The History of Chess. H. J. R. Murray
and Fīls which moved on different sets of squares (different coloured squares on a chequered board) were said to be discordant (Ar. khālif, mukhtalif, takhāluf, mukhālif, contrary, different), while those which moved on the same set of squares (squares of the same colour on a chequered board) were called concordant (Ar. talāqī, mutlaqī, mutalliq, that which meets, or less frequently muwāfiq, concordant). The existence of these terms is clear evidence for the uncoloured nature of the Muslim chessboard.
Most of the MSS. attempt a classification of chess-players in regard to their skill in play. The different classifications do not entirely agree, and the discussion would seem from the first to have been more academic than practical. Probably at no time did a position in any but the highest class carry any great weight in popular estimation. Apparently al-‘Adlī was the first to treat of the classes of chess-players, but we only know of his proposals from a brief reference which aṣ-Ṣūlī added at the end of his own chapter on the question.
Al-‘Adlī recognized five classes of players. The highest contained the ‘ālīyāt or grandees. The second class, the mutaqāribāt or proximes, received the odds of the Firzān from the ‘ālīya. The third class received the Rook—‘which is silly,’ comments aṣ-Ṣūlī. We know nothing of the remaining classes.
Aṣ-Ṣūlī also recognized five classes, and gives the name of ‘ālīya to the highest. There have never been more than three at any time or place in this class. He names Jābir, Rabrab, Abū’n-Na’ām al-‘Adlī and ar-Rāzī as having been of the first class. The later MS., BM, substitutes al-‘Arī for ar-Rāzī (a clerical error, I believe) and adds the names of two Baghdād players, b. Dandān, and al-‘Qunāf, who must accordingly have flourished between 950 and 1250. The later MSS. merely repeat aṣ-Ṣūlī’s information, and strangely enough none adds aṣ-Ṣūlī’s own name, or that of al-Lajlāj, both of whom were certainly of the highest skill. Aṣ-Ṣūlī goes on to say that Rabrab and ar-Rāzī were the greatest of these masters, that al-‘Adlī had for a while stood alone in the class until ar-Rāzī challenged him and proved his mastership, that ar-Rāzī also stood alone in the class for a time and died before another grandee appeared. The second class, the mutaqāribāt or proximes, contains players who win from two to four games in ten when playing with a grandee, and who receive odds from him, the best, QKtP or RP. the weakest, KP or QP. The grandee is credited with the ability to calculate ten (AH says twenty—an error, surely) moves ahead, the proxime sees far less. The test of a player’s class is his success with a player of known class when playing without odds. If he wins regularly seven or more games in ten, he belongs to a higher class; if fewer, not. The third class receive the odds of the Firzān from the ‘ālīya, the fourth class the Faras, the fifth class the Rook. If a player requires greater odds his skill is accounted nothing; as a player he is beneath contempt. Al-‘Adlī once said, ‘You do not give the odds of the Faras to a player who can plan shāh wa rukh or shāh-māt.’ Elsewhere in the preface of his book, aṣ-Ṣūlī specially instances skill in solving manṣūbāt (problems), knowledge of the Endings and End-game decisions, and knowledge of the ta‘bīyāt, and when to abandon or modify them in play, as distinguishing marks of the ‘ālīya.
The later MSS., H and Man., recognize six classes, introducing one between the third and fourth of aṣ-Ṣūlī’s list, who receive odds from the ‘ālīya greater than the Firzān but less than the Faras.
Closely connected with the classification of players is that of the proper gradation of odds (Ar. ḥaṭṭ). The only discussion of this occurs in RAS, and Forbes (99) abridges the passage thus:
Having now explained the moves of the pieces and their exchangeable value, I shall proceed, O Reader! to inform you of the different degrees of odds established by the masters of old. A true Chess-player ought to play with all sorts of people, and in order to do so, he must make himself acquainted with his adversary’s strength, in order to determine what odds he may give or accept. A man who is unacquainted with the rules for giving or receiving odds is not worthy of the name of Chess-player. It is only by equalizing the strength of the combatants that both of them may reap amusement and edification; for what interest could a first-rate player, such as ‘Adali (i.e. al-‘Adlī), or Ṣūlī, or ‘Alī Shaṭranjī, find in playing even with a man to whom they could each give the Knight or the Rook?
The smallest degree of odds, then, is to allow the adversary the first move. The second degree is to give him the Half-Pawn, which consists in taking either Knight’s Pawn off his own file and placing it on the Rook’s third square. The third species of odds is the giving the Rook’s Pawn; the fourth, that of the Knight; the fifth, that of the Bishop; the sixth, that of the Queen. The seventh degree of odds is to give the adversary the King’s Pawn, which is the best on the board. The eighth species of odds is the King’s Bishop. The ninth is the Queen’s Bishop. The tenth degree of odds is the Queen. The eleventh, the Queen and a Pawn; or what is equivalent, a Knight; for though the Queen and Pawn be slightly inferior to the Knight at the beginning, yet you must take into account the probability of the Pawn becoming a second Queen. The twelfth species of odds is the Knight and Pawn. The thirteenth, the Rook. To give any odds beyond the Rook can apply only to women, children, and tyros. For instance, a man to whom even a first-class player can afford to give the odds of a Rook and a Knight has no claim to be ranked among Chess-players. In fact, the two Rooks in Chess are like the two hands in the human body, and the two Knights are, as it were, the feet. Now, that man has very little to boast of on the score of manhood and valour who tells you that he has given a sound thrashing to another man who had only one hand and one foot.
There is an interesting passage in H, ff. 50 b–51 a, in the middle of an anthology of poems relating to chess, which shows that it was thought useful to discuss the proper line of play to adopt when giving odds. The passage is not very clear, but it deals with the opening play when the odds of the Rook are given in return for a Pawn, the odds of Faras for Pawn, of Faras, of Firzān, and of a Pawn. In the first case, when the Rook is given for a Pawn, two lines of play are given, but it is not stated which Rook and which Pawn are to be removed from the board. As is often the case in Arabic analysis, the play on one side only is given; it can be taken as suggesting the lines upon which the player should attempt to model his development. The two lines of play are as follows: I. (1) Pe3; (2) Kte2; (3) Pg3; (4) Pg4; (5) Ktf4; (6) Ktg2; (7) Pf3; (8) Pf4; (9) Qe2; (10) Qf3; (11) Ph3; (12) Pd3; (13) Pd4; if the opponent now moves P(c6)c5, do not take the Pawn, but play (14) Pc3; if he takes the d-Pawn, play (15) eP×P; (16) Bd3; (17) Pf5. If he takes this Pawn, then retake by g-Pawn. II. (1) Pc3; (2) Pc4; (3) Pd3; (4) Ktc3; (5) Pb3; (6) Pd4; (7) Qc2; (8) Pe3; (9) Kd2; (10) Pa3; (11) Pa4; (12) Ba3; (13) Bd3.
The same line of play is recommended when giving the Faras for a Pawn, but is not advisable in the case of the odds of the Faras alone. The play when giving the Firzān is discussed in a single sentence, too corrupt to be intelligible. When giving a Pawn, the following plan of development is given as best: (1) Pd3; (2) Pd4; (3) Pc3; (4) Pf3; (5) Kth3; (6) Ktf2; (7) Qc2; (8) Qd3; (9) Pg3; (10) Ph3; (11) Ph4.14 If, however, the opponent play first,
move the Pawns in a body, and do not let him outstrip them. Then bring your Kt to e2. If he moves against your d-P, do not take him until he takes. If you take first, it is to his advantage and spoils your game. If he takes, it is not advisable to take with c-P.
The discussion is interesting, as showing that chess analysis was carried on in Muslim circles to a greater extent than had generally been supposed was the case.
The later MSS., and especially Y,15 attach considerable importance to the etiquette of play. Thus when two players sit down to their game, the lower in rank is to spread out the board, and to shake the pieces from the bag in which they are kept. He is next to wait until his superior has made his choice of colour, and in arranging his men he is to take care not to place his King and Firzān until his opponent has placed his; he is then to place his King opposite to the other King. If the players are of equal rank, the first to seize the men chooses the positions of the Kings. The stronger player should offer fair odds. Ordinary rules of good manners should be observed; onlookers should keep silence and refrain from remarks on the state of the game or from advice to the players. An inferior should not wilfully play to lose.
It