending as drawn.
Chess must have received a great stimulus in India as a result both of the Muhammadan invasion and conquest of North-Western India, begun before 750 and completed by 1100, and of the settlement in South-West India of Persian (Parsi) refugees in search of an asylum where they could still practise their Zoroastrian religion. But while the Parsis appear to have adopted the native Indian method of play, the Muslim conquerors brought with them their own game, and have retained it ever since almost entirely free from Indian influence. It is probably due to this Muslim conquest that the references to the ordinary two-handed chess that I have been able to collect for the 11th to 18th centuries are drawn entirely from Central and Southern India.
It is a very remarkable fact that in these Southern works, chess, the two-handed game of pure combination, is no longer called chaturanga, but has received a new name. The exact form of this name varies from one authority to another, but in every case the word is a compound of the Skr. buddhi, intellect, and all the forms may be translated by the one English name, the Intellectual Game.15 But it is perhaps even more remarkable that the name chaturanga appears side by side with the new name of chess as the name of a dice-game. It has generally been assumed that this was a two-handed dice-chess, but this does not seem to have been the case. All the evidence goes to show that this dice-chaturanga was a game closely allied to the original ashṭāpada game, if not that game itself.
I imagine that the explanation of this strange transference of name is as follows. The invention of chess did not interfere with the popularity of the ashṭāpada game, and for a long time the games existed side by side, the race-game preserving its old name, and chess being known as chaturanga. Gradually the term ‘ashṭāpada’ passed out of use: we have already seen how commentators of the older literature found it necessary to explain ashṭāpada by chaturangaphalaka, chessboard. At the same time the original meaning of ‘chaturanga’ was forgotten and the word was known in colloquial language merely as the name of a game, the game played on the chaturangaphalaka. The time then came when—possibly only in Southern India, far from the original home of chess—‘chaturanga’ was used indifferently for both games played on the chessboard. With the necessity for discrimination between two games so different in character, the name ‘chaturanga’ became confined to the more popular game, which happened to be the race-game, and a new name had to be found for the less popular game, chess. A name was chosen which admirably described the distinctive feature of chess, its freedom from the sway of chance, and its presentation of a struggle between two minds for the mastery. To-day chess is practically unknown to the natives of Ceylon, but the race-game on the board of 9 × 9 squares is known in Ceylon and Southern India as Saturankam or Chaturanga.16
This Southern Indian use of chaturanga as the name of a race-game provides a satisfactory explanation of certain statements by commentators which have hitherto puzzled chess-writers. Thus Govardhana (12th c.) in his Saptasatī mentions a poor woman who lives and dies, tormented by the fire of separation, and revives again at a kind look from the eye of the villain (lit. player, but the word had obtained the derived sense of villain from the unfair play that the gambler so often employed) like a sāri. The commentator Ananta (1702 without era, therefore either 1646 or 1780) adds, ‘i.e. like a chaturanga-man (chaturaṅgagūṭikā, lit. chess-horse), which, as often as it dies, i.e. is placed out of the game, is always again restored by the fall of the dice.’ Similarly, the undated commentator to Dhanapāla’s Rishabhapaṅchāsikā (c. 970 A.D.) explains the obscure passage—‘The living beings become like sāri on the board (phalaka) of life, although torn from the senses (i.e. set in motion by the dice) if they espy you (the point of the board) not sharing in imprisonment, murder and death’—as referring to chaturanga. For Dr. Klapp’s consequent mistake, see ZDMG., xxxiii. 465, and Qst., 5. The chaturanga of both these scholiasts is, I feel certain, the race-game, not chess.17
The same game is obviously intended in the passage quoted by Weber18 from a MS. of 1475 Samvat (= 1419 A.D.) of the Siṅhāsanaxatriṅṣika, in which a gambler discourses at length to King Vikramāditya on the different games that he knows and their special excellencies, among them being chaturaṃga.
Chess and this race-game chaturanga appear in sharp contrast in the Pañchadandachattraprabandha, a Jaina version of the tales of King Vikramāditya,19 which contains many Persian words and is not older than the 15th c. In the story the King is set the task of defeating the daughter of a wise woman thrice at play. The King offers her the choice of games, and like Yvorin’s daughter in Huon of Bordeaux, she prefers not to risk her reputation upon the chances of the dice.
The king said: ‘What game will you play?’ She answered, ‘What are the other games worth, rāmdhika, nāla, chashi, lahalyā, chaturaṃga-ṣāri, paṣika, &c.? We will play the intellectual game (buddhidyuta).’ ‘As you wish’, said the king. The king ordered a board (phalaka) to be brought; the game was arranged on both sides: Prince (nṛipa), Counsellor (mantri), Elephants (hasty), Horse (aṣva), Infantry (padāty), and Forerunner (agresara). They began step by step to play the moves (?), The king decided naturally upon an involved game, and he began to play with the help of his invisible āgnika.20
The list of the pieces leaves no doubt as to the identity of buddhidyuta with chess. All the original members of the chaturanga are here except the Chariot, whose place is taken by the Forerunner (agresara). Weber (op. cit.) and Gildemeister (Schaakwerld, 1875, 330) see in the use of this term one of the Persicisms so frequent in the work, and recall the occasional use of the Per. mubariz, champion, as an epithet of the Rook in the Shāhnāma. But there is no evidence that the Persians ever gave the piece any name except Rukh, and this explanation has nothing to recommend it. I think we must regard it as entirely Indian. There has always been a greater variety in the names of the pieces in Indian chess than in the game elsewhere.
We have a very important section on chess at the end of the fifth book (the Nitimayūkha) of Bhaṭṭa Nīlakaṇṭ·ha’s great encyclopaedia of ritual, law, and politics, the Bhagavantabhāskara. This work was written about 1600 or 1700 at the command of Bhagavantadeva, son of Jayasinha. The fifth book treats of monarchs, their anointing and consecrating, the whole course of the royal method of life, and the instruments by which the king governs. One of these is the army (bala), and in this connexion Nīlakaṇṭ·ha permits himself a digression in which he speaks of the game which depends not on mere material force but on mental powers.21
1. After the discussion of the foregoing subject, viz. the deportment of kings, which is most important for princes, Nīlakaṇṭ·ha, the son of Ṣaṃkara, describes the intellectual game (krīḍā buddhibalāṣritā).
2. We draw eastwards 9 lines and also northwards 9 similar lines upon a piece of cloth, or on a board or on the ground. Thus we obtain the board of 64 squares (catuḥshashṭipadā).
3. We mark the corner squares with geese-feet, also the two middle squares in the same lines, also in the centre we mark 4 squares, and we arrange the warring forces of the two armies on the board.
4. On the two centre squares of the last 8 squares stand the King (rājā) and Counsellor (mantrī), by them the Camels (ushṭra), then the two Horses (vāha), then the two Elephants (dantī). In the next row are placed the 8 Pawns (patti). The host on the other side is arranged similarly, and both are ready for battle.
5. The King moves straight and aslant to 8 squares; the Counsellor aslant only; the Camel (karabha) moves similarly but it passes over a square in the middle like a chain; the Horse (vājī) passes over a square