Check out Symmetric Chess, our featured variant for March, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

LatestLater Reverse Order EarlierEarliest
Shatranj. The widely played Arabian predecessor of modern chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
John Smith wrote on Fri, Dec 19, 2008 11:03 PM UTC:
I want that!

Nuno Cruz wrote on Fri, Dec 19, 2008 10:41 PM UTC:
Take a look at this: 
http://www.mobygames.com/game/amiga/distant-armies/screenshots
Nice. And old.... (1988)

:)

H. G. Muller wrote on Wed, Oct 15, 2008 06:36 PM UTC:
Standard Staunton-style piece set for this game:


George Duke wrote on Sun, Oct 12, 2008 07:36 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
As-Suli, the great predecessor. Shatranj openings The Torrent, The Strongly Built, the Slave's Banner. Great As-Suli (880-946) diabused players of blind belief in the strengths of those openings. Jacobus de Cessolis 'The Game and Play of Chesse' second only to the mediaeval Bible in copies made. Shatranj was once more popular percentagewise than OrthoChess ever became, that provisional derivation of Shatranj still played today. Well, OrthoChess had its years too 1500-1900, and now 100 years of rough sailing. Marshall Attack in the Ruy Lopez, King's Gambit, Guioco Piano, Sicilian all colourful names for openings to be put on the shelf, or to pasture, or buried at Sea, as the 5, 10, 100 settled-on CVs available assume command, so as to have realized Chess return to her cultural-rootedness and full contemporary relevance -- as time of Shatranj glory when Chess ascendant.

George Duke wrote on Sat, Sep 20, 2008 10:02 PM UTC:
The next chess is cliche only hours after being spoken, and it's my fault. Almost certainly the next Chess is already within CVPage. We ought to think of the one after that, the way Computers succeeded in killing off FIDE Mad Queen 8x8. The same few objectors who keep popping up reviling the elementary likelihood seem like ringers from Orthodox Chess circles, Editors should take reasonable note. Face it, there are economic consequences when 8x8 forms are abandoned before 2012 or 2020. Joyce's ''Star Trek'' intellect, will, emotion. Hutnik notes the emotion in each individual island of contributor. The brains are all the articles. The will probably escapes CVPage itself, but there are appreciative offshoots. Not only Muller's programs, Strong's once ChessV, Hutnik's IAGO, or the unknown party Hutnik recently addresses with knowledge of Michael Howe. Not singling any out, but surely some strong candidate elsewhere than those sees the handwriting on the wall for ''Mad Queen'' alone. That's what reviving 1990's CVPage Track One seeks, even harking back to Centennial, an early candidate that alone would be improvement enough to FIDE-Lawed 8x8, ruined by over-repetition. What did it take to get from Shatranj to Mad Queen? The Courier Bishop. Period. (& it was always there for 300 yrs.: I left out always with you until the close of the age)

Rich Hutnik wrote on Wed, Apr 16, 2008 02:41 AM UTC:
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.

David Paulowich wrote on Wed, Apr 16, 2008 01:41 AM UTC:

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.


David Paulowich wrote on Wed, Apr 16, 2008 01:24 AM UTC:

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.


Rich Hutnik wrote on Tue, Apr 15, 2008 04:34 AM UTC:
I would like to comment here that I find it interesting that proposals to add some of the win conditions from Shatranj to regular chess are seen as 'too radical'. Here I mean no stalemate and barring the king. I am curious why anyone would feel that, particularly when they play variants? If these actually reduce the number of draws, why not use it in variants?

Andreas Kaufmann wrote on Thu, Jan 11, 2007 08:45 PM UTC:
There are cetainly much more Shatranj openings. You can find a lot of them in Murray's book 'A history of chess'.

longshanx wrote on Wed, Jan 10, 2007 11:05 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
Where can i find the openings for shatranj? I only managed to find two of them, the Mujannah and the Mashaikhi. There are surely more, aren't they?

Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on Sun, Jun 18, 2006 06:05 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
oops this game needs a ratings boost, where are you shatranj lovers!

Derek Nalls wrote on Tue, Apr 4, 2006 06:24 AM UTC:
[Comment deleted.]

David Paulowich wrote on Tue, Nov 15, 2005 02:45 AM UTC:
http://www.chessvariants.org/historic.dir/nilakantha.html

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.


Thomas McElmurry wrote on Mon, Oct 31, 2005 09:11 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
I would assume that the transposition rule is not being used, since as the rules are stated here it seems to be presented as a nonstandard variation.

Gary Gifford wrote on Sun, Oct 30, 2005 01:17 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
I like the 'Bare King' concept and am a little surpprised that it did not continue down with the evolution of today's orthodox chess. Also, though Shatranj seems not to be very popular today, I wonder if the rule variant cited by Pritchard, i.e., 'A stalemated King may be transposed with one of its other pieces, as long as this does not result in check' is being used in the game courier? But I imagine it is not. Pritchard's variant is mentioned on the ChessVariants page. I imagine we are not employing it in our game courier games. If it is being used, however, I would like to know as it could completely change the endgame in certain situations by changing a forced stalemate to a win.

David Paulowich wrote on Wed, Mar 30, 2005 11:55 PM UTC:

(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)

diagram

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'.


David Paulowich wrote on Tue, Mar 8, 2005 04:06 AM UTC:
BLOCKADE STALEMATE IN 20 MOVES:

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
diagram

David Paulowich wrote on Sun, Feb 20, 2005 01:21 AM UTC:
http://www.chessvariants.org/d.betza/pieceval/fig2key.html <p>gives P=7, E=8, G=12, N=21, R=35 after multiplying Betza's 'standard values' by 4. Compared to my comment three days ago, the Elephant and General now add up to almost the same value as a Knight. P=7 is an average pawn value - central pawns are worth much than a-file and h-file pawns.

David Paulowich wrote on Wed, Feb 16, 2005 03:06 AM UTC:
Andreas: Elephant=1, General=2, Knight=4, Rook=6 is my (uneducated) guess for middlegame values. Never forget that the Elephant visits only a pitiful eight(8) squares on the board. But I am comparing these with Pawns that vary in value from 0.8 (a- and h-files) to 1.6 (d- and e-files). The ancient Arab chess authors were less inclined to use an average Pawn value, which is around 1.2 here. <p>'Thoughts on Chess with Different Pawns' is a recent Ralph Betza web page, where he has a lot to say about Shatranj piece values. For example: al-Adli thought a Knight was worth five(5) times as much as a Rook's Pawn, which is consistent with the values I gave above. See: <p>http://www.chessvariants.org/piececlopedia.dir/chess-different-pawns.html

Andreas Kaufmann wrote on Mon, Feb 14, 2005 03:56 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Which piece is stronger, General or Elephant? Is it worth to exchange General or Elephant for two pawns? Are there any writings from 1000 years ago about piece values in Shatranj :-) ?

Rook Hudson wrote on Tue, Nov 9, 2004 10:21 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
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.

David Paulowich wrote on Sun, Aug 1, 2004 11:51 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Every chess variant can raise complicated rules questions. Here are some for Shatranj.

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?


Austin Lockwood wrote on Sat, Jun 19, 2004 11:26 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
We have just introduced Shantranj as a playable variant on SchemingMind.com - this is a fascinating game!

Mike wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2003 11:31 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
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.

25 comments displayed

LatestLater Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.