Talk:Shatranj

message: The naming has gotten a little messed up. 
E.g., should we talk about 
* a fers (the original name for the piece, though I have seen it "firz"), 
* a vizier (what it meant to the Arabs), 
* a general (the english equivalent of vizier), 
* or a queen (the modern english chess term)?
I'm inclined to go with "queen" because it will be familiar to a reader, and it addresses the historical connection between the modern chess queen and the corresponding piece from Shatranj. 
Elephant is problematic because the piece name appears to have lost its meaning when it left India. I'd be more comfortable calling it a bishop or a "fil". 
Jake 01:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest to stick to the naming as found in "Piececlopedia" on chessvariants.com. They use name "Alfil" for bishop predecessor and "Ferz" for queen predecessor. The same names are found in "Fairy chess piece" Wikipedia article. Andreas Kaufmann 10:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  As nobody objected I will change the terminology to use words "Alfil" and "Ferz". This is by the way names of these pieces as they are mostly used today by fairy piece problemists. Andreas Kaufmann 21:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, much better. Nice edits. Jake 02:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piece Names 

message: The popular contentions has long been that Shatranj came to Persia from the Indian game of Chaturanga. However, modern scholars now view this theory with reserve. (See origins of chess.)  (from the Shatranj article)
However, the article on Chaturanga says that Chaturanga is the direct ancestor of shatranj which was the form that brought chess to medieval Europe.
The two articles seem to disagree, which is probably not what we want. The origins of chess article agrees with the second view but also offers counter-explanations.
Whatever shall we do? Reediewes 06:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
: I corrected this, mainstream theory (by Murray) is that Shatranj was Persian version of Indian game Chaturanga. Other theory, that Chaturanga didn't exist at all and all chess-related games originated from proto-Xiangi is not yet established/proved. Andreas Kaufmann 06:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right. I fixed the text according to Murray. Andreas Kaufmann 17:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This still isn't right, I fear. Murray does not credit the account of the Chatrang-namak (the story of how India sent a chess set with sixteen emerald and sixteen ruby pieces to Persia as a challenge), in fact he says, "It is obvious here that we have a literary work, not a simple record of historical fact. The intention of the narrative lies upon the surface, the exalting of the wisdom and fame of the Persian race at the expense of a neighboring people."[p153] He expands quite a bit on this, actually. Someone should fix the Wiki text, at worst to clarify that this story is a later, apocryphal invention.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.61.151 (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: I've corrected some poor grammer in the last paragraph, and forced section endings come after the diagrams, rather than have some of the diagrams overlap the next section, an improvement (I think...)
this bothers me however...
"However, white wins by sacrificing two rooks: 1. Rh8+ Kxh8 2.Bf5+ Kg8 3. Rh8+ Kxh8 4. g7+ Kg8 5. Nh6# (black king can't move on h7, because it is attacked by Alfil on f5)."
I've phrased it into better English but see no Alfil on f5. (or any piece for that matter) Can somebody who understands this properly consider this and correct it if its wrong please. --Shoka 19:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alfil moves to f5 on move 2.: 2.Bf5+. I use "B" (Bishop) for Alfil and Q (Queen) for "Fers", in the same way as other sources do. Thanks for improving the style and grammar, English is not my native language. Andreas Kaufmann 20:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. The puzzle is explained. All is well. --Shoka 22:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: The sequence of movements currently in the article:
1. Rh8+ Kxh8 2.Bf5+ Rh2 3. Rxh2+ Kg8 4. Rh8+ Kxh8 5. g7+ Kg8 6. Nh6#
makes no sense.
As I read it, I thought "why is 2.Bf5+ not followed by 2. ..., Kg8 ?"
I thought over it and couldn't find an explanation.
Then I came to this discussion page and find you talking about the sequence "1. Rh8+ Kxh8 2.Bf5+ Kg8 3. Rh8+ Kxh8 4. g7+ Kg8 5. Nh6#" which does make sense.
It looks as if the last one was the original sequence of movements in the article but someone changed it to the first one.
I think we should change it again to the original sequence. What do you think? By the way, the Spanish article about Shatranj also has the wrong sequence.
Carlos M. 05-Aug-2006
: The move 2...Rh2 only delays checkmate by one move, but doesn't help otherwise. I reverted changes to original version, as it makes easier to understand the idea of this problem. Andreas Kaufmann 18:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dilaram Problem 

message: Afghanistan also lays claim to chess. Someone should change the article. They dont tell you but alot of this names are given are Dari words from afghanistan; Rukh, Shah mat, Wazir, Asp. Iran tries to tie it in with persia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pashtun786 (talk • contribs) 
:Dari is Persian Language. both countries speak same language. Mmehdi.g (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghanistan Claim 

message: This problem and its solution seem to have been solved severally
in Dec 2005 and later, but going through the page history, 
I find that all solutions have 2. Bf5 - but this is not possible - 
it would need to jump over the N at g4.  
I hope I am not missing something elementary here. 
Most likely there is a problem in the board setup (a citation
would help). 
 
Also, I couldn't find any other place where the N could be so it can reach h6, and let the B go from h3 to f5. 
In order to present a consistent page, I am editing in an alternate 
(less dramatic) mate while historical sources to the problem are being
looked up.  My edit is: 1. Rh8+ Kxh8 2.Bg2+ Kg8 3. Bd5+ Kf8 4. Rh8#.
Note that 2. Bf1 3. Bxc4+ also works, but winning the Knight is not
a big deal.  Also, Bg2 is more forced, the delaying move Rh2 is
avoided. 
But this solution is rather lame; the pawns don't move, neither
the white N. I am sure the 2-rook sacrifice was the original solution. 
So I feel it must be the initial board that is not right.  If someone has 
access to the historical source, pls fix.  I am presenting the 
present solution only as a stop gap to preserve consistency. mukerjee (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bishop in Shatranj (which was called Alfil) moved differently then in modern chess. It moved 2 squares diagonally and could jump over the pieces. Please see a move diagram for Alfil in this article. So, the solution was correct. Please see here as a reference. Andreas Kaufmann 19:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!! I was indeed missing something elementary!!  Fixed the text now with a brief clarification. mukerjee (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Except the "bishop" is a pil in al-Shatranj, moving to the second square on the diagonal and checking the same way, so after each of your moves Bf5+ the Black king could simply move to g6. 156.98.118.115 (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Dilaram Problem revisit

message: I think there is still a mistake. After first move the black king is on h8 and bishop (2. Bf5+) can't check from f5. I think, that possible solution is
But even that white wins, there is not a two-rook sacrifice.Vaclav.vesely.cz (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Except the "bishop" is a pil in al-Shatranj, moving to the second square on the diagonal and checking the same way, so after each of your moves Bf5+ the Black king could simply move to g6. 156.98.118.115 (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible solution

message: Did shatranj or any variant of it survive to modern times in the Middle East? If not, what caused it to die out?Lexington1 (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survival

message: This term is used about five times in the article, at least four of which refer specifically to western chess. The Asian forms of chess are also "modern". --68.161.147.11 (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Chess 

message: I think this article is focusing too much on the Persians' adapted version of the game when in fact it should focus on the original Indian version of the game.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.226.42 (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a separate Wikipedia article about the original Indian version, Chaturanga. (Also, when you engage in discussion on a Talk page, please sign your comments by using four tilde characters (~~~~). -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information 

message: I have removed that map from the article page.
The reason is that map is bearing too much wrong or/and speculative data, so it constituted a very criticable information:
* In year 600, there is proved (only Bana's text which is controversed) evidence of Chess in India. Around 600, all evidences are in Persia (3 Pahlavi texts). So 600 should be written over Persia, and not 700.
* It is only few after 700 that Arabs are attested playing chess
* C'est un peu après 700 que les Arabes prennent les échecs, en même temps que l'Empire perse. 
* Progress is North Africa is completely invented. Moreover, Senterej is not a North African name but the name of Ethiopian variety of Shatranj. And Senterej is first attested on 19th c.
* Chess reached Andalusia (South of Spain) around 800. Before 1000, they were already attested in South of France several times? And not in 1300 or 1400!
* There is no historical data for the arrival of Sit-tu-yin (Chithareen ???) in Burma and nothing says that evolution was made in the direction given by the map. Indeed, Burmese game seems derived from Thai/Khmer game and not the opposite.
* The existence of a Tibetan game (Chandraki) has never been confirmed. It seems very doubtful.
* The transmission India->China is very controversed and in any case it was through Yunnan but rather through the Silk Road. That word Tseugki on the map is very suspicious. In any case, there is proven evidence of Xiangqi as soon as 700. Either it is around 840 or around 560, but the latest is very controversed as well.
* There is no historical evidence of a Chess is Korea before the 15thc. It was there probably much before, but there is no proof yet.
* Most probably, Shogi didn't come from Korea but rather from South-East Asia, with, maybe, a Chinese influence in addition. And the first mention of Shogi is 1027.
* Given evolution in Russia and Siberia is pure fantasy.
For all these reasons, I think it is much safer to remove that map.
More information on my web site http://history.chess.free.frCazaux (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is erroneous. SunCreator (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That map is in A Short History of Chess, by Henry Davidson, which we consider a reliable source for history of chess topics.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 23:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  How did you find that out? Do you have the book? SunCreator (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I have the book.  The map is almost identical to the one in that book, but not exactly identical.  That makes me wonder if the original map comes from A History of Chess, which I don't have.  Anyhow, the book seems to support all of the information given on the map.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  In what way not exactly identical? Do you have the 1913 issue or the later one, could it be from a different edition? SunCreator (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isn't in A History of Chess but it is in "A short History of Chess".  I have the original 1949 hardback edition and a later paperback edition.  The map is almost identical but there are some slight insignificant differences.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous Map "showing diffusion of Chess" 

message: I dubt that the one shown is the real Mashaikhi opening (or tabiya). The Black's pawn must be in g6, not in h6. --Little bishop (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now I know more about Shatranj and yes, it's a true Mashaiki in the building: only 12 moves have been played in that position and the Mashaiki tabiya requires 19 moves to be completed. --Little bishop (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mashaikhi 

message: The values of the pieces is quite clearly wrong. --Little bishop (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Now is more-or-less correct, thanks. --Little bishop (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piece values 

message: " In either case, the white and black shāh would be on the same file (but not always in modern India). "
Why would the shāh have to be in modern India? Can't the game be played anywhere?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.36.194 (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  funny sentence 

message: I incorrectly said that the word was used to refer to the ancient form of the game in a discussion about things in Farsi/Persian, and was informed by a native speaker that it is also used to refer to chess' European/modern form in Farsi/Persian itself. If someone can find a source for that and drop a quick line into the article warning people about that, that would be great. I didn't hear how the ancient form or forms other than the modern/European form of the game are distinguished in the language, though, so there might be a little more to look into beyond that for completeness. NadiaYvette (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farsi/Persian word for European/modern game 

message: I incorrectly said that the word was used to refer to the ancient form of the game in a discussion about things in Farsi/Persian, and was informed by a native speaker that it is also used to refer to chess' European/modern form in Farsi/Persian itself. If someone can find a source for that and drop a quick line into the article warning people about that, that would be great. I didn't hear how the ancient form or forms other than the modern/European form of the game are distinguished in the language, though, so there might be a little more to look into beyond that for completeness. NadiaYvette (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farsi/Persian word for European/modern game