Talk:Chaturaji

message: In the sources on chess history known to me, the alfil of elephant is always the piece moving diagonally.  See Sharanj. The roca or boat moves horizontally and vertically. What is more, there is a straight ethymologic line  between the Sanskrit word roca and the Englsh words rook and rochade.
Of course a lot can happen in 1500 years, but I wonder about the reliability of your information.
Bertus van Heusden 22:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked Murray and Pritchard, the terminology is correct in this article. It is based on description given by Beruni. Still, there is some uncertainty about piece names or moves, since Beruni could have described it incorrectly. See Murray's book on more detail, if you don't have it, see here. Andreas Kaufmann 17:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubts about the names of the Chaturaji pieces 

message: The article states pawn promotion differs from in regular chess, but does not give the rule in chaturaji. If it is known it should be here (however if the historic rule is not known it should clearly be stated that any rule given is a modern invention). M0ffx 19:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --IanOsgood (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The article text also implicates one can promote to king! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

text: IP 71.92, please learn to sign your posts. SpinningSpark 17:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pawn promotion rules 

message: What is the direction of play? M0ffx 19:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clockwise, according to this reference. This naturally follows the direction of pawn movement. --IanOsgood (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pritchard in both ECV & CECV says: "Turn of play was clockwise." (Curiously, Schmittberger says, in New Rules for Classic Games p. 101: "Turns pass counterclockwise around the table [...]".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Gollon, Chess Variations, p. 35: "Authors disagree as to the direction in which the play passes from Red. Edward Falkener maintains that the armies move in the order in which the colors are given in the Sanskrit source—i.e., red, green, yellow, and black. This seems logical." (Gollon p.32 places Red lower-left, Green upper-left, Yellow upper-right, Black lower-right.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Falkener, Games Ancient and Oriental, p. 130: "The players play alternately in the order of the sun, red, green, yellow, and black, as described by Vyasa; [...]" Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direction of play? 

message: This article states rooks in Chaturaji are called "chariots," but then never uses that word again, and refers to an "elephant" instead, which is not a listed piece.  From some other article I was under the impression that "elephant," "boat," and "bishop" were the same piece.  Surely the current version of the article must be incorrect, but I don't know the correct interpretation. Foogus (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In difference from other variants, rook was called elephant in this game. I improved the article now. Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  disappearing chariots and mysterious elephants 

message: The mention of "chess-board" here is doubtful. It is borrowed from https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m04/m04001.htm which is not a scholar reference. A better and more reliable English translation is:
https://archive.org/details/aproseenglishtr00duttgoog/page/n907/mode/2up?view=theater
This reference is more prudent in traducing simply "boards".
The German historian Andreas Bock-Raming has published an academic paper in 1999 in Board Games Studies journal. See: http://history.chess.free.fr/papers/Bock-Raming%201999.pdf
Definitely, there is no mention of chess-board, i.e. a board to play chess, in this early Indian literature. 
I would suggest to replace the text from the 1st reference by the one of the second reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cazaux (talk • contribs) 19:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chess-board 

message: Old descriptions of this game describe it as a gambling game with stakes whereby players could increase their winnings in a handful of ways. The wikipedia article doesn't even acknowledge this. Here's my overview of everything I can find that relates to gambling in four-handed chaturanga.
Al-Biruni said "The pieces have certain values, according to which the player gets his share of the stakes; for the pieces are taken and pass into the hands of the player". My interpretation of this is that players bet money on the game and the point values of pieces captured are used to determine each player's winnings. In addition to capturing pieces, Al-Biruni mentions another way to gain points, which is to capture all 3 of the opposing kings while your own king remains on the board. For this, a player earns 54 points, which is the combined point value of all 3 opposing player's pieces. This same scenario is described in Tithitattva and is called "chaturaji".
The Tithitattva translation excerpt in "A History of Chess" p.70 mentions several ways to increase a player's winnings. "14. If a King enters the square of another King, O Yudhisthira, he is said to have gained a Sinhasana. 15. If he takes the King when he gains Sinhasana, he gains a double stake; otherwise it is a single one". "If you still keep your own King, and take the other Kings, you obtain Chaturaji. 19. If your own King slays the others in obtaining Chaturaji, you gain a double stake; otherwise it is a single one. 20. If the King slays the other Kings on their own squares, his stakes are fourfold".
Al-Biruni described the lesser form of chaturaji as being worth 54 points while the Tithitattva described it as being worth a "single one" (stake). If we work under the assumption of a single stake being equal to 54 points, we can assert that the other forms of chaturaji are worth 108 points and 216 points, respectively. What about sinhasana though? Is putting your king on the original square of another king really worth the same amount as capturing all 3 of your opponent's kings while keeping your own king on the board? The wording kind of makes it sound like it. 1 stake is 1 stake, after all, right? However, note the following passage: "If, at the same time, Sinhasana and Chaturaji are both possible, the latter deserves the preference". I consider this to be an important clue which indicates that chaturaji is better than sinhasana. If we also think about the logistics of these 2 different scenarios, I think it becomes clear what the difference is. With sinhasana, we are defeating one opponent. If we earn 1 or 2 stakes from that, who's pocket does that come out of? It's possible that this comes out of some pool that everyone contributes to at the start, but I strongly suspect that payment comes directly from the player who was defeated and therefor this "stake" is 3 times smaller compared to what is described for "chaturaji" payouts. With "chaturaji", you are defeating all 3 opponents and it then makes sense that you would receive payment from all 3 players. For this reason, I believe that a "stake" as it is described for sinhasana is equal to 18 points (the point value of a single player's army). This would make sinhasana worth either 18 or 36 points per player defeated in that manner. If a player achieves the higher form of sinhasana against all 3 opponents, that is also the same thing as the highest form of chaturaji. I think in that instance, the 1 chaturaji payout overrides the 3 sinhasana payouts.
A working system could be something like this:
# Players decide on a monetary value to associate with 1 point.
# Each player puts up 90 points worth of currency (5 stakes. 1 for their own army and 4 for potential chaturaji payout).
# Game plays out with players holding on to captured pieces.
# Players buy back their pieces from the players who captured them and do payouts for sinhasana and/or chaturaji.
I'm not saying the wikipedia article needs to have my exact hypothesis for how to reconstruct the rules for stakes. However, I think it's a bit strange not to at least mention what we know about the mention of stakes in this game, since they seem to have played a significant role in how the game was played. Extra incentive was provided to encourage players to work towards certain goals and surely this changes the best strategy for the game. Ultimately, the point system is an abstraction layer on top of the gambling to show who won the most money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.198.151 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stakes 

message: Okay, Chess.com has Chaturaji, with the same layout, but with a few changes:
# Boats have rook movement.
# Bishops replace elephants.
# Capture an opponent's king to eliminate them.
# Play starting from Red (bottom left), then Blue (top left), then Yellow (top right), then Green (bottom right).
Should we cover this variant? ChameleonGamer 12:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info about chess.com version?