Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I would like to note -as a chess player- in the arab countries such as
Jordan and Syria, they play chess the orthodox way with one difference, in
your first move you have the option to move any two pawns one square only,
or one pawn for two squares. but it is becoming old fasioned.

And one more note, it's a fact that chess came to the Islamic world from
Persia. But at that time there was no Persia, instead there was one
Undivided Islamic country, And from there chess spread to the world by
trade. So chess(Shatranj)is not Arabic or Persian, but Islamic. For that
was the only thing incommen among the residents of that huge country.

But furthermore, Persia's origin is from Sumeria, so why not call it
Sumrian chess? or New Cave-man Chess?? or...

Just wanted to say, as far as I know the 1st reference to shatranj in
literature is in the Persian romantic KARNAMAK, 600 A.D. while the birth
of Muhammad in Mecca is 570 A.D. 
As KARNAMAK only 'reported' shatranj but not invented it, we can
reasonably believe that shatranj is older than this and hence, it's simple
to see that origin of Shatranj in Persia at least would be somewhere in
Sasanid era (226-637 A.D.) 

Another thing to mention is that Sumers preceded Babylonians not the
Achaemenids (who preceded Sasanids). It's true that Cyrus the great
(600-529 B.C.) conquered Lydia and Babylon; so the Persian Achaemenid
king, Cyrus, only defeated Babylons and this way we can see Sumers and
Persians are from different roots (actually they had totally diffrent
bases...)

shatranj was originally invented by ancient hindus from india. by hindu
laws that time gambling was forbid so they invented a new version for
this. like 'chaturang' and 'chaupad'.kindly correct the information on
site.

There is a good (imho) article on the origins of chess at 
www.shamema.com/origin.htm which refutes the claim that chess was 
invented in India, as claimed by 'Murry'

It's amazing how every rethorical wepon, even Nazism-bashing, managed to be
squeezed into that article.

With all due respect to Mr. Sloan, who is certainly more knowledgeable in
many things than me, his views aren't exactly as waterproof as they
sound.

'The people there are primarily desert dwellers. They are great merchants
and traders. Their caravans can easily penetrate all the way from Arabia
to China. However, to say that these people, the vast majority of whom
even today cannot read and write, invented a game like chess, is
ridiculous, and I am sure that my many friends in Pakistan will agree with
me.' This part, specifically, made me shake my head in disbelief.
People who travel in the desert know very well that a lot of the time must
be spent resting, with little else to do. Saying people with arithmetic
gifts (from being merchants) and navigational skills can't invent even
pre-chaturanga is underrating the power of boredom :-). They had go
boards, of course, since China was so important economically... but go is
a complicated, unpractical game and the desert isn't exactly the most
comfortable place. So they get the 9x9 boards and start trying to think up
some new, faster game. Not as far-fetched as he tries to make it sound.

To me it looks rather likely that since the chinese were used to go,
placing the pieces on the crossings rather than on the squares was a
natural adaptation. The opposite, (almost) everyone else changing the game
to play on squares, has no logic explanation.

And elephants aren't exactly the most common animals in China, just as
much as horses aren't seen in India in great numbers, but he dismisses the
elephant issue, while at the same time considering the horse-issue
crucial.

Then there's the cultural aspect. He claims that Chinese play lots of
chess, while Indians don't, as if Hollywood should be in Paris since the
French invented cinema. The Indian culture, if one can truly consider it
just one, is perhaps the richest, most complicated and alien to the
westerner. But gaming isn't a main concern for them, and has never been -
many other forms of entertainment are more successful. And claiming that
the Chinese are better mathematicians than the Indians is absolutely
ludicrous.

I am not saying I am convinced that it was created in India, not in China,
and I don't exactly care much and don't believe it can ever be known for
certain - there will always be someone to claim chess was played in
Atlantis in 5000 B.C. (and hopefully another to point and laugh at that).

But still, I liked the background music of the article.

LCC wrote:
'But still, I liked the background music of the article.'
FYI, it's the third movement of Beethoven's 'Moonlight Sonata'.

It is quite amazing to me that the rook remained so consistant over the
years. It is the only piece that is in all the historic variants, from 
shatranji to shogi. So if one really want to trace the history of chess,
the rook probably is a important part of that.

Great website, very interesting and well informed. I'm particularly
interested in the many variants of chess played in India, Central Asia,
and the Middle East. Unfortunately (in my opinion), many of the historical
variations of chess seem to be dying out, replaced by the one same
'standard' game.. to me this is a great shame and a loss to everyone who
enjoys world culture and the game of chess.

Just to add my piece to the discussion about the origins of chess, it
seems to me extremely reasonable to assume that chess was originally
invented in ancient India. There have been very many civilisations that
have risen and fallen in the sub-continent... much of which is far from
desert! In the past it is likely many of the current desert regions were
much more fertile, and since when have people living in the desert not
been able to create great civilisations?!! (are we forgetting that
virtually all the ancient civilisations of the world were located in
desert regions with great rivers, just like Northern India/Pakistan?). 

Any arguments about Indian/Pakistani people not being the 'type' to
invent games are obviously complete bollox. I have travelled widely in
both countries and have found the local people (particularly the old men)
very fond of board games including a number of chess variations. The truth
is that we will never know exactly where chess was first played, and to be
honest I suspect a very ancient game was played millenia ago that
eventually evolved into what we recognise as chess at a relatively recent
date, say the 5th or 6th Century AD. Where this occurred is open to
speculation, but I would say Northern India is an extremely likely spot,
that the first known record came from Persia immediately prior to the Arab
conquest would fit well with that hypothesis as there was a great deal of
trade between the two regions. There can be little doubt that the spread
of Islam also carried with it the game of chess to many distant regions,
including perhaps Europe. 

Remains of boardgames, some of which have a passing resemblance to
chess/draughts/go, have been found in Ancient Egyptian tombs, Ancient
Chinese tombs, burial mounds in central Asia, Africa, Crete and Europe,
and indeed tombs in India. Boardgames are probably nearly as old as man,
and although I don't believe in 'Atlantis' it is quite easy for me to
believe simple chesslike games were played by early man, with stones for
pieces and a board marked in the dust with a stick, why wouldn't they be?
For certain he was as intelligent as any of us (probably more so because
he had to live by his wits), had the same likes and dislikes as we do, and
spare time to relax after a good days hunting. Couldn't the first version
of 'chess' have been a game revolving around a group of hunters and
prey, or a skirmish between two clans? It is only in very recent times
that we have set down the rules of the one 'standard' game of chess in
tablets of stone and hence prevented the multitude of individual
variations which must have been very common in former times.

First Position. White: King e5, Knight e1 Black: King e3, Rook a1 MOVES 1. Nc2 check, Kd3 2. Nxa1, Kc3 3. Ke4, Kb2 4. Kd3, Kxa1 is a simple 'two bare Kings draw' in FIDE chess. I wonder if centuries ago there were Shatranj tournament rules concerning bare King draws that require more than one move.

Second Position. White: King c1, Knight e1 Black: King a1, Pawn a2, Rook e2

MOVES 1. Nc2 check, Rxc2 check 2. Kxc2 stalemate(?) Applying the Bare King rule exactly as stated, White lost the game before he could capture the Rook and win by stalemate. This seems unfair. But if the rules did allow White to play his second move, should a stalemate by a bare King count as a win or only a draw?

I used to play Shatranj a lot when I was a teenager with a friend of mine
and also with my father.  We all enjoyed it.  It has its own unique feel.

Some modern chess players who have tried it have told me they didn't
like
it.  That is their right but I have gathered that often their dislike is
due to conservatism: they simply feel uncomfortable trying new things. 
Some also make the mistake of using modern chess as the yardstick and in
so doing see Shatranj's slower pieces as thus being weaker and so less
enjoyable (less power).  They miss the point, I think.  A slower game is
NOT an inferior game just a different game.  Draughts (checkers) is
another game with slow pieces (and in some varieties the Kings are also
slow) but millions enjoy it nonetheless.

When I first played Shatranj I realised that I had to divest myself of
much that I held to be true in modern chess: pawns, for example, are much
more powerful than in the modern game, yet paradoxically promotion is
less
important.  This tended to make me use the pawns more in the game and not
worry so much about preserving them in order to promote them to Queens. 
The play of the Shatranj Queen and Bishop are also correspondingly
diferent.  The Bishop is useful mainly as an annoyance, a covering force
against rook attacks, and, in conjunction with two friendly pawns in a
chain formation, as a barrier and fortress.  Thus a pawn on e3, another
on
d4 and a bishop on c5 mutually support each other and can be difficult
thus
to break up without the use of rival pawns.  This arrangement is good in
the middle game when enemy pawns have advanced forward and have moved to
where such a formation can no longer be threatened.  As for the Queen,
its
limited power could either be used defensively to shelter the King
against
Rook checks, as H.J.R.Murray noted the European players were prone to do,
or used aggressively by moving it forward, often in conjunction with the
King's Bishop, to assault the enmy lines, as the Arab masters used to
do.
 After a Bishop sacrifice taking out a few enemy pawns, the Queen, alone
or
in conjunction with say a Knight, can gain entry into the ranks of the
enemy and prove a real threat.  The reason: because enemy Bishops and the
enemy Queen cannot usually attack it (unless the enemy Queen is a
promoted
pawn on the same set of 32 squares, and the enemy player is often forced
to
use a Rook or Knight, or bring over his/her King thus exposing the King
to
attack.  Thus the Queen ties up enemy forces much more powerful.

Likewise with the changed power of the Queens and Bishops the Rooks and
Knights come into their power.  Not having to fear Bishops, or Queens
sweeping down the board at them, Rooks are the most powerful pieces, and
once a Rook can break into the enemy ranks can usually cause havoc,
especially if both Rooks can get in.  Knights also find themselves more
influential, not having to fear being swapped off by Bishops so much, and
can really threaten the enemy with forks and checks.  The net result is
often an interesting middle of the board clash.

Where the game disappointed some people (and led to the changes made to
bring in the modern game) is the length of time it takes to play.  I've
had many games that went over a hundred moves, easily.  Plus the end game
is less decisive without Rooks, and as a result can be a long drawn out
affair.  The rules of Shatranj allow for a win by Bare King.  This is OK
but no doubt left some players less than satisfied as cornering the King
is supposed to be the prime object of attention, so I can understand why
it frustrated some people, but I still like the game.  Strategy, tactics
and feel are really different.  If one is a little jaded with modern
chess
it can make an interesting alternative for a while as a break.

Using Zillions, I played out this sample game, which ends with the 4 remaining Black Pawns blockaded by 4 White pieces, while a Black King, Chariot, Knight, Counselor, and Elephant are locked in behind the Pawns. Even if this was a variant allowing Kings to move into check and be captured, Black would still have no legal moves in the final position:

    a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h
  +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  
8 | k |:n:| e |:::|   |:::|   |:::| 8
  +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  
7 |:r:| f |:::| p |:::|   |:::|   | 7
  +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  
6 | p |:::| p |:N:| p |:::|   |:::| 6
  +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  
5 |:R:|   |:E:|   |:R:|   |:::|   | 5
  +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  
4 |   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:P:| 4
  +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  
3 |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   | 3
  +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  
2 |   |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:| P |:::| 2
  +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  
1 |:::|   |:::| K |:F:| E |:N:|   | 1
  +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  
    a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h
 
alf-chaturanga.zrf
VariantName=Shatranj
1. Pawn h2 - h3
1. Pawn a7 - a6
2. Pawn h3 - h4
2. Knight b8 - c6
3. Chariot h1 - h3
3. Elephant c8 - e6
4. Chariot h3 - f3
4. King d8 - c8
5. Chariot f3 x f7
5. King c8 - b8
6. Chariot f7 x g7
6. Elephant e6 - c8
7. Chariot g7 x h7
7. Chariot a8 - a7
8. Chariot h7 x h8
8. King b8 - a8
9. Pawn a2 - a3
9. Pawn b7 - b6
10. Pawn a3 - a4
10. Knight c6 - b8
11. Pawn a4 - a5
11. Pawn b6 x a5
12. Chariot a1 x a5
12. Counselor e8 - f7
13. Elephant c1 - e3
13. Counselor f7 - e6
14. Elephant e3 - c5
14. Counselor e6 - d5
15. Chariot h8 x g8
15. Counselor d5 - c6
16. Chariot g8 - g5
16. Pawn e7 - e6
17. Chariot g5 - e5
17. Counselor c6 - b7
18. Knight b1 - c3
18. Pawn c7 - c6
19. Knight c3 - e4
19. Elephant f8 - d6
20. Knight e4 x d6

(loss-condition (White Black) (pieces-remaining 1) ) ; This 'bare king rule' creates problems for Zillions in Shatranj and other chess games. Here is an example with 5 pieces set up on an empty board:

VariantName=Shatranj (White Shah c1) (White Rukh b2) (White Baidaq h2) (Black Shah a1) (Black Rukh b8)

1. Shah c1 - c2 [a deliberate blunder in order to test Zillions]
1. Rukh b8 - c8
2. Shah c2 - b3
2. Rukh c8 - b8
3. Shah b3 - c2
3. Rukh b8 - c8

Apparently Zillions was worried about the sequence 1... Rukh x Rukh check 2. King x Rukh 'bare king victory'. I have not seen Zillions actually play an illegal move, but this example does show Zillions failing to win a game because it reacts to the apparent threat of a future illegal move. Another Problem: every Shatranj related ZRF that I have tested will record a 'bare king victory' without granting the player the opportunity for a final move resulting in a 'two bare kings draw'.

contains my Comment on Nīlakaņţ·ha’s Intellectual Game and its unusual rule - which attempts to avoid stalemate. I suppose Pritchard's rule variation should also have a page of its own. Stalemate rules are more complex than most people think - see my 2005-03-08 Comment on this page.

Repeating my [2007-04-16] comment to Wildebeest Chess.

Endgame Position White: King c1, Knight e1 and Black: King a1, Pawn a2, Rook e2.

   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 4 |   |///|   |///|   |///|   |///|
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 3 |///|   |///|   |///|   |///|   |
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 2 | p |///|   |///| r |///|   |///|
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 1 |/k/|   |/K/|   |/N/|   |///|   |
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 
     a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h

1.Nc2 check Rxc2 check and Black has won in Shatranj by the Bare King rule, which has only one stated exception. The Zillions Rule File for Shatranj (correctly) scores the game as a win for Black.

2.Kxc2 stalemate draws the game in my two recent 'Shatranj Kamil' variants. R. Wayne Schmittberg has just confirmed that White wins in Wildebeest Chess. And so we all agree to differ.

I would like to see some comments relating to certain legal positions in the game. Example: my previous comment. Another example follows my [Rule 5] Bare King Loss in Shatranj Kamil (64).

My choice of rules is specific to the mix of pieces in each chess variant. Since a King and a single promoted Pawn can force stalemate in Shatranj Kamil X, I have dropped the Bare King Loss Rule and kept [Rule 4] 'Stalemating your opponent wins the game, except when you have only a lone King. Then the result is a draw.'

My [2005-03-08] comment on this page 'BLOCKADE STALEMATE IN 20 MOVES' is unlikely to happen in a real game, but it demonstrates the need for precise and complete rules. Even in those chess variants which allow Kings to move into check and be captured, it is possible for a player to reach a position with no legal moves.

Can you explain why a single promoted pawn forcing stalemate would be a reason for dropping the Bare King Loss rule?  I don't see the connection.

An approach I am seeing is you have something like 3 types of win conditions with 3 different scores:
1. Checkmate, resignation = 2 points.
2. Shatranj type minor wins = 1 point.  This includes stalemate or baring the king.
3. Positions that are normally considered draws in FIDE or Shatranj = 1/2 point.  This would include things like 3 move repetition check, barring a king and then next move having your king barred, and so on.  Of course, one player would only get he half point.
4. A genuine draw, based on obscure positions.  My proposal to deal with this is to allow one player to pick a color and their opponent only get 1/2 point for the draw, or they can take the 1/2 point for the rare draw and their opponent picks the color.

This approach, while a tad more complicated, handles more situation and actually allows room for handicapping.  If people want me to post it in greater detail, I can put it up here.

Take a look at this: 
http://www.mobygames.com/game/amiga/distant-armies/screenshots
Nice. And old.... (1988)

:)

Standard Shatranj is an excessively boring game. It is very slow, the Pawns and Ferzes merely crawling over the board, and the draw rate between equally skilled players is about 70%. (For Mad Queen this is about 30%, for Capablanca-type variants only 16%.) Having watched many Shatranj blitz games, I can imagine why there was such an incessent drive to modernize some of the pieces.

I don't think shuffling would solve anything. And it certainly would not have to invoke Fischer, as there is no castling, and none of the special rules invented by Fischer to preserve castling in Shuffle Chess would have to be applied. (i.e. no reason to require K between R in Shuffle Shatranj.) 

Elephants would still remain useless pieces under normal shuffle rules, which would keep color-bound pieces on different colors. It would be more interesting to allow Elephants on the same color, so they can defend each other (as in Xiangqi), then they could be used in fortress building. But the risk is that the game might become even more difficult to win then, in absence of Cannons to penetrate the fortress.

I suppose, the mentality of modernity isn't compatible with historical Shatranj. This doesn't mean that the game is totally uninteresting. We still like to watch costume films about the 18th century, but nobody would like to dress up like that anymore and dance silly minuets. We are all products of our time. Should we analyze the variants created on this site, we would get a picture of the collective psychology of modernity. In my view, many variants are somewhat overbearing and high-flying, i.e. simply over the top. But far from all, of course.
/Mats

The linked comment is vintage Betza, usually even better expressed in his polished articles. Betza comments always as ''gnohmon'' and had this to say over seven years ago at Chaturanga in 2002.
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=513
''My average of the two skills is higher than the divine Parton or superhuman Fischer.'' Like Gilman for many years, Betza did not use formal identification, and so could not revise his words. I think there are some contradictions in terms here Betza would not fully defend.  Yet this comment shows Betza's coherent/confused mindset the year he left. By August 2003, no more all-too-profound Ralph Betza.  Also some of this particular comment by Betza would be deliberate obfuscation by him just short of sabotage -- conclusion that I can justify and cross-index another time.  A couple significant sentences, midst the true account, he knows to be untrue or does not really mean for effect, in hyperbole not for purpose of satire.

Shatranj2880 preserves Alfil bindings. Shatranj Shuffle opposite sides'
8 r__n__a__k__f__a__n__r   starting arrays are perfect mirrors. That goes
7  __ __ __ __ __ __ __    for the four Alfils (elephants) as well. Each
6  __ __ __x__ __ __ __x   team has one White- one Black-cell Alfil. In
5  __ __ __ __ __ __ __    the perfection of mediaeval game, there can
4  __x__ __ __ __x__ __    NEVER be Alfil x Alfil.In two words,IM-
3  __ __ __ __ __ __ __    POSSIBLE, for their respective bindings never
2  __ __ __x__ __ __ __x   impinge. In board to left, we use the standard
1 r__n__a__k__f__a__n__r   RNAKFANR for convenience of familiarity. 
  a  b  c  d  e  f  g  h   Imagine also the mediaeval game was checkered, which was not always the case. The White's Alfils are c1 and f1, Black's c8 and f8. Now c1 and f8 are on black SQUARES. Follow f8's binding-path as f8-d6-b4-d2-f4-h6 and two what we might call ''offshoots'' h2 and b8. Each of the four Alfils reach their particular 8 squares for 32 all together, half the board. Notice f8-Alfil has route that just nips White's c1 (at d2) but he does not hit him. Both f8 and c1 stay on Black squares but never correspond by reaching exact same squares. Their bindings are all of them independent of one another. There can neither be AxA nor even Alfil defending Alfil. NOT IN ALL RECORDED HISTORY. 
Shatranj2880 adds 2879 more initial arrays with the SAME CHARACTERISTIC free-ranging Alfils -- proven valid piece interaction for a thousand years from 600 to 1500 -- and good enough for any right-thinking person for the longer-term foreseeable future.
__________________''Can we speculate that, had the later, very efficient malaria protist lived in Europe during antiquity, classical culture with its influence on modern civilization worldwide would not have developed?'' --Ricardo Guerrero microbiologist

It tends not to be noticed that C960 castling is a 2/3 reduction, because of the other accompanying reduction for Bishop-same-colour. Instead of every King placement, C960 permits only 56 of the 168 respecting the two Rooks' positioning. (In general, on 8x8 fixed castling is better, and by 8x10 free castling is better -- but that's an educated value judgment.) Since ShatranjShuffle2880 has no castling, it has 3 times the arrays available over C960, wherewith Rooks to King placements are not mattering. Hence the exact times 3, what we were trying to understand.
(1) Incidentally with mirrors 168x2 = 336, and that number 336  keeps recurring, chiefly just because it is 8x7x6, such as at Man & Beasts 04,
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=23281.
(2) Technically 960/40320 = 0.0238 = 1/42, the fraction being exact. So C960 uses only 1/42 of pure (8 factorial), representing every possible permutation, and most of the 960 are still ugly as a bulldog.

In a way, shatranj is like baseball. It packs 10 minutes of action into 4 hours of playing time. :-) The only people who play it, as far as I can tell, are us, pretty much. The only place I found playable shatranj online besides here was at Zillions, and that was mostly all shatranj variants. Even the one guy who offered the original gave variants on it. [Okay, I didn't look hard, but still, looking through the first few pages of a few google searches turned up only Zillions and this site for playable shatranj. Not a big audience.]

As a game, shatranj was superceded by more modern forms, which had better play value. Chess is a better game than shatranj, just as Go is a better game, with more play value, than tic tac toe. But shatranj superceded some other, more ancient game[s], because it was better and gave more play value then. [Think about that for a minute: if the alfil and ferz were significant improvements over the pieces before them, how bad was that previous game, to modern sensibilities? ;-)]

Maybe it comes down to a case, not of exhausting the possibilities, but of exhausting the probabilities. FIDE seems to have hit that point, at high level, anyway. In some senses, the 'good moves' are already taken. That's why the shuffle. Now, note this - since chess has 2 infinite slider [singly] colorbound bishops to shatranj's pair of 8-square-only alfils, and the modern queen to shatranj's colorbound ferz, clearly, the 'good moves' in chess far outnumber those in shatranj. 

For shatranj to be worthwhile as an intellectual game of the first order again, it must be updated, not just re-arranged. To keep it shatranj, the updating must involve shatranj-style pieces, and avoid the infinite sliders that mark modern chess as clearly different. The goal is to increase the possibilities without turning shatranj into FIDE.

General is obviously a wrong translation for ferz. Original name of this
peace was 'Farzin' (that in europe spelled it 'ferz' or 'ferse') and
'Vazir' (that also spell 'Vizier'). Farzin is a persian word that
commonly precieved meaning is 'Minister' or probably 'Prime minister'
but as murray mentioned and I discussed in my comment to ferz article in
your site, this is not totally true. original meaning of farzin is wiseman.
altough there is a strong relation beetween wisemanship and role of
ministers in history. main chracteristic of persian and Islamic prime
minister was extensive Knowledge and a king must elect most wisest men for
his prime minister. this reflected in many tale, folk and storys. 'Vazir'
is an arabic word that means 'Minister' or even 'Prime minister'. there
is a rationlaity for name of 'General', in time of war 'Prime minister'
is present and act as a general but this is not his name and no one call it
General.

there is many source that translate this peace fers or vizier. if you want
to translate it, Minister or even prime minister is true. 

another wrong name in this article is 'Knight'. name of this peace in
both persian and arabic literature was a word that means horse, as sanskrit
name of peace in chaturanga and name of peace in modern chess in most
regions in asia. in europe shatranj horse changed to chess knight. I think
this transition is for giving humanistic personality to chess peaces, this
change also happend for elefant that replace with bishop and other names.

We should not confuse 'European' with 'English'. In no other language I know the Bishop is actually called after a clerical person. In German is is 'Laufer' (runner), in Dutch 'Loper' (walker) or 'Raadsheer' (adviser, counselor), in French 'Fou' (fool, jester), in Spanish 'Alfil' (so they retained the Arabic word for elephant, despite the fact that the piece moves differently).

Similarly the name of the Knight piece in many languages has nothing to do with a knight. In German it is 'Springer' (leaper), in Dutch 'Paard' (horse), in Spanish 'Caballo' (horse).

All in all, Chess pieces have pretty exceptional or weird names in English, if you compare it with the rest of the World. But I suppose any language has the right to name the pieces like they want. There is no need for litteral translation. The name Lance for this Shogi piece is a much better name than the litteral translaton of the Japanese 'Incense Chariot'. (And I don't think it would be progress to refer to a Bishop as 'Angle Mover' either, there.)

As to the Ferz, it is interesting to note that in Chinese Chess (Xiangqi) the common name for this piece is Adviser (the alternatve name, '(Palace) Guard', no doubt being inspired by the unique feature of Xiangqi of the Palace board zone to which this piece is restricted). It is sometimes also called 'Mandarin', which I guess in Chinese culture is some kind of Advisor to the emperor. The Elephants there are also often referred to as Ministers. Confusingly enough, in English, the word 'minister' can also refer to a clergiman, as well as to a statesman.

In Shogi all pieces with King-like moves are called 'generals' (includingthe King itself, which is the 'Jade General').

you should consider that walker, Shooter, raunner, jester and bishop all
are humanistic personas. 

my discussion is against using 'General'. If english name for this peace
before changing piece move was general, this name is certainly correct but
if thay named it ferz or another name you should use it. I'm not able to
find any english authoritative sources of chess history.

The issue of Xiang Qi actual strengthens Mohsen's case for not calling the Ferz a 'General', as General is the name generally used for another piece in that game. The Ferz represents a kind of adviser in both games, so why call it something that doesn't mean a kind of adviser?
	The Shogi analogy doesn't work at all. The names of the King, Rook, and Bishop pieces in European languages are regularly used in the context of FIDE Chess, so it is natural for Europeans to use these names even when playing Shogi - and even devise new European names for the rest of the pieces. My own Chatelaine, Helm, Point, Primate, and Wing are the most comprehensive list of such names. Incidentally one player's King in Shogi is called 'King's general' and the other 'Jewelled general', the latter without specifying a particular kind of jewel.
	Calling the Ferz a General simply doesn't compare. The Ferz is this context not an piece exotic to players alreadsy familiar with FIDE Chess, bit the precursor of the FIDE Queen. As far as I am aware it was only ever known in Europe either as Ferz or some variant spelling, or by the local names now used by the modern Queen.
	One small point about real-life bishops: they are certainly not 'Humanistic' in the religious sense, quite the reverse!

Mohsen's ''English authoritative sources of Chess history'' are still led by 100-year-old Murray 'A History of Chess'. That is unfortunate because Murray's style is not fluid. Yet the other chess historians do not deserve mention on the same level because of far less content than Murray's. How about etymology of ''King'' through Persia or Arabia? 
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=20318.
Also HORSE is already prevalent English name for the chess piece hippogonally jumping.  In English there ought to be non-humanistic names for all six chess pieces.  Metals could be used, or animals, or birds. Here is a chart of equivalences: 
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=18698. Metals have Pawn-Silver, Horse-Iron, Bishop-Mercury, King-Tin, Queen-Copper, Tower-Lead.    Then player promotes his Silver to Copper, rather than Iron Horse, and starts with cornered Leads, who move orthogonally. There is correspondence to Gilmanesque organization in Silver obviously being one Shogi-style pawn-type, and like Tin King, who may be imagined tinpot dictator or 'Wizard of Oz' tinman aspiring for a heart. Just ''Tin'' impartially takes the sting out of it all. Tin check.

because i didnn't play a lot.

A poorish game by modern standards, especially due to the alfil pieces, but modern chess is indebted to this historic early version of it.

Here's a 10x10 Shatranj-style variant with 4 Kings per side:

4 Kings Quasi-Shatranj

I knew the rules of Shatranj for a few years but had never attempted an actual game. But these days I'm again delving into historic Chess variants. My primary goal is to find a few sample games of Shatranj which would hopefully let me understand why the game was appreciated (for me it is just impossible to play it: I fill lost when I open it in Zillions, I don't know where to go, what short term goals to pursue).

While searching for sample games, I discovered the astonishing lack of historic recorded games of Shatranj. I found but two, dating back to the Xth century. It turns out that apparently Shatranj was never played from the initial setup. Players would agree on a standartized position -- which could be called an opening in modern terms -- and would use it as actual setup. I found sixteen examples of such openings but without an analysis of their strengths and weakness it is still difficult to use them. One can still admire their poetic names.

In my opinion, we see Shatranj as a poor, uninteresting game just because we don't know enough about it. It would be so nice if somebody could provide us with the analysis of As-Suli, mentioned by George Duke back in 2008 in the first comment to this page. Perhaps more knowledge of the actual way this game was played would allow us to better appreciate it, since initial setup, piece movement and winning conditions don't seem to be enough?

General moves like queen in the Interactive diagram

Oops, I wrote the Q in the move field, instead of the id field, where I had intended it. Thanks for spotting this!

Is anyone interested in making an SVG piece set out of the Chess Alfonso-X font? I would like to use them in a redesign of this page with a diagram looking something like this, which I just did in Ultimate Paint, as well as with pieces images.

Alternately, is there anything that would be more authentic for Shatranj?

In making the diagram below, I discovered a quick and easy method for making bitmap piece images. By printing the black pieces in outline, I can get pieces like the white ones in the diagram, which are anti-aliased to the piece color inside and to a neutral background color (#808080) outside. So, I've already made and uploaded a set of GIFs to use.

I tried making some SVGs from the Alfonso-X font. Is there somewhere to upload them here?

While signed in, go to your personal information page and select Upload or Manage Files from the Edit menu. If it hasn't yet been programmed to accept svg files, put them into a zip file and upload that. I'll then move them to an appropriate location.

Alfonso X was king of Castile from 1252 to 1284. The sentence saying he was king in the 1300s should be corrected.

Thanks for the correction. I suppose I was thinking 13th century and then misapplied the number 13.

here it is

A wide variety of piece themes is available as SVG from the PyChess project at github:

https://github.com/pychess/pychess/tree/master/pieces

AlfonsoX is also amongest those.

Since there are two sets of svg images of the Alfonso-X pieces, I downloaded both and compared them. The PyChess files were much larger, and they wouldn't display in Edge or load in Inkscape. The other images came in both black and white, but I needed only the white pieces. But these didn't have a fill color, which would have made recoloring them impossible. I fixed that by loading each one into Inkscape and adding a fill color in the appropriate places. Finally, I had to manually edit some to correct an error that had crept up in using Inkscape. Now that that's all done, I have a set of SVG images for the Alfonso-X set that work with Game Courier or the Diagram Designer and can be recolored. Thanks for the help.

It looks like I didn't edit them perfectly. The background color is bleeding through in parts of each piece image.

You could try copying the black pieces behind the white ones to provide the fill color.

You could try copying the black pieces behind the white ones to provide the fill color.

No, that's a kludge I would rather avoid.

How are these?

They appeared to have no bleed-through, but they wouldn't recolor. So, I went ahead with what was working. Taking a variation on your suggestion, I was isolating the part of the path that drew the outline and placing it before the path that drew the image with a color of #f9f9f9. This worked for most pieces. For the Ferz, I couldn't isolate the path due to it relying on m rather than M too much, as it is easier to isolate segments of a path when it is using absolute values. I tried the same thing with the Pawn, but it didn't work. Instead of drawing an outline and carving out sections, it was drawing the right side as a single path then drawing the left side as a single path. So, I couldn't isolate any part of the path for drawing the outline. At this point, every piece is recoloring without bleed-through except for the Pawn.

Ok, I don't know how exactly you need them set up to be recolorable. What I did in the latest ones was insert white sections exactly corresponding to the gaps. That might be as far as I know how to go with this.

For the Pawn, I took your new Pawn and changed the fill color from #ffffff to #f9f9f9 to make it recolorable, and it is now working without bleed-through. Thanks.

Sorry, no, it's not. I need to get the outline shape of the Pawn and put it ahead of the main drawing of the Pawn in the SVG.

Through trial and error I placed a polygon and a circle ahead of the drawing of the Pawn. While it's not a perfect outline of the Pawn, it covers all the interior parts, which is good enough. So, now the Pawn is finally free of bleed-through.

The text by the diagrams looks weird when it reflows so that just one line comes below the images.