The History of Chess. H. J. R. Murray
won by the first player, (2) games won by the second player. Of these games and variations, which are nearly all played to a decisive issue, the first player wins 211, the second 102, while 11 are left doubtful. It would appear from this that the first player has a very decided advantage, but an examination of the games weakens this conclusion largely, for—like Greco—the author often allows a weak move on the part of the second player for the sake of a brilliant or interesting mate. One of the most striking points of the games in the Manual is their brevity; no game runs to 40 and very few to 30 moves; the majority terminate between the 13th and the 20th move. This is largely due to the openness of the position, arising from the absence of Pawns on four files, and the limitations attached to the nine-castle. The player always knows where his opponent’s King is to be found, and frames his attack on the centre from the first move. With a knowledge of the simpler mating positions stored in his memory, it is his endeavour to reproduce one of these in the game, and this idea dominates his play throughout. As most of these mating nets require a Cannon on the centre file, the opening move C h3–e3 has become the normal line of play. The science of Pawn-play does not exist, the battle is mainly one of the three superior pieces (R, C, and Kt). Compared with the European game, the Rook is far more powerful, the Knight less so.
I add a brief summary of the chief Openings from the Manual. The various names employed are due to Mr. Wilkinson. The distinctive moves in the different openings are printed in italics.
A. Regular Opening: Left Cannon Defence.
B. Regular Opening: Right Cannon Defence.
C. The Knight’s Defence.
D. Irregular Defences.
Attention has also been paid to the End-game. The resulting decisions are for the most part so obvious as to stand in need of no demonstration. There would seem to be nothing corresponding to the fine End-game play which is possible in European chess. The simpler endings are (1) K and R wins against K by mate; (2) K and 2 Kts win against K by mate; (3) K and Kt win against K; (4) K and P not on base line win against K, both by stalemate; (5) K and C against K, (6) K and Bs against K, (7) K and Qs against K, (8) K and P on base line against K are all drawn games. If more pieces are present the play is more complicated, and the Manual contains several positions from the 46 discussed in the Chinese work.
The following games are taken from the Manual:
I. Left Cannon Defence, Irregular. (Manual, pp. 15, 16.)
II. Left Cannon Defence, X. (Manual, pp. 26, 27.)
We have seen that the existing Chinese chessboard is different from that which was used under the T‘ang and Sung dynasties (618–1279). The present board would, however, appear to have been already in existence at that time, but to have been used for a distinct game called ta-ma, or ‘take horses’, i.e. ‘game-men’, which seems to have been a dice-game allied to the ‘game of goose’ Himly42 has given a full description of the modifications introduced in the board for this game, which chiefly consist in names for special points, more or less geographical in character, and in the marking of stations for the game on the lines connecting these points. The game was played with six men called ma or horses, and five dice, coloured black and white, which from the explanations of the throws have obviously taken the place of some simpler agent. The throws generally move the men forwards, but some throws move them backwards. The additional marked squares, eleven in number,. were separated by eight points, apparently distinct from the points of the chessboard, and were in the main obstacles to advance.
The nine-castle appeared on the ta-ma board, though it is not clear that it served any purpose in the game. It is therefore very improbable that the use for ta-ma was original; the board may very well be anterior both to ta-ma and to chess: if the name of ‘Milky Way’ for the River is original, the origin of the board may be found in Wu-Ti’s astronomical game of siang-k‘i. The board must have been very ill-adapted for ta-ma.
Game of the Three Kingdoms.
The Nine-castle takes its name from a board of nine points used for a game essentially identical with the three men’s merels, which has existed in China from at least the time of the Liang dynasty (A.D. 502–57). The Swei shu (first half of the 7th c.) gives the names of twenty books on this game.
There are also enlarged games of chess in China. One of these is the San-kwo-k‘i, or Game of the Three Kingdoms, which is described by v. Möllendorf. It is supposed to illustrate the war of the Three Kingdoms, Wei (blue), Shu (red), and Wu (green), A.D. 221–64. I give a diagram of the board; it will be noticed that the lines are not straight throughout, and that each kingdom faces the other two. The pieces consist of the usual 16 with, in addition, 2 new pieces [F] in each of the three armies. These are called: Red, Chuo (fire); Blue, Ch‘i (banner); Green, Feng (wind). Their move is an extended Kt‘s leap, viz. two steps vertically or horizontally and then one diagonally. The game is said to be very complicated and difficult, but is not considered as interesting as the ordinary chess. When one of the Generals, who are named Wei, Shu, and Wu after the names of the three kingdoms, is mated, the player who has mated him removes the King from the board and adds the remainder of his army to his own.
It is probable that some of the enlarged Japanese chess-games enumerated below were originally of Chinese invention. Y. Möllendorf cites the following names of pieces in a derived game from a Chinese romance:—Kin-siang tsiang-kiun (General of the golden elephant), kin-tsiang (gold-general), yu-tsiang (jewel-general), yin-tsiang (silver-general), kio-tsiang (horn-general), t‘ien-ma (celestial horse), pu-ping (foot-soldier).43
During the last hundred years a considerable trade has developed between China and Europe in elaborately carved ivory chess sets. These are something quite different from the inscribed counters which are the sole type of man used in the native game, and are obviously not intended for use in the native chess, since the set consists of King, Queen, two Priests or Mandarins, two Horsemen, two Castles, and eight Soldiers on each side. It is evident that these sets, which commonly represent Chinese on the one side and Mongols on the other, are only the result of an attempt to treat the European chessmen from a Chinese point of view. Interesting and charming as these ‘Chinese chess-pieces’ are as specimens of elaborate and dainty workmanship, they are of no value for the history of chess. They merely illustrate that popularity of chess in Europe which has created a market for curious and recherché implements of play.
II. COREA.
Corean chess, Tjyang Keui, on the whole approximates to the Chinese game and its nomenclature is identical, allowing for the slight variations in pronunciation which have arisen in the course of time. Nothing is known as to the period when the game was introduced into Corea, but the small variations in the existing game would not require any long time for their development. Nor is it known whether there have not been, as in China itself, earlier types that have been superseded by the present game, though the wide difference between Chinese and Japanese chess suggests that this is probable. The present game cannot have been the origin of the present Japanese chess. Our entire information as to Corean chess is due to Mr. W. H. Wilkinson, who contributed the section on chess in Culin’s Korean Games,44 and this section is the source of the present account.