Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I am sorry if I have hurt you. My goal is to keep a friendly chat!

...

...

...

Guys!

1. Please behave!

2. What is all the fuss about? It is just the name of a chess piece. In the end we can name it orthogonal mover without losing interest in the games that uses it!

...

So, I have asked legitimate questions and raised legitimate points, and you are making some kind of fuss about this. To understand what you know, I need to know what evidence and reasoning led you to your conclusions. Even when I read other Chess historians, I focus on the evidence and reasoning they provide, and I do not accept what any of them say simply on the basis of authority. I would treat any source on the subject in the same way. If that's a problem for you, it raises red flags.

Well Fergus, I don't know why you take everything like this. Always. I mean, you fight for every thing. Spirit of contradiction at the highest degree. I never had a single conversation with you that does not degenerate in controversy. At the end, it is me who is blamed of being too sensitive. I think I am not but you have a real talent to upset me, for the tiniest motive. Let's stop that here.

First Forbes is not a reliable historian, I believe that is well known, I don't need to develop.

Maybe it's well known among historians, but I am only a lay reader in history. All I know is that he is not always in agreement with other Chess historians I am familiar with, and I sometimes agree with them rather than with him. Regardless, having a bad reputation doesn't mean he isn't right. So I'm more interested in what evidence you might mount against what he is saying than I am in attacks on his general credibility.

Then the photos I have shown on my website are NOT demonstrating that these German, Dutch or English pieces have taken this form of a tower because an influence of an Italian word for fortress.

Who said they were? When I said "supports", I meant corroboration, not proof. You brought them up as evidence that rukh was understood to mean rock in Europe, and I don't see these pieces as evidence of that.

f you look Murray's p422n18 you will see that ...

I may look at details in Murray later, but I don't have time right now.

A. Panaino "La novella degli scacchi e della tavola reale", 1999, p167-174.

When I tried to download the PDF for this, all I got was an abstract. Is there anyplace I can download the actual document?

Concluded by: non mi sembra necessario cercare a tutti i costi di inserire un "carro" nella lista dei pezzi del WCN. L'interpretazione "fianco" si pone come una soluzione non solo elegante sul piano della restituzione filologica, ma estremamente economica su quello etimologico. Infatti, se è evidente, come è comunamente accettato, che Ferdowsi non riconosce nel rux (=rukh) un "carro".

Bing translated this to

I don't think it's necessary to try at all costs to put a "wagon" in the WCN's list of pieces. The "side" interpretation is not only an elegant solution in terms of philological restitution, but extremely economical in terms of etymology. In fact, if it is evident, as is commonly accepted, that Ferdowsi does not recognize in the rux (=rukh) a "chariot".

Since I don't know about "the WCN's list of pieces," "the 'side' interpretation," or Ferdowski, most of this is opaque to me. Also, I am more interested in what his evidence and reasoning is than I am in his conclusion.

On rocca/fortress.

First Forbes is not a reliable historian, I believe that is well known, I don't need to develop.

Then the photos I have shown on my website are NOT demonstrating that these German, Dutch or English pieces have taken this form of a tower because an influence of an Italian word for fortress.

If you look Murray's p422n18 you will see that "rocca" is attested in Italy only on the 17th c. Before, we have rocco, pl. rocchi, rocho, roccho, roco, rrocho,and many other forms in Latin, Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese, Provençal (=Occitan), French, English, etc. So, in the most all the case, that piece was designated as a "rock". Obviously by phonetic resemblence with Arabic "rukh", mostly through Latin "rochus".

Murray (p772) says the modern form of the Rook as a tower appears first in Damiano in the 16th c. There are two reasons leading to imagine that piece as a tower: 1) the evolution of the abstract shape prevailing at that time, a sort of V, becoming a sort of Y. 2) having 4 pieces named "rock" at the 4 corners of the chessboard were suggesting the 4 towers at the corner of a castle. Naturally, a tower became one, but not the only one, physical representation of that piece. Later, players started to name that piece Torre, Tour, Turm, Torren, in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Holland, etc.

On rukh: A. Panaino "La novella degli scacchi e della tavola reale", 1999, p167-174. 7 pages to deal with this issue. Concluded by: non mi sembra necessario cercare a tutti i costi di inserire un "carro" nella lista dei pezzi del WCN. L'interpretazione "fianco" si pone come una soluzione non solo elegante sul piano della restituzione filologica, ma estremamente economica su quello etimologico. Infatti, se è evidente, come è comunamente accettato, che Ferdowsi non riconosce nel rux (=rukh) un "carro".

I cannot re-type the 7 pages, but even if you look at Murray pp159-160 you will see that 1) "Rukh is less simple", 2) "chariot" is not among the established senses in Persian, but "cheek" is. Then Murray tries to see a trace of "chariot" in Arabic. As, the piece was often represented as a chariot (even symbolic) the quote 'araba for rukh is understandable.

What Panaino is explaining (citing other scholars before him like MacKenzie) is that this piece was understood as an officier standing on the side of the army (the "cheeks") and that it was represented on a chariot, the chariot being no more used as a weapon on the 6th century but used by officiers to command on the troops. In 1913, Murray didn't have all these analysis.

For Persian I refer to the writting of Antonio Panaino who is iranologist and wrote about this in 1998. Murray's book is 1913. Panaino explanation are clear and well informed, he is a recognized scholar on that.

What has he said on the subject, and where has he said it?

For rocca in Italian, one would have to look at the italian etymology. I don't know if rocca was meaning fortress in an Italian dialect (which one?) by the end of the 10th century? Rocca, roch, roche, roca, rock in romance languages and in English (by French influence) are all connected to the root of rock, meaning a big stone. What is true is that the Arabic word of "rukh" or "rokh" used at chess had been understood as roca/rocca/roch/rock etc. in Western European languages when it entered in those lands. This was natural by phonetics. And the representation of a solid rock by a castle/tower was also natural and it happened in many places in Europe as you can see on http://history.chess.free.fr/first-european.htm

Since your images portray pieces that look like fortresses, this supports what I was saying, which comes from Forbes and is agreed with by Davidson, that rukh happened to sound similar to rocca, an Italian word for fortress. It's certainly possible that rocca is related to the word rock, as rock was probably a common building material for fortresses, but without a related word like this, I don't think that sounding like words meaning rock would have led to representing the piece as a fortress of some kind.

For Persian I refer to the writting of Antonio Panaino who is iranologist and wrote about this in 1998. Murray's book is 1913. Panaino explanation are clear and well informed, he is a recognized scholar on that.

For rocca in Italian, one would have to look at the italian etymology. I don't know if rocca was meaning fortress in an Italian dialect (which one?) by the end of the 10th century? Rocca, roch, roche, roca, rock in romance languages and in English (by French influence) are all connected to the root of rock, meaning a big stone. What is true is that the Arabic word of "rukh" or "rokh" used at chess had been understood as roca/rocca/roch/rock etc. in Western European languages when it entered in those lands. This was natural by phonetics. And the representation of a solid rock by a castle/tower was also natural and it happened in many places in Europe as you can see on http://history.chess.free.fr/first-european.htm

As an Italian speaker I can confirm.

Bishop = Alfiere

Rook = Torre (which means tower). 

Rukh is not the Persian word for chariot.

Murray says it is, and I have now cited that.

Rocca is not the Italian word for fortress.

I have added a link to the word in an Italian-English dictionary, which does give fortress as a meaning of the word.

Etc.

Maybe you can expand on that.

The introductory text is very approximative. The main idea is here, but the details are not correct. Rukh is not the Persian word for chariot. Rocca is not the Italian word for fortress. Etc.

I could propose a better text if needed.

I called Lance a Japanese Rook once.

You could argue that the Lance/Incense Chariot is the ‘true’ Rook of Shōgi, seeing as the Flying Chariot is a later addition. Which makes it as consistent as the King

Out of all the pieces Rook is the only piece thats consistent
Pawns have different captures
"Elephants" are either Alfils or Bishops or Silvers or Dabbabas or Alibabas
Knights have the same types of moves but they vary on how it moves (lame, 2 forwardmost only, etc.)
King is almost consistent
Unless if you believe what Johannes Kohtz suggested. He suggested that the earliest move of the Ratha is it jumps 2 squares orthogonally (Dabbaba)