Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Interesting paper. Errors in describing chess variants are not uncommon in literature (see Grant Acedrex for example). However, not everything are errors as this paper says. There are always obscure points in the old and original descriptions, and they are rendered with some interpretation by more modern authors. This is also what the authors of this paper are doing themselves. In my opinion their reconstruction is speculating as much as Murray or others have done, but their speculation make sense and I think their proposed reconstruction is the best for this game, indeed.
If Markov contacts me I will be glad to discuss that with him.
The rules above seem to be seriously flawed due to a series of errors in the literature. Please check our paper with Stefan Härtel in Board Game Studies Journal 14, pp. 43-60: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/bgs-2020-0003
I regret the chosen options to represent the pieces: The Gazelle (that's the original name) moves like what we call a Camel. Why chosing a Giraffe to represent it? The Great Ferz moves like the Giraffe in Tamerlane Chess. Why chosing a Chancellor, represented by Rook+Knight, to represent it? These are unfortunate choices, adding confusion. I'd like to see them changed one day. By the way, this is the only variation which can be considered as Turkish. It appeared in 1805-06 in a Turkish Encyclopedia authored by Muhammad Hafid. All other variants are not Turkish but Indians. See Murray for details. (Gollon copied Murray but did a big mistake here. Pritchard pointed Gollon's mistake as well.). Too bad that those mistakes are continued here.
6 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
Thank you for your comment and the discussion.