Читать книгу The History of Chess - H. J. R. Murray - Страница 13

Of the two old descriptions of the game, that of al-Bērūnī contains most information as to the practical play, the Bengali poem being mainly concerned with advice to the player as to the considerations which should guide him in making captures or exchanges, and with a description of the different values of the various forms of victory. The rules governing the division of the stakes need not detain us now, except in so far as they suggest aims to be kept in view through the game, since they do not affect the broad question as to how the game was played. Both authorities agree in the initial positions of the forces, and in the moves of the pieces and the interpretation of the throws of the dice.

5 (including 1) K or P moves.

4 (including 6) Elephant (with move of our R) moves.

3 Horse (with move of our Kt) moves.

2 Boat or Rook (with move of Elephant in diagram no. 1, p. 59) moves.

Turning to al-Bērūnī’s account, we notice that he speaks of the use of two dice, though he does not explain how they were to be used. It only appears incidentally from his note on the Rook’s move that the dice are to be thrown simultaneously, although this would of course be the natural conclusion one would draw in any case. Nor is the method of interpretation of the throws at all clear. There would seem to be five possible ways of using the throws. These are: (1) The sum total of the pips might be taken and interpreted as laid down above. But this does not harmonize with the account of the Rook’s move, and of the 21 (or, supposing the two dice are distinguishable the one from the other, 36) combinations possible, 12 (21) give totals of 7 and upwards, and are unintelligible. (2) One die gives the piece to be moved, the other prescribes its move. But this again does not harmonize with the Rook’s move, and, besides, both King and Horse have more than six moves open to them in some positions, and the cubical die could not distinguish between more than six. (3) A combination of (1) and (2), which would involve the difficulties of both at the least. (4) Only one of the throws is to be used at the option of the player. This would reduce the number of unintelligible throws, and allow for the exercise of a certain amount of discretion. But again the Rook’s move is a difficulty, unless there is a special privilege attached to the throw of doublets. If so, 5 . 1 and 6 . 4, as meaning 5 . 5 and 4 . 4 respectively, would have to be counted as doublets. If both dice could give moves in such cases, this hypothesis satisfies the account of the Rook’s maximum move. (5) Both throws are used, and the players may, if the dice both give intelligible moves, play two moves simultaneously. This also satisfies the Rook’s move. The solution appears to me to rest between (4) and (5), and the latter of these is the less complicated in working.

The analogy of Pachīsī may help to solve some points. In this game a player has considerable liberty with regard to his use of his throws. In the first place he continues to throw and play until he throws one of the three lowest throws of the eight possible. There is accordingly nothing un-Indian about the simultaneous play of two or more moves, and the orderly succession of alternate moves is not an absolute necessity. In the second place, a player may decline to take his throw when it is his turn, or even if he throw, he may decline to play the throw if he would spoil his position by so doing.

Of previous writers, only Forbes and Falkener have attempted to lay down rules for the game, though v.d. Linde experimented with the game, and published the results in the Schachzeitung (1874, 33). Forbes, who only contemplated the use of the single die, suggested that a player forfeited his move when the die gave an unintelligible throw, and cited the analogy of English backgammon. This receives some support from the rules of the Arabic dice oblong chess (see Ch. XVI). Falkener considered that the die was only used to determine the first move, and was discarded afterwards, because ‘the game is too ingenious to be subject to a chance which would render inoperative the most brilliant conceptions, and by which the worst player, having luck on his side, might defeat the most skilful’. And he surmounted the difficulty of an unintelligible throw occurring at the start, e.g. a 4, by supposing that there are only four openings, and that ‘the throws of the die on starting meant one of the principal pieces or its pawn, and this seems supported by the Rajah and its Pawn being mentioned together for the first throw, verse 5 (of the poem).’ But an examination of the ṣloka, upon which he relies, does not support his interpretation. The throw of 5 moves a King or a—not his—Pawn. There are also not four, but nine possible opening moves (one of each Pawn, one of the B, two of the Kt, and two of the K), and his argument about the ingenious nature of the game ignores the root-idea of dice-games. It is precisely the possibility that he deprecates that is the fascination in the use of the dice.

I have satisfied myself by trial that a playable game is possible, using two dice throughout, on the basis of allowing either both throws to be used, or only one, at choice. But these are not the only ways of constructing playable games from the material supplied by al-Bērūnī and the Bengali poem.