Читать книгу The History of Chess - H. J. R. Murray - Страница 16

Table of Contents

Introductory.—Spread in Malay lands.—Early references.—The chessboard.—Nomenclature.—Moves of the pieces.—Rules.—Illustrative games.—Malay chessmen.—Concluding observations.

Although chess is known and played in every Asiatic country to the east of India, the forms of the game that are played by the different peoples present at first sight as wide differences as are found anywhere in chess. On closer investigation, however, it is possible to discover certain common features in some types which enable us to classify these games in three groups, corresponding to the known ethnological families and religions of Eastern Asia. To one group, comprising the chess of Burma, Siam, and Annam, three countries linked by that form of Buddhism which is conveniently called Southern, I devote Chapter VI; to a second group, comprising the chess of China, Corea, and Japan, I devote Chapter VII; while in the present chapter I shall deal with the varieties of chess current among the Malays, which are united by the phenomenon of a nomenclature which has been drawn from many sources, and by a type of move which is closely akin to that of modern European chess.

To-day, chess is very widely played by the Malay races, and ranks as one of their most popular games.¹ On the mainland we possess records of its practice in the British Straits Settlements (Malacca), in the Protected States (Selangor), at Kelantan, and at Johore. We also possess good descriptions of the game as played in Sumatra, in Java, and in Borneo. Von Oefele, who has made a most patient and valuable study of the game as played in Sumatra by the Orang-Batak,² records that practically every male Batak has some knowledge of chess, while nearly every village meeting-hut has a chessboard carved upon its wooden floor. So violent are the passions aroused at times by the game, which is always played for a stake, that the headman of the village has occasionally had to forbid the practice of the game for a season.^2a

We know very little of the history of chess in these lands. The few Europeans who have made any study of the early history of the Archipelago speak of four successive waves of foreign culture and religion, all of which have in turn left a notable impress upon the customs of these islands. Somewhere about the 7th c. A.D. the Hindu religion established itself in Sumatra and Java, to be followed by Buddhism, and rather later—from the 13th to the 15th c.—by Muhammadanism. From the beginning of the 16th c. the coastal regions have been in continual contact with Europeans, first with the Portuguese, afterwards with the Dutch, and at a later date still with the English. Malay chess reflects all these invasions, since it shows unmistakable traces of Indian and of Arabic, and also of European influence.

The game is certainly older than any European influences, for on the arrival of the first Portuguese expedition off Malacca in 1509 its commander, Diego Lopez, was playing chess when a Javan from the mainland came on board. The native recognized the game at once, and had some conversation with Lopez on the forms of chessmen used by his countrymen.³

There is also a reference to the game in the Sějarah Malayu, native history dating from the early 17th century, ch. xviii, in connexion with a visit to Malacca by a certain Tan Bahra, of Pasei in Sumatra.⁴ The passage goes on to say—

Now this Tan Bahra was a very skilful chessplayer, and one that was unequalled at the game in that age, and he played at chess with the men of Malacca … and beat them all: but Tan Pakarma, son of the Bandahara Paduka Raja, was able to make some resistance … and if Tan Bahra threw away a pawn at the corner, then he was beaten by Tan Pakarma.

Broadly speaking, all forms of Malay chess are played in the same way, the differences only appearing in the refinements of the game. It will therefore be simpler to treat of the game as one, and to deal with the variations of rule or practice as they arise. Even in Java, where for some unexplained reason the otherwise universal Malay nomenclature is replaced by another, the game remains practically the same as in the other parts of the Malay world.

The game of chess has two names in Malay. The commoner name is main chātor,⁵ in which main is the Malay word for game, and chātor can hardly be anything but a broken-down form of the Skr. chaturanga. This name is the only one recorded for Borneo, Java, and the Batak race. It is given as the ordinary name by all my authorities except Dr. Marsden,⁶ who both in his History of Sumatra (ed. 1811, 273) and in his Malayan Dictionary (Part ii, Eng. and Malayan, s.v. chess) only gives the name as main gājah, i.e. the game of the elephant. This name has been recorded as used on the mainland both by Robinson and by v. Oefele, who gives it in the form permainan gājah. This form may be due to the influence of the name of another favourite game, the main rimau, or ‘game of the tiger’,⁷ though it is not easy to see why the Elephant should have been selected for mention, rather than the Horse or any other piece. The hypothesis that it may be due to Chinese influence—which is based upon the presence of Chinese settlers on the sea coast of the Peninsula, and all the islands, and upon the fact that one possible meaning of the Chinese name of chess, siang k‘i, is ‘the game of the Elephant’—must be rejected, because in all other cases of cultural borrowings, the Malays have adopted, and not translated, the Chinese name. Moreover, it is not easy to see why the Chinese chess, which does not appear to the casual observer to have any connexion with the Malay game, should have been able to exert an influence which was at once so strong that it led to the introduction of a new name for the game, and so weak that it left the actual method of play absolutely untouched.

Malay Chessboards. Skeat Collection, Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge.

Malay Chessboard.

(Malacca and mainland.)

Malay Chessboard.

(Sumatra.)

The Malay chessboard (lōh chātor or pāpan chātor⁸) is un chequered, but exhibits special markings which are characteristic of all Oriental boards. These vary so much in the few Malay boards which I have seen that it is clear that no traditional arrangement survives, and I think it probable that they have often become merely decorative. Some of the arrangements are very like those of neighbouring countries; thus one of the boards in the Skeat collection at Cambridge has a traditional Indian marking while the other resembles one of the Burmese markings. The ordinary board of the mainland is said by Mr. Robinson to have only the main diagonals marked—again a Burmese marking—and these diagonals are connected now with the rules of Pawn-promotion, and have probably suggested them. In Sumatra the board has a far more intricate appearance, since the complete network of diagonals of all the 64 small squares of the board is inserted. V. Oefele explains their presence as arising from the method of constructing the board. In order to obtain the correct proportions, he says, the Batak player first draws the outer square, then he inserts the diagonals to obtain the centre of the board and draws parallels to the sides through this point. By repeating this method he obtains accurately the quarter board and the eighth, and so obtains his 64 squares all of a size. Finally, to preserve the symmetry, he adds the missing diagonals, and the complicated figure is complete. This explanation does not seem to me to be satisfactory: while it certainly gives a convenient way of producing the final Sumatran figure, it is by no means the most natural way to draw a board of 8 by 8 squares.

The board is often made of wood, with the lines incised. This may be done upon a board of the floor of the hut, and a board for permanent use may be so secured. But it is also often scratched in the ground for an alfresco game when a movable board is not at hand.

The two nomenclatures may usefully be contrasted thus:

Of the ordinary Malay names, rāja (= king), mantri (= counsellor, minister), and gājah (= elephant) are all Sanskrit words, and we have already seen that they are or have been in regular chess use in India. Kūda (= horse), tēr (= chariot), and chemōr (= chariot) are Tamil and Telugu, languages spoken on the south-east coast of India, in the vicinity of Madras. The use of chemōr in chess in India has not yet been verified, but tēr is used as the name of the Rook in Tamil, and ghora, the original Indian form of kūda, is widely used as the name of the Knight. Chemōr (chemūr) is given as in colloquial Malay use only by Blagden (JRAS., 1898, xxx. 376). Bīdaq and the two technical terms sah and mat have been taken from the Arabic game. Marsden (op. cit.) gives the alternative terms māil (Malay, = dead) and tammat (Arabic, = finished) as also in use.

Of the Javan names, mantri is Sanskrit. So also is probably pateh (Skr. pati = lord or master). Ratu (= king), jaran (= horse), and prahu (= boat) are all Malay. From this it would seem that the Javan nomenclature preserves an older usage. On the other hand the disappearance of the Elephant and its replacement by two Counsellors is obviously the result of intercourse with the Dutch, with whom the corresponding piece has been long called by the name of Counsellor.¹⁰ It is more difficult to account for the replacement of the Chariot by the Boat. The same change has been made in the chess of the neighbouring lands of Siam and Annam, and also in the game as played in Bengal, where, however, it cannot be shown to be older than 1500. But Siam has exerted hardly any influence upon Malayan customs, and it is difficult to believe that Bengal can have had an influence sufficiently strong to affect the Javan nomenclature. I think it more likely that the change was made independently. The Chariot or Cart is of little use in a land of jungles, and it may very well have been replaced in chess by the Boat as representing the more usual means of transport.

Collectively the chessmen are called būwah chātor, i.e. the pieces (lit. fruit) of the chess.¹¹

At the commencement of the game the chessmen are arranged as in the Indian game (diagram, p.80) with the one exception that the relative positions of the Rāja and Mantri are reversed. In the Javan game, if MacGleans (Sch., 1867, 226) is correct, the Indian arrangement is followed. The Mantri is stationed at the right-hand of the Rāja. The arrangement is consequently crosswise. The powers of move of the pieces hardly differ at all from those which existed in European chess in the middle of the 16th century. The Mantri, Gājah, Kūda, and Tēr have exactly the same moves as their respective equivalents, the Queen, Bishop. Knight, and Rook, in modern European chess. The ordinary move of the Rāja is identical with the ordinary move of the King to any adjacent square. In addition he possesses certain powers of leaping into a square two squares distant. This liberty is not uniform throughout the Malay lands. In Borneo, according to Raja Brooke of Sarawak,

The King, when checked for the first time, has the right of making the Knight’s move, or to move two squares. After this sally, he is reduced to the same powers as a European King. The first move (in which he can of course take), on being checked, alters the game considerably, as one great object then becomes to prevent the check of your own King early in the game, and to gain a check of your adversary … for it will be evident if the King be once checked, he is deprived of one great advantage which your adversary still holds. Castling is not allowed except in two moves, the first being the Castle’s move up to the King, and on the King receiving a check, he can exercise his right of jumping to the inside of the Castle.¹²

In Java, according to Sir T. Stamford Raffles,

The King, if he has not been checked, may move two squares the first time, either as a Knight or otherwise…. The King cannot castle after having been checked. Castling is performed by two moves; the Castle must first be brought up to the King; after which the King may pass over the Castle at any future move, provided he shall not have been checked, or that no piece has occupied the square he would move into.¹³

According to Mr. H. O. Robinson,

Castling is effected in various ways in different parts of the Malay Peninsula and Straits Settlements; the recognized method in Selangor is to move two squares whether a piece intervenes or not,¹⁴ but not in conjunction with one of the Rooks. This is permitted even if the King is in check. The King may, also, before he is checked or moved from his own square, once move or take like a Knight. In Clifford and Swettenham’s Malay Dictionary it is stated that the King may, also, if he has not moved or been checked, move once over two vacant squares¹⁵; this privilege move is unknown to the Selangor Malays.

Finally v. Oefele says that in Batak chess the King may, for his first move, move from e1 to any of e2, e3, d1, d2, d3, e1, c2, f1, f2, f3, g1, g2—12 squares in all. Five of these are in virtue of its ordinary power of move, and 7 are to a second square. There are also two other squares, viz. c3 and g3, which are also only distant two squares, but no mention is made of them, and we must conclude therefore that the old leap of the Elephant in Arabic chess is prohibited. The leap may be made to remedy the first check, but at no subsequent turn of play, even if the first check is remedied by the interposition of a man or by the capture of the cheeking piece.

The use of the term ‘castling’ is of course inaccurate, since the manœuvre intended takes two moves. The leap naturally follows the Rook’s move, since the latter piece has no power of jumping. The manœuvre is quite well known, and occurs nine times in the nine games from native play that v. Oefele gives; on two of these occasions the King leaps out of check. In another game he makes the Knight’s leap in order to capture a Pawn.

The differences in practice are accordingly in connexion with two points: (1) whether the Rāja can or cannot make the leap when checked for the first time; and (2) to which of all the squares two steps distant the leap can be made. The rules given by the older observers are not sufficiently explicit here.

Every Bīdaq or Pawn is permitted the double-step for its first move, precisely as in European chess. Variety of practice appears to occur in connexion with taking in passing. Raja Brooke (Borneo) says:

A Pawn, moved out, cannot pass an adversary’s Pawn; his first move being restricted to one square in this case.

Sir T. Stamford Raffles (Java), on the contrary, allows the Pawn ‘passar battaglia’;

The Pawn may move two squares the first move, even though it should pass the check of an adversary’s Pawn.¹⁶

Robinson and v. Oefele give the rule thus: A Pawn can only take another Pawn in passing when its own advance is blocked by another Pawn; e.g. with white Pawns on g2 and h3 and a black Pawn on h4, if White plays Pg4, Black may reply P × P in passing¹⁷; if however there were no Pawn on h3, Black could not take the Pawn on g4 in passing, because he is not now blocked. This is a refinement which a casual observer would miss, and it is quite possible that it is the rule in Borneo and Java, and that the apparent discrepancy does not really exist.¹⁸ Robinson notes a further peculiarity in Pawn-play among the Selangor Malays. If White has a Pawn on h2, and Black a Pawn on g3, White being to play, he cannot play Ph3 or Ph4, but must play P × P, i.e. if he move the h-Pawn. If however White had also a Pawn on f2, he may now play either of the Pawns to its 3rd or take the Black Pawn, but he may not play either Pawn to its 4th.

V. Oefele states that the Bataks allow the King’s Pawn to defer its double step until its second move, e.g. 1 Pd3; 2 (or later) P(d3) d5; in such a case it is liable to be captured in passing on its second move, with similar conditions to those already given.

Pawn-promotion is quite different from the European practice. Generally a Pawn is promoted immediately on reaching the 8th rank only on the corner squares. Elsewhere it has to make some further move or moves. Raja Brooke says ‘two extra moves’ and illustrates the rule in the case of a Pawn played to c8; it is promoted by 1 Pb8, 2 Pa8; or 1 Pb8, 2 c7 or a7; or 1 d8, 2 e8 or e7. He explains that ‘this is a delay rather than a prevention, as from the number of squares which may be taken, it is extremely difficult to guard them all’. Sir T. Raffles, on the other hand, says that the Pawn after reaching its 8th rank on any file excepting the Rook’s files ‘must retrograde three moves before it can become a Queen’. This in Zimmermann’s somewhat loose description becomes: ‘the 3 joy-leaps (Freudensprünge) of Ströbeck are necessary before queening a Pawn.’ Robinson’s full account will again help to clear up these discrepancies. He says:

When a Pawn has reached the eighth square on the Rook’s file it queens at once; the player has also the option of selecting any other piece. If on reaching R7 a piece on Kt square is en prise and captured on the next move, the Pawn must move back one square diagonally before queening. On reaching the eighth rank of the Knight’s file it has to move back one square diagonally, either to the right or left, before queening; on the Bishop’s file two squares, and on the King’s or Queen’s file three squares.

I think it is obvious from this that the two diagonal lines that are drawn on the chessboard of the Peninsula are associated with this rule of promotion. The diagonals pass through the Rook’s squares, and promotion takes place at once, the Kt square is distant one square diagonally, and an additional diagonal move is necessary before promotion takes place. The B square is distant two, and the K and Q squares are distant three squares, and in these cases two and three diagonal moves are respectively necessary.

V. Oefele’s rules of Pawn-promotion are different again. Some of the Bataks do not know any rule, and when a Pawn has reached its eighth rank it turns about and retraces its way square by square across the board still moving and capturing as a Pawn, and it has the possibility of marching up and down the board an unlimited number of times.¹⁹ Generally the Batak players require an additional diagonal move to be made before promotion is possible. The two concluding steps—that from the 7th to the 8th rank, and the diagonal step—may both be made in the same turn of play, a double move called gelong, which is subject to the opponent’s right to take the Pawn in passing on the 8th rank. A Pawn may make a capture on the second move of the gelong. The gelong may not be played if the Pawn give check by the first part of the move. For example: White P on e7, Black R on f7. White can play P–e8–f7 taking the R, all in one move. If, however, the Black K be on d7 he can only play Pe8, check! Similarly, if it is possible to take a piece on the 8th rank, this capture is obligatory when the Pawn is moved, and the gelong is forbidden. In these two cases a second move is necessary to secure the right to promotion. Apparently the promotion is still incomplete and the Rāja must next make a move.²⁰ The promoted Pawn is now permitted to move in accordance with its new dignity, but it is still debarred from making a capture until its second move. It is not stated whether the Pawn is immune from capture during these operations. When finally promoted it can take the rank of any piece.²¹

This is a very long and complicated process, and very different from the rule as given by Robinson. It will be remembered that the Batak board is also covered with an elaborate network of lines which would not suggest a rule for promotion in the same way as the board of the mainland.

It is usual on the mainland to warn a player that his Mantri is under attack. Blagden gives mor as the call for this purpose. Robinson gives dōman as used at Selangor when the capture is threatened by another Mantri, and mā as used when any other piece makes the threat.

The term for discovered check is aras.²² This is derived from the Arabic i‘ra (Per. ‘irā, Hindustani ‘arop) which is regularly used in this sense in the earlier writers. Robinson gives aras sah as meaning double check and aras mā as a check which forks the Mantri. V. Oefele notes that the Bataks make a distinction between sah, direct check, and aras, discovered check. If the latter is irremediable—i.e. in European parlance is mate—the Batak calls the game drawn (sri): e.g. White, Kg1, Qh6, Kth7; Black, Kh8; the move Kt(h7)f6 is aras and the game is drawn. This leads to a still greater anomaly, a piece which is covering a check is deemed to have no power of giving check to the opposing King: e.g. White, Kg5, Bg4; Black, Ke2, Rf3, Pd3; White can calmly play Kf4 and draw the game.

Stalemate, called metuh (v. Oefele), or mūttu (Robinson), is reckoned as a draw.

There appear to be no special rules respecting Bare King in the Batak game. Sir T. Raffles says for Java:

A piece or Pawn must remain on the board till the last; if the King is left alone it is considered as stalemate, and he wins.

The allusion is probably to the English rule of stalemate at the beginning of the 19th century, in which the King who was put into the position of stalemate was counted as having won the game. MacGleans (Sch. 1867, 227) says of Java, however, that Bare King is a drawn ending. At Selangor the rule is different again; Mr. Robinson says:

Towards the end of a game care must be exercised in not capturing all the opponent’s pieces, for if the King be left solus the game is practically drawn, as he may move just as he pleases, like a King, Queen, Bishop, Knight, Rook or Pawn! He is then termed Rāja Lela with powers to bermaharaja lela, i.e. to play the Maharaja Lela.²³ …

The fact that the game is generally played for a stake naturally leads to the game at odds being often played. V. Oefele notes that the usual odds given by a strong player is to undertake to mate the opponent on one of the four central squares (d4, e4, d5, e5). This is called Tepong.

The crosswise arrangement of the Rājas, combined with the modern powers of move, has led to the prevalence of the wing attack in the actual game. Raja Brooke remarks that the ordinary method of opening the game in Borneo was to advance the QRP, the QKtP and QBP and to manœuvre the Q behind them. This is well illustrated in the nine games which v. Oefele gives from Batak play. After recording some games played by natives in his neighbourhood, he arranged a match between the best of the local players, by name Singambati, and Sibayak, whom popular opinion declared to be one of the best living Batak players. Sibayak had no difficulty in beating his opponent by 4–0. From his experience of native play, v. Oefele states that there are certain regular lines of opening play which are popular among players. The better players observe the rule that a piece once touched must be played.²⁴ The study of the simpler endings is also attempted with some system.

I select three games from v. Oefele’s work as illustrating well the main features of Batak play. In all of them I give the move to White, and the King’s are to be placed upon d1 and e8.

MALAY CHESSMEN (SELANGOR)

From the Skeat Collection in the Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge

There is no systematic study of the problem in Malay chess, but v. Oefele notes that a position is occasionally arranged on the board and a wager laid upon its solution. One such position that he had seen is the well-known European problem, White, Ke5, Re1; Black, Ke8, in which White gives mate on the third move.³¹

The chessmen in use on the mainland are generally clumsily carved from soft wood, with no distinction of colour, the one side being only distinguished from the other by a daub of lime or paint. Mr. Skeat tells me that the Pawns are often made afresh on each occasion of play. Ivory sets for royal use, and other sets of harder wood are not unknown. I give illustrations of some of the chessmen in the Skeat Ethnological Collection, and of some other sets as well. The more highly finished chessmen approximate in pattern to the modern Muslim pieces used in India. Since the Malays of the Peninsula are Sunnite Muhammadans of the Shafi‘ite school, the use of carved pieces, images of the actual forms represented, is forbidden by their religion.

In Sumatra, it is usual to make fresh chessmen on each occasion of playing. This only occupies about 10 minutes. A piece of bamboo or the midrib of a palm leaf is obtained and the pieces are quickly cut after a conventional pattern. The two sides are distinguished by slight variations in the shape. The pattern does not look to me to be derived from the Muslim type of the mainland. Most noteworthy is the fact that the Mantri is made the tallest of the pieces. The Kūda, with head cut aslope, may be a recollection of an early type of European Knight which is still occasionally repeated in English sets, and the Tēr with its cleft in the top recalls the old shape of the European Rook.

The country whence the Malays obtained their chess has been represented by different writers as Arabia, Persia, and India.³² The philological evidence derived from the nomenclature is only satisfied by the hypothesis of an Indian ancestry, with later modifications as a result of the knowledge of Arabic which resulted from the introduction of the Muslim religion from Southern India. It is not improbable that the Tamil and Telugu terms were also introduced with Muhammadanism.

I. A set of hard wood in the possession of Mr. Robinson.

II. From v. Oefele.

III. From Mr. Claine’s paper, BCM. 1891.

MALAY CHESSMEN.

The evidence of the practical game points to Southern Europe³³, and suggests that extensive modifications have been made in rule and move as a result of the intercourse with Portuguese and Dutch since 1500. The existing variations all appear to me consistent with the view that the European practice of the middle and later half of the 16th century remodelled the native game. The differences are superimposed, not fundamental. They occur just in those points in which uncertainty exists to-day among beginners, or in circles out of touch with the literature of the modern game. At the same time the use of the unchequered board, and the whole question of Pawn-promotion, is still pure Asiatic. To the objection that the European powers of move had already taken root in India, and that there is the simpler possibility that the change came via India, the Pawn’s move seems a sufficient answer. Had the change come from Southern India, we should have found the double step restricted to particular Pawns, or hedged about with conditions: we should probably also have found restrictions placed upon the free promotion to the rank of any piece.