Talk:Chaturanga

message: This page should be disambiguified somehow. The word "Chaturanga" has nothing to do with chess or a strategy game, except that a stragegy game is named it. The word itself, at the article's own admission, means "having four limbs (or parts)", and is a term that is also used in Yoga. I'm not qualified to disambiguify this, otherwise I would... I just came across it when I was editing the Loonette the Clown article and it mentioned that she does a chaturanga stretch in each episode. CrackerjackWannabe 20:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word means, among other things, a tetralogy, i.e. a novel or movie composed of four distinct parts. It also means a crossing of four roads, a piece of money worth a quarter, etc. etc. 46.215.54.217 (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: The word "Chaturanga"

message: Was it ancestor of Shatranj or was Shatranj an ancestor of Chaturanga???
im confused, the articles say diffrent things :|
:Chaturanga was the ancestor of Shatranj. 
The elephant went from moving one square diagonally or one forward to leaping exactly two sqares on the diagonal. This move lasted until mad queen chess developed in Italy. Also check was introduced with Shatranj. In Chaturanga you would capture the king. Jake 23:32, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Hi! to Everybody. I like chess very much. My father was very good chess player. In my childhood he used to say there are two ways in playing chess (one Internation method and another Indian method). As far as i know about the names and moves of the pieces in Chaturanga(Chess), i try to present some information before you.I am from Andhra Pradesh, so i put even Telugu Names along with Original Sanskrit ones for more information. (I am not here to argue that Chess originated in India like that, just to present what I know, thats all.)
*Rāja(Raju)     --> King           
*Mantri(Mantri) --> Queen 
*Ratha(Śakatam) --> Bishop  
*Aśva(Gurram)   --> Knight    
*Gaja(Enugu)    --> Rook
*Sainika(Bantu) -->pawn 
So, Their movements are desined accordingly in the Chaturanga (Indian Chess) also.
*Rāja -->One Step to a Square in any Direction (Vertical/Horizontal or Diagonal)
*Mantri-->Any number of Steps to a Square in any Direction (Vertical/Horizontal or Diagonal)
*Ratha-->Any number of Steps in Diagonal Direction.
*Aśva-->Normal "L" Shaped Jumping Step.
*Gaja-->Any number of Steps in Vertical/Horizontal Direction.
(Here when I mention about Step, I actually mean one Move.)
It really Stuns us the way the position and movements of pieces (Anga) were there, as they correctly suits to the reality of Indian warfare situations. 
*Actually Rāja(King) is the most powerful, but often won't come into action unless required. The Knight-move of a King(Rāja) resembles the escape of a King for safer location in most-crutial time (Āpaddharma kāla) in a warfare.
*Mantri(Queen) is the next Most Powerful person in an Indian Empire/Kingdom. Though King only passes the decrees, Actually it the Prime minister who actually decides all kinds of acts and stratagies that are required for the welfare of King/Kingdom. (In Sanskrit, Mantri means Prime Minister.)
*Ratha/Śakata(Bishop) is known For their famous Zig-Zag movements while attacking. Often the opponent doesn't takes into consideration the presence of Chariots which inturn give stunning, often devastating blows in an Indian Warfare. (Actually Śakata is also an Sanskrit word meaning Chariot.)
*Aśva(Knight)is known for its irregular jumping movements which often keeps the opponent in a dilemma for a movement. Interstingly, even in the game it is the Aśva(Knight) that has highest number of moves than any other piece. (In Sanskrit, Aśva means Horse.)
*Gaja(Rook) is known for Straight forward devastating attacks. Often opponent knows its advance but cannot escape. In olden days Gaja(Rook) played an very important role in scattering the army of an enemy, thereby making them to deviate from their stratagical movements. (In Sanskrit, Gaja means Elephant.)
The above four constitute the premier forces of a king in Indian warfares. Interestingly, even the game is also named as Chaturanga, which means four limbs (of a King). Since (Sainika) Pawns are infantry, they are also called as Padāti(in Sanskrit) and Kālbantu(in Telugu).)
Anybody wants any clarifications regarding sanskrit (or any indian) terms,please contact me.
-Krishna Chaitanya 7.09PM 10,October,2006 IST(UTC)
:: Modern Indian Chess, which is basically international Chess without castling and without pawn double steps, has not much to do with Chaturanga, at least not more than any other local variants of Chess. Indians derived that from British colonizers not from the truly ancient game of Chaturanga. --176.146.177.22 (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian Chess (Chaturanga)

message: Article largely replaced by a link to an external site by an anonymous editor with no history. Nothing in wikipedia policy to justify this change (that I can see) and nett loss to wikipedia by the edit. Reverted. If this was a good faith edit please justify here before repeating.--Shoka 20:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reverting this! This is already second time when this article was partly damaged and link to http://www.chaturanga.net added. Previous IP of probably the same user was   86.144.176.182. I think the reason is that software sold on chaturanga.net favors Cox-Forbes theory of origin of chess and what they call Chaturanga is more commonly called Chaturaji (4-player version of Chaturanga). Andreas Kaufmann 22:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted major edit

message: Alex Kraaijeveld wrote two papers on the phylogeny of chess, using population genetic methods to find the evolutionary relationships between different chess/chaturanga variants. It would seem to fit well as a reference for this article.
Variant Chess (1999; 32: 56-58).
Board Games Studies (2000; 3: 39-50).
See his web page. - Samsara contrib talk 03:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. This has already been mentioned in origin of chess. - Samsara contrib talk 11:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kraaijeveld paper: phylogeny of chess

message: Is the board at the lead showing chess or Chaturanga? If it is chess, it shouldn't be there, it's very misleading! Mandel 17:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly intended to be chaturanga, because the board is not chequered and chess has the king and queen the other way around. Using modern chess symbols for chaturanga is somewhat misleading, but commonly done. --Zundark 20:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not clear at all, because a chequered board and inverse king/queen position will be noticed by a prudent chess player, but certainly not by someone who does not play chess. I'm not sure using modern chess symbols are as common as you claim.  For example chaturanga has elephants, this chart inexplicably uses bishops instead, and has queens for counsellors. Look at http://www.chessvariants.org/historic.dir/chaturanga.html, the explanation is infinitely clearer. Mandel 15:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of bishop symbols for elephants is explicable by the fact that bishops are derived from elephants. Similarly for queen symbols. But if you want to use different symbols, then go ahead. --Zundark 15:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a table of pieces at the start of the article (and changed the caption on the first board) to clarify that this is not chess. --Ant 00:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading

message: The information in this page is largely outdated and has no consideration for the work of historians. At least, everyone recognizes the huge work done by HJR Murray withhis History of Chess (HoC) in ... 1913. Not really yesterday. Murray cleared out several facts which should be know better appreciated now. Such is the given passage from Mahābhārata. I invite to read HoC p36 (OK it is written in very small character...) where Murray explained that what is also given on this Wikipedia page is only the free translation of a modern author. The sanskrit term is the general term of Phalaka, Murray says "there is no term that necessitates chess". 
Since Murray's time, historians have progressed. Subandhu's Vasavadatta is no more considered talking about Chess, even by those supporting the idea of an Indian origin. The word translated as chessmen, nayadyutair,  is not specific to the Chess and can indicate the pieces of any boardgames.  The colors are not those of the two camps, but mean that the frogs have a two-tone dress, yellow and green.  Lastly, some translate "black field squares" by "black edges of the irrigated fields";  and in any case, the chess-boards used by the Indians were unicoloured, the black squares being an European invention with the Middle Ages.
Finally, Bana's Harshacharita is controversed. The text says: "Under this monarch, only the bees quarreled to collect the dew;  the only feet cut off were those of measurements, and only from Ashtâpada one could learn how to draw up a Chaturanga, there were no cutting off the four limbs of condemned criminals...". All the text plays with puns. If there is little doubt that Ashtâpada is the gaming-board of 8x8 squares, the double meaning of Chaturanga, as the four folded army, is controversed. There is a probability that the ancestor of Chess was mentioned there. However, some disagree and see in this text an allusion to the giant Purusha, often represented with his limbs folded on a square 8x8 or 9x9 diagram. The vedic mythology says the Gods caught him with a net, and with his sacrifice, the World was created. The point remains open.
I regret that Wikipedia contributes to spread such an obsolete view, I hope some correction will happen.
For further reading, my own web site:
http://history.chess.free.fr/history.htm
I open to any remark. best regards
Cazaux 20:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you correct it? That's how this site works. — Gwalla | Talk 21:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: This article contains some quite loose remarks on ethymology of chess terminology.
See my previous article Chaturanga or Dice Chess: the rules and pieces ( now withdrawn for revision) and Shatranj for my sources.
Bishop: Alfil (Arabian) is elephant. The similarity between these words is easily heard. In Russia, the Bishop is still called an elephant. The english word Bishop is probably inspired by the form of the alfil: a rounded shape with soldiers on top of it. As Europeans didn't know the elephant, they took the rounded form for a head and the warriors for the points of a bishop's mitre.
Somewhat more difficult is the connection between Alfil and the German word Laeufer. However, the phrase "ein Laeufer" sounds loosely like Alfil, so there may be a connection. The dutch word Loper is of course derived from the German Laeufer.
The words Rook and Rochade derive straightly from the Sanskrit word Roca, which means boat. As India has many rivers and a long coast line, fast sail boats and row boats were excellent attack weapons. In deserts however, ships were not much use, so the Arabians converted them into chariots or siege towers (wooden constructions, built on the battlefield during the siege of enemy cities). German and Dutch words Turm and Toren just translate as tower.
The english term checkmate is derived more or less directly from the German word Schachmatt. It is amazing to find how little this word differs from the Farsi (Persian language) Shah Mat, meaning King Dead. The Shah sound then probably goes back to the first syllabe of Chaturaji or Chaturanga, although this has a totally different meaning. The Shatranj article states that chatu refers to the different chess men; in my opinion however, it is much more logical to link it to the four players of Chaturaji.
Bertus van Heusden 19:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chess ethymology 

message: Though the name of the game "Chaturanga" is Sanskrit, the piece names appear to be in Tamil. It is more likely the the pieces' names were in Sanskrit, as found in one of the previous edits. (A previous editor changed the Sanskrit names to Tamil names, which I think is most probably a prank.) Can someone look into this ? --kris (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piece Names 

message: HJR Murray writes that Chaturanga is predessor of chess. No reference or reasoning is provided. He most likely took that from hat. Moreover Xianggi like 8+8 boards have been found graves millenia older than the age of chaturange is assumed to be.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.184.83.230 (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predessor? 

message: I was about to say the same thing.  Can some one please change the names from Tamil to Sanskrit  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamevay (talk • contribs) 13:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ditto

message: This article currently cites a c. 450 AD text for "an early reference to an ancient Indian board-game."  A far earlier reference to the eight-row ashtāpada (Sanskrit; Pali: ) board can be found in several places in the Pali Canon's Dīgha Nikāya (which is traditionally believed to have been stated by the Buddha in the 5th c. BC and, I believe most would agree, written down in Sri Lanka c. 1st BC [e.g., see Tipitaka#Origins]).  
For example, here's Thanissaro Bhikkhu's English translation of the Dīgha Nikāya's second discourse ("DN 2"): 
:"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to heedless and idle games such as these — eight-row chess, ten-row chess, chess in the air, hopscotch, spillikins, dice, stick games ..." (DN 2, retrieved from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html )
The actual Pali is: 
:"" (DN 2, retrieved from http://www.tipitaka.org/romn/cscd/s0101m.mul1.xml )
Note that Ven. Thanissaro's word, "chess," does not actually have a Pali equivalent — it appears to be an inference he made from the reference to , etc.  That is, the early Pali text clearly references the board in question; as to what was played on the board, I don't see anything explicitly stated in the Pali text (though my knowledge of Pali is limited).  (Overlapping [though, in regards to this content, seemingly unreferenced] information can be found at the website used for in-line attribution in this current WP article: http://history.chess.free.fr/ashtapada.htm .  As an aside, this latter web site refers to a "spiral race game" -- which might be a better match for the Pali "" -- which Thanissaro translates as "hopscotch," possibly influenced by the PTS PED entry).
Just thought someone might find this worthwhile for incorporation in this article.  Mettāya, 24.136.253.60 (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "An early reference to an ancient Indian board-game ..." 

message: The article says that the elephant piece is the precursor/equivalent of both bishop and rook, in different places, and gives two different names for it, without explanation. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Im pretty sure that the elephant is the precursor of the bishop, but I'd rather for someone more familiar with Charturanga to fix it.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made the change according to a reference I have.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is self-contradictory 

message: Been playing Chess since I was 9 (almost 40 years) and variants for 10. I recently became enchanted with Chaturanga. Of the four elements cited, Infantry, Chariots, Cavalry (horses) and Elephants, The Elephants are the one element not familiar to the modern chess player. Based on the two square Diagonal leap move, each Elephant can reach 8 Unique squares on the board, no two elephants, friendly or of opposing armys, will ever occupy the same square. As such the elephants lend to each player the ability to exert 1 extra force count on certain squares, an element not present in modern chess. When  vying for control of a particular square or to win an exchange, or even playing to establish a support point for a knight or rook deep in the enemy position, (perhaps created  by an elephant well placed in a hole in the opponents pawn formation) this lends  a distinct tactical advantage to a player on certain squares and a disadvantage on others. 
With that in mind, it is obvious that understanding the elephants and the "terrain" formed by their movement patterns on the board would have been (and is) key to being a strong Chaturanga player, and, a careful examination of the Elephants moves on the board will reveal the meaning of the "mysterious" markings.The elephants collectively can land on only 32 of the boards 64 squares. The marked squares comprise half of the squares that the elephants do not land on. The other 16 are found in the 4 2x2 squares diagonal to the  2x2 square formed by the four marked squares in the center.  The markings are a visual aid for seeing the battlefield as it relates to this important element of the game.John Erastothenes (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Markings 

message: Currently, this article is missing a vital section: pawn promotion! According to Murray, there are many conflicting descriptions in the historical record. In some descriptions, the pawn can only promote to a ferz, in others, it must promote to the major piece originally on that file, and possibly only to replace a captured piece of that type. If the board is patterned like an ashtapada (corners and original KQ-squares marked specially), then promotion on the marked squares might differ. It would be good if a chess history scholar could summarize the most common promotion rules for this ancient game. --IanOsgood (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pawn promotion? 

message: Why is the title italicized?  That seems wrong.  (But I don't know how to fix it.)  Bruce leverett (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor at some point changed to italic chaturanga, xiangqi, janggi, makruk, shatranj, sittuyin, etc., on the rationale they are foreign terms or words. (I'm not sure the correctness of that either. Shall I research that editing point to identify better who/when/why?) --IHTS (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Mm, yes, italicization of foreign words.  I don't like this when the foreign word is an article title, but MOS:FOREIGNITALIC doesn't mention that case.  That style guideline does say that proper names should not be italicized, but how much of a stretch is it to say that we are using the names of games as proper names?  (I never see "Sudoku" italicized.)  Also if you type "Xiangqi" into the "Search Wikipedia" box you get a half-dozen articles, and needless to say, they aren't being treated consistently (only one of them is italicized).  Need to think about this some more (I'm looking for an excuse not to italicize).  Bruce leverett (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: These don't need to be italicized.  The article title italics were from .  Quale (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I am slogging through this new section, as it was pointed out to me in a discussion of another article.
There are only two footnotes in the whole section, both of which are web archive links to the same site.  This site is a history of chess, not of chaturanga.  The footnotes don't give the title, the editor's name, the date, the access date, or any of the usual amenities one expects with a Wiki reference.  There are no page numbers or links to sections or subsections; one has to search for anything about chaturanga.  For example, where does it say that the earliest reference is from the sixth century, and is from northwest India?  I have not found that.
How reliable are the articles that make up this website?  Do they meet any of the usual criteria for Wikipedia reliable sources?  I ask because some of them look more like speculation than like encyclopedia material.  Are any other sources available?  Are there no published books about the history of games that mention the history of chaturanga?
Does chaturanga go back to the age of chariots, or doesn't it?  As a casual reader, I don't expect to research this question; I was kind of hoping that you would know the answer.  If you don't know the answer, why bring up the question?  Nothing I read in this section enables me to get beyond the first sentence, "The origin ... has been a puzzle ..."  One doesn't need a whole section to say that it is a puzzle; one sentence is sufficient.  Bruce leverett (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: I'm reading Stewart Culin's book "Chess and Playing Cards" and the description of Chaturanga is too different. The chess board showed looks more like an Arab chess (Shatranj) than a chaturanga. --Coffeedrinker115 (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have sources been checked? 

message: The initial set is not chaturanga, it's shatranj. All reliable sources agree that chaturanga rules remain unknown, but agree that the initial set were four armies. This is one of the few English articles that are worst than in any other language. I read that User:The_Witty_Warrior was looking for sources. You can check the Spanish or the French version, they have pictures of the table in the initial set. There're many books about History of Chess, just not confuse shatranj or chatrang with Chaturanga, they're different games. And most of the books about the History of Chess that I've read agree that the game was played with dices.--JPaulo07 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is really confusing shatranj with chaturanga 

message: Thanks to User:Chaturaji for drawing our attention to  this.  One can search for "catur" on the Web and find various chess-related things, including a commercial game called "American Catur", but I have not found something that clearly connects it with chaturanga.  Does anyone know where I should be looking?  Bruce leverett (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Czatur is a Proto-Indo-European word, meaning "four". You can find it back in both Romance (quattuor, quatre...) and Slavic (cztery, четыре, keturi...) languages. 46.215.54.217 (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catur 

message: "The board sometimes had special markings, the meaning of which are unknown today."
Aren't these markings used as the "castle" points in ashtapada? It would be similar to pachisi in that way, because even though pieces are moved differently the safe spots are located in similar places in the board.... 190.145.163.176 (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Markings