Talk:History of chess

message: The introduction appears to state that 70% of the population in India plays chess but this doesn't seem correct since the source mentions that it's "70% among the 121m Indians considered ABC1 by advertisers".   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.244.168.161 (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  70% figure India 

message: Is there any place in this article for the apocryphal origin of chess as an explanation of the battle between Talhand and Gav over the kingdom of Hind referenced in the Shahnameh?  It's a nice story and is referenced in the opening of the Broadway musical "Chess".  It could be under a heading like "legendary origins".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.165 (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say yes, that's a good idea.  With some sources, a "Legendary origins" section would be a nice addition to the article.  Quale (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, well, I saw that there was already a section in the Iranian section about the Shahnameh, so rather than create a new section I just added the bit about Talhand and Gav there.Knag (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talhand and Gav 

message: Given that Havelock is currently heavily editing, I will try not to touch the text until his work is done. I would like to point out however, that the current text contains the following:
Chaturanga was a battle simulation game played by four people; two players aligned against the remaining two.
The reference given for this statement is Wilkins 2002. Now as far as I know, the theory that chaturanga evolved from a four to a two player game was already discredited by Murray in 1913. Looking on the internet, I suggest reading this text by Cazaux for a good treatment of the subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HermanHiddema (talk • contribs) 12:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's a good link.  I think we should include a brief discussion of 2-player vs. 4-player chaturanga in this article. Quale 19:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaturanga/Chaturaji 

message: For letting me edit the article uninterrupted and for waiting to discuss the nitty gritty until I'm done composing a rough draft (which is what this version basically is). I will be composing a "To-do" list after this rough draft is done (which should not really take very long now) and I hope the other editors add everything that's stopping this article's transition to a higher quality scale to it.
Havelock the Dane Talk 06:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This rough draft should be ready as soon as the modern times are covered. I should be able to finish that in not too much time.Havelock the Dane Talk 11:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody mind if I move the article to History of Chess ? Origins of chess is a much limited subject and is relatively distant to the spread and development of the game when compared to "History of Chess."Havelock the Dane Talk 11:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea, go ahead HermanHiddema 09:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks ! The new image looks good BTW.Havelock the Dane Talk 09:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Changes during the modern times are now covered. Will compose a To-Do list later since the article is just a well sourced rough draft at best. Havelock the Dane Talk 17:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank You

message: Should not Tafl be mentioned in this article as a predessesor? AWT (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tafl was a predecessor only in a very limited sense: it was the predominant board game in northern and northwestern Europe before chess displaced it.  Medieval chess was already fully formed when it came into contact with tafl.  As far as I can see tafl contributed nothing to the evolution of chess.  It is of course an interesting subject in itself. J S Ayer (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's two separate games... Luredreier (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Tafl is a predessesor

message: A new section was recently added to this article, in which one Noshir Jesung retold the story of the origin of chess as narrated by Ferdowsi so that the war between the princes Gau and Talhend results in the invention of MODERN chess, with the far-ranging bishop (camel) and queen (minister).  This is an engaging piece of literature, but in a serious discussion of history is simply preposterous; those pieces were invented in Europe and grafted into chess in the last quarter of the fifteenth century.  The passage also uses curved quotation marks and apostrophes, contrary to Wikipedia practice.  It also says that "shah" is an Indian word for "king", although from what little I know of Indo-Iranian languages it is Persian, not Indic.  For these reasons I have regretfully deleted the entire tale. J S Ayer (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noshir Jesung's Contribution 

message: I think the external links added July 15 go to very weak pages; what does anyone else think? J S Ayer (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Links 

message: ". That is a conflict here isn't it? So I took what was put in the original chess article and applied it here. Everyone ok with that then ya? ARYAN818 (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is "originated in India" in conflict with "attributed to the Indians"? These statements mean roughly the same. The first is worded somewhat stronger, so given the discussion over this, the second one is preferable as being more neutral. HermanHiddema (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you not understand what I said? In the Chess article it says Chess origininted from INdia if you go down to the history section. Do you understand that? Yet here it says that it has "been attributed to the Indians both by the Persians and by the Arabs". Which one is it? Is the main Chess article right that it originated in India? Or is this article right that says the latter?.......and by the way......another reason this is a conflcit because in the chess article it says it originiated in India. Here it says it has been attributed TO THE INDIANS BY THE PERSIANS AND ARABS, (as if there saying an older version is from the Persians and Arabs? How can you not understand what im saying? ARYAN818 (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, you do not seem to be a native speaker of English, do you know the meaning of the word attributed? The text here is basically saying "Both the Persian and the Arabs claim that the Indians invented chess", which is not conflicted with "Chess originated in India" at all. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Well I didnt understand cus it was a big confusing.....But thank you for the insult. Now if I would have done that I would have been blocked. But the dictators of wikipedia let people like u get a pass and insult me.......anyway......in the CHESS article, it says bluntly if u scroll down to the history section, that chess originiated from India. Here it doesnt come off that blunt. Why not? I mean obviously I got confused, so im sure there might be someone else who got confused as well. So why not just say Chess originated from India. Bam period. ARYAN818 (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if you were insulted, that was not my intention. Your comment made it clear you misunderstood the meaning of text, and I tried to clarify it for you. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  To me it is just two different ways of saying the same thing.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  Well it's over a year now I think . Im not sure how many times, or if any times then, that I have come back and checked if the changes were made then. Maybe I came back maybe I didn't. But anyway it does say it better now!! So ha ha ha ha ha ha I won then!! lol lol ...... 
Alright im kind of just messing around then waterd . . . . . 71.105.87.54 (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict here 

message: The number 2 source on this article, is that even a source? ARYAN818 (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong with Wilkinson? (note: when the above comment was made, the article was at this version. In the current version, Wilkinson is the number 1 source. HermanHiddema (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Click the source. IT just has links called A, B, C, D, and when you click th0ose sources it takes you to different parts of the ariticle sometimes? ARYAN818 (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

text: This is a very common citation style, in fact the wikipedia article on citation uses it. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought a citation was supposed to take you somewhere outside of Wikipedia? I mean if you can use citations in the wikipedia, then I should do that for other ariticle's. But then again they might not allow it cus some people in wikipedia pick and choose what can be allowed an what can't be allowed ARYAN818 (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. Citation can be to books, newspapers, academic articles or other printed media. There may not be a copy available online, in which case someone who wants to verify the reference will have to go to a library and borrow it. Your own citation for the Indian origin, for example, is H.J.R. Murray's "A History of Chess". Which is not available online. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A source? 

message: I think the large map should be moved out of the section of East Asia because it shows the spread of the chess-like games, not only in East Asia, but even in Africa and Europe as well.PFlores3 (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, why not ? I placed it in the East Asia only for practical reason, as it was the only section without a picture. SyG (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

text: How do you know the information is wrong?  Essentially the same map is in Henry Davisonson's A Short History of Chess, so it is referenced.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  From this edit I was under the impression that is was NOT the map from 'A Short History of Chess'. What am I missing? SunCreator (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

text: That is where I asked Krakatoa if it was in A History of Chess by Murray (1913) - he said no.  Essentially the same map is in A Short History of Chess' by Henry Davidson (1949) (I have that book but not the one by Murray).  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Is there a good modern book on the history of chess?  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 05:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map showing the diffusion of chaturanga from India to the world 

message: The last 2 sections (1850 onwards) a content fork from World Chess Championship. They should be trimmed to a bare minimum (a paragraph, maybe two), with a pointer to WCC. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content fork 

message: Shouldn't the image of the Iranian chess set be moved to the section on Iran? And the image of the Knights Templar playing chess be moved to the section on Europe, Early History? And the image of the map showing the origin and diffusion of chess from India to Asia, Africa and Europe be enlarged a bit?FadulJoseA (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Done! 119.111.86.72 (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of the images 

message: Recently the file :File:Chess players by Anthony Rosenbaum.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. I'm not entirely sure who's who in this image, although the NPG site lists all their names - I'm sure some of them could be cropped out to form portraits for players who don't have images yet. Dcoetzee 06:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be a good thing, especially if someone can produce a key to all those faces.  The NPG site lists a dozen of the sitters, but there are more than that in the back row. J S Ayer (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New file [[:File:Chess players by Anthony Rosenbaum.jpg]] 

message: The last external link, to chessmuseum.org, is dead, and I can't find a new location with a search engine.  Can the person who originally contributed this link (or anyone else) help? J S Ayer (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead External Link 

message: Some nameless contributor has inserted yet another unsupported claim of great antiquity of chess in China, taking it back to the Warring States Period.  It is buttressed by one link to a document in Chinese and one to Sam Sloan's essay.  It contradicts Peter Banaschak's statement that the earliest definite reference to chess in Chinese literature is in an essay by a Tang Dynasty government minister in the ninth century C.E.  I have therefore called for references at three points, and I hope someone who reads Chinese will evaluate the Chinese document.  Failing support, these claims must go. J S Ayer (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We have been through this before.  I recently got Pritchard's Encyclopedia of Chess Variations, and it agrees with the non-China version.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New claim of antiquity in China 

message: According to Checkmate, the phrase "Shāh Māt" means literally "the King is ambushed" (or "helpless", "defeated", or "stumped", but not "dead"). I suggest that this common misconception that it means "the King is dead" be corrected in this article. It would be nice if these two articles agreed on the translation. EdwardSabol (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I made the change.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I would go with "Helpless" as in "There's no way he can get out of this one!"  The confusion apparently arose because "mat" means "dead" in Arabic. J S Ayer (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, since New Oxford American Dictionary says "helpless".  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The king is not dead 

message: "Findings in the Mohenjo-daro and Harappa (2600–1500 BCE) sites of the Indus Valley Civilization show a prevalence of a board game that resembles chess."  I don't know when I will be able to find a copy of the cited source.  Please: how, exactly, does it resemble chess? J S Ayer (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would see some examples of these games. There are chessboard ? I am interesting of this. --Andriolo (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Try an image search on Google. I also found a nice image in the following source in the local library: Angelillo, Maria (2007). India: history and treasures of an ancient civilization. White Star . 208 pages. Wiki-uk (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  it resembles chess because one piece is shown as a horse. 202.188.53.210 (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone uploaded an image on Wiki Commons in 2014, categorized under "Art of Mohenjo-daro" and now as well under "History of chess". See on the right here. If not chess, where should it be categorized? Wiki-uk (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New claim of extreme antiquity in India 

message: About etimology of italian "Alfiere", eng. Bishop it is not sure that came from Arab language.
It is plausible that also the Arabs have taken the word from Latin Ferens the soldier who carries the flag. In Italy the word "alfiere" means the bearer of flag. Example in medieval Palio. During Roman Empire was called Aquilifer. So the word is returned in Italy from Arabs as in English much latin words are returned with Normans conquest. See http://www.etimo.it/?term=alfiere
Indeed can not to be two sets of knights. (Arab: Al-Faris means knight). In western world the Bishop is represented with an Partian catafratta armor. Which suggests also a possible derivation from war games on the board already present in classical antiquity as the roman Ludus latrunculorum war game played almost certainly in 64 squares chessboard. It is arrived perhaps from Ancient Greece, Anatolia, Egypt or Mesopotamia or born locally or born in other parts. We don’t know. The Indian chess probably is only a local variant of game already widespread in the world since immemorial time. Howewer modern rules are established in mediterranean world during medieval period. In medieval Italy, as in ancient Greece, for the things that it haven't clear knowledge about the origin. The origin was attributed to a mythical Orient (Indie). Indeed for medieval Europe Indie means generally Orient, could to be Persia or China to see Cristoforo Colombo that thought to arrive in Indie (plural word).
--Andriolo (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Games on draughts board with military tactics in Classical Antiquity. 

message: I would only to throw the stone in the pond. Indeed the english articles of history of chess, is too much categorical. Some more “perhaps”…… it will make it better. The hypothesis of the subcontinent (not Asia), is British and was born with the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and is based on Indian legends written, however several centuries after the facts. (The first indian source of chatrang are witten in XII century). In the sameway why not in Ancient Babil ? (An italian legend in Jacopo Cessole book say about Nabucodonosor. However the chess until the Italian Renaissance, in Latin, were called Ludus latrinculorum so we are unable to say if gothic Teodorico il Grande (500CE) played chess or latrunculorum. The mention of latruculorum as chess appared in Europe in sources of c.a. 900-1000 CE with the end of dark age. This mix of terminology has caused lot of problems.
Archaeology tells us two things: 1) the most ancient findings of boards that we use in chess are in the Mediterranean area (8x8 chessboard with two colors diagonal squares used probably for Dama). File:scacchiera2-300x231.jpg This is only one of innumerable examples. It is in pubblic area in Brescia in some roman ruins on Foro. The black is X. 2) the first discoveries of chatrang that we have are in Uzbekistan (c.a. 700 CE Uzbekistan was India at wide sense, in this period) I remember that Scythian kings was considered Indians for Greeks and also for the hellenized Parthians and Sassanids. As for Alfonso X.
The central Asia origin, in the Silk Road, between Caspian Sea until Afghanistan (in area influenced from Parthian or Sassanid empire), I think can explain lot of things and the possibility for other steppic tribe as the germanic Goths to play chess before the Arabs. About latrunculi type see also see Tafl games. About latrunculi archeological findings in this book http://books.google.it/books?id=NJMcQ3az2KUC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=ludus+lusoria+brescia&source=bl&ots=M9HsPFeqEf&sig=DK0lGlwwGuk2RF53q3VjQuramEI&hl=it&ei=YyB_TaaVI4vasgaB6MTuBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ludus%20lusoria%20brescia&f=false
Only the beautiful examples of Mohejodaro can resolve the temporal contradictions with mediterranean chess or lantruculi and sustain the Indian Origin. The Egyptians and Knossos zachitrion are indubitely too much different table games.  Gupta origin is too much recent. Jacopo Cessole has reason, it must be know well before than Arabs. 
Howewer that modern chess with mediterranean 8x8 board could be born only in Central Asia with a mix.
(this is a fragment of a discussion open in chess article)
--Andriolo (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is well documented how Chess was taken up by Persians first from India (there is even a manuscript with a pic showing an Indian explaining the game to a Persian emperor on the History page itself) and then Arabs. If I am not mistaken, there are book written about Chess during those times. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..   Humour Thisthat2011 19:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central Asia Origin, and mediterranean board games influences. 

message: About central Asian syncretistic origin: 
http://www.schachquellen.de/15038.html
The thesys of Murray is old, and is based on the opinion in vogue in the British Empire but no on archeological sources and archival sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.72.91 (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central Asia origin and Murray colonial thesis 

message: ===Persian section===
The Persian section is a cut-and-paste from this website: http://blog.chess.com/mohajeri/history-of-chess-in-iran
I thought Wikipedia had rules against that.
*That blog acknowledges that that excerpt is taken from Wikipedia.  I have established by backtracking that this is so. J S Ayer (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Persian history of the game 

message: The Persian section is a cut-and-paste from this website: http://blog.chess.com/mohajeri/history-of-chess-in-iran
I thought Wikipedia had rules against that.
*That blog acknowledges that that excerpt is taken from Wikipedia.  I have established by backtracking that this is so. J S Ayer (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Persian section

message: Chess Talk Page
Professor Lewis is a prominent scholar in middle eastern studies so when he says that chess was invented by Persians his opinion should be considered. Please note the most reliable sources in Wikipedia are: [peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses]. Iranic (talk) 09:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's reliable source, of course but he is not an expert in chess. Most of chess books used to support in this article states chess came from India. There's no consensus between where exactly chess came from but majority states India so I believe another theories should be cited carefully to avoid confusion.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

text: His statement is a single unsupported sentence in which chess is lumped in with backgammon. Lacking any backing, it cannot override facts. J S Ayer (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

text: The book is not a "history of chess". Books solely focused on the topic take precedence. --NeilN talk to me 21:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

text: The most authoritative book on chess history is the one by Murray, which I don't have. But based on A Short History of Chess by Davidson and Chess: A History by Golombek, the game that became modern chess went from India to Persia, where it underwent significant changes.  But it didn't get close to modern chess until about 1500 in Europe.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should say that the first known ancestor of chess was played in India.  I don't know that we should even call it chess at that point. J S Ayer (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  That makes sense. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

text: That would indicate that chess was invented before his time only if the document dated from Ardashir's epoch.  Since it dates from several centuries later, it only proves that chess was well established when the document was written.  Edison Marshall in his novel The Conqueror has Alexander the Great mention chess.  This does not prove that chess was known to Alexander, it proves that it was known to Edison Marshall. J S Ayer (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persian Origin of Chess 

message: A link to chess paintings was added, and immediately removed as spam.  I took a look at it, and see no reason why it should be considered spam.  It isn't advertising anything.  It is a large collection of paintings of people playing board games, and of chess pieces, and perhaps other things (I didn't look at all fifteen hundred images).  There may be reasons to oppose linking to it, but I think "spam" isn't one. J S Ayer (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a link to a personal website added by the owner of the website - that is spam. It is also inappropriate due to WP:ELNO criteria 11. noq (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

text: It is not just because the information may only be of interest to the author and family and friends but also because they are not WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slideshow of pictures of chess 

message: Concerning this section:
Chess was introduced to Persia from India and became a part of the princely or courtly education of Persian nobility.
In Sassanid Persia around 600 the name became chatrang, which subsequently evolved to shatranj, due to Arab Muslim’s lack of ch and ng native soundsShenk, David. “The Immortal Game.” Doubleday, 2006., and the rules were developed further. Players started calling "Shāh!" (Persian for "King!") when attacking the opponent's king, and "Shāh Māt!" (Persian for "the king is helpless" – see checkmate) when the king was attacked and could not escape from attack. These exclamations persisted in chess as it traveled to other lands.
I find it suspicious that "Māt" in Arabic (مات) is connected to Māta, "he died". Astabada (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of Shāh Māt 

message: "A player whose mobile phone rings, thereby loses."  Could we have a source, please? J S Ayer (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobile phone? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/matchesTournaments/london1851.php
*Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Uv0K9qUrveUJ:www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter38.html+site:chesshistory.com/winter+Grandmaster+Tsar&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20160612035631/http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter38.html on https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter38.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121003051322/http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/pdf/2000/200904.pdf to http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/pdf/2000/200904.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please change 
A manuscript explaining the rules of the game called "Matikan-i-chatrang" (the book of chess) in Middle Persian or Pahlavi still exists. 
to  
A manuscript explaining the rules of the game called "Matikan-i-chatrang" (the book of chess) in Middle Persian or Pahlavi still exists. Peshotan Behramjee Sanjana, "Ganjeshāyagān, Andarze ātrepāt mārāspandān, Mādigāne chatrang, and Andarze khusroe kavātān : the original Pehlvi text, the same translated into the Gujarati and English languages, a commentary and a glossary of select words"
which provides the proper citation. Bbradt (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — IVORK Discuss 03:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2018 

message: Please note that the IP who initiated this discussion has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Block

message: It's interesting to look at the editing history of ludus latrunculorum. A series of good faith edits led to chess being given undue prominence in that article. This appears to have appealed to those who have what may be politely described as Eurocentric views. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Chess isn't given an enormous amount of attention in ludus latrunculorum.  I think one problem in several articles is that we have no article on petteia, perhaps because so little is known about it; it would amount to a stub with a lot of learned guesswork. J S Ayer (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree. Giving a whole section titled "chess" and name dropping Philidor, Ruy Lopez and Averbakh is most definitely undue weight in an article which is supposed to be about ludus latrunculorum. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight in other articles

message: Looking into the claim that Ivan the Terrible banned chess reveals a handful of forum posts making this claim with no evidence to back them up. The book, Ivan the Terrible by Kazimierz Waliszewski is the source of the claim that he died playing chess (at least in the Ivan the Terrible Wikipedia article), but makes no mention of him banning chess in the book.  I have a hunch that this claim is a apocryphal legend that makes his death ironic.  I would love to see a reliable source for this or this claim removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonharrisoncode (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That claim was added in an edit by User:BrownieBrown.  Bruce leverett (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ivan the Terrible would get you killed for looking at him funny, so it's certainly possible that he banned chess at some point. I'd look into the biographies to see if any of them confirm this claim. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  From my research the claim seems to stem from the Stoglav of the Russian Orthodox Church. This included a ban from playing games, dancing, playing musical instruments or basically doing anything fun. For the most part this only applied to clergy or exceptionally religious people, I doubt that an ordinary citizen would have been arrested or made to answer to an ecclesiastical court just for playing chess. For the status of the Stoglav in 16th century Russian law, the relationship of religious law to secular law, Ivan's status within the church, etc I'm way out of my depth, you'd have to ask a Russian historian. In any case it's an oversimplification to say that "Ivan the Terrible banned chess". The story that he died while playing chess with Bogdan Belsky (or at least while setting up the pieces) seems to be well attested, so it appears he didn't think the ban on games applied to himself. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability of Ivan the Terrible banning chess

message: First, the shogi part mentiones the 'independently invented rook, bishop and queen of modern Western chess', which arose in dai shogi and the first two of which were transferred to regular shogi. It remains unclear which actual shogi pieces these are. It's especially puzzling why the rook had to be independently invented, since it seems that it acted essentially like a modern rook already in the earliest chaturanga and never stopped doing so in xiangqi.
Also, while the Chinese and Japanese varieties are presented in some detail, some others are either not mentioned at all, not even with a wikilink, or only in passing - the Korean one, the Burmese one, the Vietnamese one, the Ethiopian one, etc. Again, this seems like an inconsistency, for which I see no reason. --82.137.115.143 (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear parts 

message: The sources presenting an Arabic etymology seem outdated, and the statements implausible, given the obvious Persian origin of shah (and not sheikh).--82.137.115.143 (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposed Arabic etymology of Shah mat 

message: 'In some parts of India the pieces in the places of the rook, knight and bishop were renamed by words meaning (in this order) Boat, Horse, and Elephant, or Elephant, Horse, and Camel'
As the article explains elsewhere, the Bishop was originally called the Elephant, so it's not that it was originally called Bishop and then renamed to Elephant, but vice versa - the name 'Bishop' is a European innovation, whereas the parts of India where it's called the Elephant are the ones keeping the original name. I don't know if there are any parts of India where it's called something like a Bishop even now, anyway.--82.137.115.143 (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing wording about Indian names 

message: In two places we are citing something called "The History of Chess", from a website called ChessZone.  One of them is the diagram of the supposed starting position of chaturanga in the Origin section.
The ChessZone website is gone, and I cannot find "The History of Chess" or any parts of it online.  It was a collection of articles by various authors.  They were, as far as I could tell, not peer-reviewed and generally appeared to be works in progress.  (This is also discussed in Talk:Chaturanga.)  Other sources (reliable ones this time) will have to be found, or if not available, material that cited ChessZone may have to be dropped.  Bruce leverett (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ChessZone 

message: This article has dozens of citations of Encyclopedia Britannica.  This is scandalous.  Instead, we should be using secondary sources, per WP:SECONDARY.  Bruce leverett (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary sources 

message: I apologize; I own both The Adventure of Chess by Edward Lasker and Richard Bell's two books in one, and was confused.  Lasker did not say that possibly the Indian ambassador had been plied with liquor. J S Ayer (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to make an appropriate correction to the article, of course.  Thanks.  Bruce leverett (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further on Wajurgmitr