Читать книгу The History of Chess - H. J. R. Murray - Страница 32

Table of Contents

The chessboard.—The names of the chessmen in Muslim lands.—Symbolism of the game.—Forms of the chessmen.—The arrangement of the men for play.—The moves of the chessmen, and technical terms.—Relative values of the pieces.—Aim and method of play.—Notation.—Concordant and discordant men.—Classification of players.—Gradations of odds.—Etiquette of play.

The shaṭranj board resembles all native Asiatic boards in being unchequered, but differs from the Indian and other boards in showing no trace of any regular marking of certain squares. The term ‘board’, however, is somewhat deceptive. The Arabic names,¹ ruq‘a (a patch or piece of paper), sufra (a table-cloth or napkin), naṭ‘a (a cloth) and bisāt (a carpet), all imply a soft material, and from the earliest days of the Muslim game down, the board has generally been a square piece of cloth or other substance upon which the dividing lines of the squares (Ar. bait, house, pl. buyūt; Per. khāna, pl. khānahā; Turk, au, pl. aular) are worked in another colour. In more elaborate chess-cloths the individual squares may bear a pattern of some simple type, or be merely indicated by the regular recurrence of a conventional design which occupies the centre of the otherwise undivided squares, while these patterns or designs may even, as in the ease of the so-called Turkish cloth of which Falkener gives a photograph (196), show a further differentiation on lines analogous to the Indian marked squares. In the desert rougher materials still are employed: Stamma (Noble Game of Chess, London, 1745, xii) notes:

The wild Arabs draw the Squares on the Ground, and pick up Stones of different Shapes and Sizes, which serve them for Pieces.

Boards of more solid materials—it will be remembered that al-Ya‘qūbī describes Qaflān as making his board of leather—and even chequered boards are not entirely unknown, but the chequering is incidental to the ornamentation of the chessboard, and is not essential for its use. With the fondness of the Egyptian, the Turk, and the Persian for inlaid work in wood, it would be strange indeed if so obvious a method of beautifying the board had not suggested itself. The artist, painting a chess scene for some MS., found the same device at hand.² But all these are by way of exception only; with the limited powers of move of the older Muslim game, the chequered board was less of a convenience than it is in modern days, when more pieces move with larger sweeps.

Other Arabic terms in connexion with the chessboard which I have noted from the older MSS. are ḥāshyā, margin (generally of the Rooks’ files); wijh, wujh, jiha (pl. jahāt), jānib, side or wing of the board; nāḥīa al-firzān, the Queen’s wing; zāwaya, rukn (R and H only), corner square; wasṭ ar-ruq‘a, the four central squares; sāf (pl. sāfāt), file, as sāf ar-rikkākh, the Rooks’ file; ṣaff (pl. ṣufūf), ṣaffa, file or row, as in ṣaff al-awsaṭ, a central file; mashya (rarely), file.

The names of the chessmen (Ar. dābba, pl. dawābb, beast—used apparently at times in a more restricted sense, e.g. L, 14 b, firzān wa dawābb, Queen and Pieces, and f. 65 b, dawābb kull wa bayādiq, all the Pieces and Pawns; qiṭ‘a, piece; kalb, pl. kilāb, dog; mithāl, pl.’amthila, tamāthīl, figure. Per. kālā, pl. kālāhā, in RAS only; muhrah. Collectively: Ar. ālāt ash-shaṭranj) that are used by the Muhammadans of India and Malaya have been already given, but it will be convenient to collect in a table those that are used by other Muslim peoples. To these I add the Abyssinian (Amharic) terms, since the Abyssinian chess is a variety of the Muslim game.

(NOTE. The ordinary Arabic names are those of the MSS.; the other terms, which I designate as colloquial, are taken from descriptions by Europeans: Hamilton, who gives houssān from Egypt, and Grimm, who obtained his terms from Syria.)

The military character of chess was well understood by the earlier Arabic writers on the game. Apart from many allusions in general literature, there are three descriptions in the chess MSS. which I quote because of the light which they throw upon other features of the Muslim game. The first of these is the work of aṣ-Ṣūlī, and is contained in AH (f. 19 b), V (f. 12 b), and Man. (f. 27 b):

The chessmen are classified in this chapter. The shāh, it is said, is the king. The firzān is the vizier, because he protects and covers the king, and is placed next to him, advancing before him in the battle. Muḥammad b. ‘Abdalmalik az-Zayyāt³ says, ‘How beautiful is the function of the fīl in chess! He resembles the secretary who reveals and plans. His use in war is slight except when he does a deed of renown. His is the secretary’s cunning, as when he gives shāh-rukh or shāh-faras or forks two pieces. Or, perhaps in another game when a number of pieces are collected against him, and he draws the game since none of them can attack him. The firzān has the same power. In a case like this the fīl is better than the faras, and when there are several firzāns it is even better than a rukh when the latter cannot attack it.’ The faras, it is said, is different: he is a bold horseman, and this is his function in chess. The rukh, it is said, is like a commander and a general of an army: like the faras he is a horseman, and the command is his. His work is to confine the game, and his strength is manifest when the ninth (read seventh) of the game is his.⁴ The baidaqs (Ar. bayādiq), it is said, are like the foot-soldiers who move in advance and hinder the horses (’afrās) and rukhs (rikhākh); but when the rukh gets behind them and attacks them from the rear, he destroys them just as horsemen in war destroy the foot-soldiers.⁵

The second passage occurs in Man. (f. 18 a), in the course of a version of the Ṣaṣṣa legend:

The ḥakīm arranged it thus and it was chess, and he made it in the likeness of a battle between two armies. He made the nafs to resemble the king, the firzān to resemble the vizier, and the two rukhs the commanders of the right and left wings. Next to these he placed the two faras, and then the two fīls. These are reckoned as the more important members of the army. The baidaqs resemble the infantry. He then made each piece’s move (ḥaraka) proportionate to its strength in the army, and fixed that the victory is gained when the shāh is slain, his army still being in existence—this is mate—or when his army is captured.

In the third passage from BM (f. 6 b) a different interpretation is attempted:

The inventor of chess made the board to represent a field of battle upon which two armies are drawn up for the contest, and the six figures, shāh, firzān, fīl, faras, rukh and baidaq represent the six classes upon which war turns and which are essential to it. Of these the first is the king who rules, the second the vizier who leads, the third the commander of the army who arranges, the fourth the cavalry, the fifth the fortresses (ḥuṣūn), and the sixth the infantry. He represented the king by the shāh, the vizier by the firzān, the commander of the army by the rukh, the cavalry by the faras, the fortresses by the fīls, and the infantry by the baidaqs. This is the classification of the chessmen (ālāt ash-shaṭranj).

The following was his intention in the arrangement. He put the shāh in the centre because the king ought to be in the heart of his army. He put the firzān next him because the vizier ought to be in the king’s vicinity. He put the fīl next the firzān because the strongest places in the battle array ought to be where king and vizier are. He put the faras between fīl and rukh because cavalry ought to be the defence of the fortresses. He put the rukh next the faras because the commander ought to be in command of the right and left wings. He put the baidaqs in a line in front of these because the infantry is placed in the van in battle. This was his intention in the arrangement of the chessmen.

His intention in the arrangement of the pieces in the game was to liken the game to a struggle and attack. He gave the baidaq a move of one square in a straight line, because it is not right for the foot-soldier to quit his position in battle, nor to advance except step by step. He made it take obliquely because the injury he inflicts on his enemy in the battle happens unexpectedly. He appointed that he should become a firzān when he reached the end of the board, because a man who advances and penetrates to the enemy’s camp, and preserves himself from capture or overthrow, deserves the viziership in war. He gave the faras a far-reaching move, because the horseman, being mounted, can transport himself to a distance, and can fall back to his camp when he is threatened. He made his move an oblique one in moving forwards and backwards and in capturing, because the horseman of necessity attacks his enemy, lance in hand, and takes him by swift and sudden movements. He gave the rukh the move in the four cardinal directions as far as the end of the lines confronting him, which is the most extended move of the pieces, because in war it is the commanders of the right and left wings who harass and burden to their utmost the enemy’s weak points which are opposite to them. He made the shāh’s move a single square in every direction, because the King is not one who should move swiftly. He is free to move at choice either forwards or backwards. The rule for the firzān is the same, except that his liberty of move is less than the shāh’s. When he takes, he takes according to his ward.⁶

The text omits the description of the move of the fīl, but I have given it entire as in the MS. because it shows very clearly the extent to which the original parallelism that was intended between chess and war was still recognized by Arabic writers as late as 1250 A.D., notwithstanding the fact that the older Indian explanation had been forgotten. The explanation of the Rook as a commander shows that the original meaning of the name of the chess-piece was not generally known, while the new interpretation of the fīls in the BM extract suggests that the use of the elephant in war was also passing from memory. The new interpretation is far-fetched, and yet after all only a foreshadowing of the European substitution of the Castle (at first borne on an elephant’s back) for another piece, the meaning of whose name has been entirely forgotten, the Rook.

I have already cited passages to show that the use of pieces (ṣūra) which were actual images of the men and animals from which the chessmen took their names was opposed on religious grounds. The legal objection to so elaborate a type of piece was undoubtedly assisted by the economic difficulty that few players would be able to afford such costly implements of play. The invention of a simpler and cheaper type of chessmen was a direct result of the great popularity of chess, and at an early date a definite conventional type of man came into use. The oldest examples are the chessmen from Bambra-ka-thūl in the British Museum, but there are other early Muslim chessmen, mostly from Egypt and probably none as old as 1000 A.D., in the Museum in the case of chessmen in the Mediaeval Room. They may be easily identified, from their resemblance either to the modern Muslim chessmen or to the earlier European conventional pieces. We may safely conclude that the original Muslim type comprised (a) three pieces of different sizes, but all more or less cylindrical in shape, of which the tallest represented the shāh, the intermediate one the firzān, and the smallest (an exact replica of the firzān) the baidaq; (b) two pieces with long and narrow necks, one with a slightly cleft head for the fīl, the other for the faras; and (c) another piece, rather more massive than the fīl or faras, with a well-marked top which in early times was flattened on two sides and contained a deep cleft in the centre, which represented the rukh.

The opposing sides were distinguished by the different colours of the two sets of chessmen. In the MSS. these are called red and black (probably because inks of these colours were most easily procurable), and only rarely white and black. The modern sets which I have seen are white and black, white and red, red and green, and red and black.

The arrangement of the pieces at the opening of the game is generally shown in the MSS. as here diagrammed. In only one MS., the late Pers. Y, is the red King placed on e1. At first sight this appears to be out of harmony with the European arrangement. The latter is, however, purely conventional, and depends upon the convention governing the placing of the chequered board and the very modern custom of giving the first move exclusively to White. In earlier times the Black pieces were preferred:—H (f. 51b) says, ‘the Black men are for the chief, and the White for the inferior’; and the chess-player generally visualized the board from the Black point of view. The important fact in these MS. diagrams is the unanimity with which they support the European opposition of King to King and Queen to Queen, and oppose the antiquity of the modern Asiatic crosswise arrangement.

The moves of the pieces were as follows:—

The Shāh or Nafs, King (K),⁷ moved one square at a time into any of the eight or fewer squares surrounding that on which he happened to be standing, the square selected being unoccupied by one of his own pieces or a protected piece of his opponent’s, and being out of the range of attack of any hostile piece at the moment of moving. He captured in the same way that he moved. He could not move into check, and whenever he was checked he was obliged to remedy it as in the modern game. If he was unable to do so it was shāh māt (Per. shāh māt), māt, rarely shāh wa māt, checkmate, and the game was ended. When a player gave check it was usual for him to warn his opponent of the fact by saying shāh, coupling with the name of the King the name of any other piece that was simultaneously attacked, e.g. shāh war-rukh, shāh wa rukh (Per. shāh rukh), a check forking King and Rook; shāh wal-fīl, a check forking King and Fīl (L, f. 26 a); shāh wa firz (H, f. 37 a), or shāh wa firzān (AH, f. 55 b), a check forking King and Firzān; shāh wa faras (AH, f. 56 a), a check forking King and Faras; and even shāh wa baidaq ash-shāh (L, f. 63 a), a check forking King and King’s Pawn. Another technicality in AH (f. 92 b) is shāh mubaṭṭanān, an intimate check, used of a cheek by a Rook on an adjacent square (e.g. Re7 checking Ke8). From this use of the name of the piece is derived the verb shāha (imp. yashīhu; IV stem, ’ashāha; VII stem, inshāha), to check. At a later date it became usual to say kisht (also written qish, qishāh) and kisht māt instead of shāh and shāh māt when giving check and checkmate, and this is the ordinary expression at the present time in Arabic, Persian, Turkish, and Urdū. The earliest examples I know occur in the Turkish MS. F. For discovered check we have the technicalities in Arabic shāh fīl-kashf (kashf discovery) and shāh min i‘irā (shāh min al-i‘ra), where i‘rā (from the root ‘ariya, to be naked) is a term peculiar to chess, occurring in Persian as ‘irā, in Urdū as ‘arop, and in Malay as aras. The Persian Madar al-afāzil (Bland, 49) defines ‘irā as ‘that piece at chess which is interposed between a King and a Rook to protect’, but in the Arabic MSS. it is used rather of the whole position of a file dominated by a Rook, in which the check is for the moment covered by an intervening piece of either colour between the Rook and King. We have accordingly such expressions as ‘to move into i‘rā’ (to play the King on to a file where there is the possibility of a check by discovery by the removal or capture of an intervening piece), ‘to expose to i‘rā’, ‘the position in i‘rā’. To cover check is in Arabic satara ash-shāh; to mate, māta (imp. yamūtu).

The Firzān (pl. farāzīn), firz, or firza, Counsellor (Q),⁸ also moved one square at a time, moving diagonally into any one of the four or fewer diagonally adjacent squares to that on which he was posted, the square chosen being unoccupied by a piece of his own side. He captured in the same way that he moved. He could only play to 32 squares, and on a chequered board he would be restricted to squares of one colour. Al-Lajlāj attached great importance to the development of the Firzān in the game, and aimed at securing a clear path (Ar. sabīl or ṭarīq, pl. ṭurūq and ṭuruqāt) by which it could be brought into the opponent’s half of the board.

The Fīl (pl. fiyala, ’afyāl), or Elephant (B), possessed a diagonal move, which consisted of a leap over a diagonally adjacent square, whether occupied or empty, into the square beyond on the same diagonal. This is commonly, though ambiguously, described as a diagonal leap into the third square; it is a move familiar to English draughts-players as the move of a man in making a single capture without the removal of the man thus captured. The Fīl captured as he moved. Only eight squares of the board were accessible to any Fīl, and no Fīl could ever encounter or attack any other Fīl. The two Fīls were distinguished as Fīl ash-shāh, KB, and Fīl al-firzān, QB, or as the right- and left-hand Fīl. The King’s Fīl was also called Fīl al-qā’īma, Fīl al-man‘a, the drawing Fīl, or Fīl an-nafs, the Naf’s Fīl.

The Faras (pl. ’afrās), or Horse (Kt), and the Rukhkh (pl. rikhākh, mod. rikhakha), or Rook (lit. Chariot) (R), possessed precisely the same moves as their European equivalents, Knight and Rook, possess to-day. The squares commanded by one of these pieces were termed in Arabic its muqāṭa‘a, or province. Other technicalities are jama‘a, to double, to place both Rooks on the same file; ar-rukhkh al-a‘la, the front Rook of two on the same file.

The Baidaq, Baidhaq (pronounced baizaq; pl. bayādiq or bayādhiq), or Pawn (P), moved and captured as the European Pawn does, with the difference that it possessed no power of moving over two squares for its first move. There is consequently no question of one Pawn taking another in passing. On reaching the eighth line it ceased to be a Pawn, and was at once promoted to the rank and took the name of Firzān. No other promotion was possible, and there was no limit to the number of Firzāns that a player might possess at any time of the game. The Arabic verb to promote, ‘queen’, is farzana (V stem tafarzana). The Pawns were distinguished by associating with them the name of the piece on whose file they were standing, e.g. baidaq ash-shāh, King’s Pawn, &c. In addition, the Rook’s Pawn was often called baidaq al-hāshīyā (hawāshī), the marginal Pawn, and the King’s or Firzān’s Pawn, baidaq aṣ-ṣadr, the central Pawn. Fanciful names were attached to the advanced Firzān’s Pawn (baidaq as-saif, the sword Pawn), and the advanced King’s Bishop’s Pawn (baidaq as-sayyāl, the torrent Pawn) in the analysis of the opening developments. Other terms that I have noted are baidaq al-firzān al-’aṣlīya, the original QP of two on that file; and baidaq al-faras aṣ-ṣadr, the front KtP of two on that file; and baidaq firzān al-aswad al-mutaqallab ‘an baidaq shāh-hu, Black’s QP that has been changed from KP (by making a capture). Al-Lajlāj attaches great importance in his analysis to the maintaining of an advanced Pawn, and speaks of establishing (Ar. vb. makuna, V stem, tamakkana) a Pawn, of the establishment (tamkīn) of a Pawn, and of an established Pawn (baidaq tamkīn), meaning the posting of a Pawn on an advanced square, and its support there so that it was practically untakable except at the cost of superior force.

The Arabic MSS. which I have used supply chess uses of many ordinary words in connexion with the movements and other activities of the chessmen. Some of these may be noted here. To move a piece for the first time is kharaja (IV ’akhraja), to develop. Of ordinary moves the ordinary expression is, ‘White comes with his Rook to (jā’a, bi,’ila) such a square’: but this is only rarely used of the Fīl or Baidaq. A player pushed (dafa‘a) a Baidaq (very rarely also a Rukh, Faras, Firzān, or Shāh), and threw (ramā, also of Faras and Firzān; ṭaraḥa, also of Faras; or alqaya) or shifted (ḥawwala) a Fīl. He placed (waḍa‘a or ja‘ala), played (la‘iba), went away with (dhahaba bi, also of Faras), or advanced (madda) a Rukh. The Shāh and Firzān ascended (ṣa‘ada or ṭala‘a), descended (nazala or ḥadara, VII’inḥadara), or entered (dakhala, IV ’adkhala) a square. Or the Shāh removed (ba‘uda), passed (marra), walked (masha), or limped (zamala)—all suggested by his move of a single square. In general use I have noted ḥaruka (II ḥarraka), zāla (II zauwala, IV ’azāla), naḥa (II naḥḥa, V tanaḥḥa), and naqala, all meaning move, remove. For the substantive, move, there is similar diversity of expression. In addition to the general terms ḥaraka, ḍarb (pl. ḍarba, ḍurūb), mashya (walk) is used of the Shāh, taḥrīk or ḥurk of the Firzān, ṭarḥ and nazwān (leap) of the Fīl, munzā of Firzān, Fīl and Faras, daf‘or daf‘a of the Baidaq. Adverbs of direction are mustawīyan, in a straight line, farasīyan, as a Faras, firzānīyan, as a Firzān, and fīlīyan, as a Fīl. More general terms are ’akhadha, to take (’akhadha bāṭilan or majjānan, to take without loss); dhahaba, ‘atā’a or hāta bāṭilan, to sacrifice; ḍaraba or waqa‘a ‘ala, to attack; or wuqū‘, an attack; ḥāmala, to offer to exchange (of Rukh only); or ṣarafa, to exchange; waqa‘a baina, to fork; ḥabasa, ḥaṣara, to shut in or confine; ḥafiẓa, ḥamā, to defend; ḥifẓ., hamā, himā’i, defence.⁹

Both aI-‘Adlī and aṣ-Ṣūlī made an attempt in their chess-books to estimate the relative values of the chessmen in the early part of the game. The method adopted was based upon a monetary scale and the dirhem was taken as a convenient unit. BM (f. 11a) gives a brief extract from al-‘Adlī’s work, and AH (f. 14 b), V (f. 14 a), II (f. 18 a—shortened text), BM (f. 10 a), and Man. (f. 27 a) give aṣ-Ṣūlī’s chapter. An independent, but not materially different, estimation is given in AE and RAS. I have adopted the text in Man. as the basis of the following translation.

Values of the chessmen, calculated for their original positions.

Aṣ-Ṣūlī has said: The Shāh is reckoned beyond value because of his superior dignity. The highest in value after the Shāh is the Rukh. Its value is one dirhem. The Faras’ value is dirhem. The Firzān’s value is dirhem, but some say dirhem. The Fīl’s value is dirhem. KP and QP, each dirhem; BP and KtP, each dirhem rising to dirhem; a marginal P dirhem because it can only take on one side. I consider the KKtP better than QBP; aṣ-Ṣūlī has said that this is because this Baidaq is a spy against the return of the opponent’s stronger Fīl and Firzān. He gave these values for the commencement of the game; the values of the pieces may increase or diminish afterwards. The better of the Fīls is the Fīl an-nafs, which is the Fīl al-man‘a (the drawing Fīl, called by al-Lajlāj, AH f. 133 b, Fīl al-qā’īma). It is better than KP, and the other Fīl is better than QP. The two central Baidaqs are better than Firzān and Fīl, and any two Baidaqs are better than the Firzān. Rabrab and Abū’n-Na‘ām used to advise the exchange of the Firzān for the two marginal Baidaqs, the exchange of the Fīl for two Baidaqs under all circumstances, and the exchange of the weaker for the better Baidaqs. Do not exchange Fīl and Baidaq for Firzān unless your opponent has gained your Firzān. If your Rukh is confined, try to exchange it for Faras and Firzān, but otherwise not.

AH goes on to show that these values may be altered completely in the End-game, where even the advantage (Ar. faḍl) of a Rukh may be insufficient to convert a draw into a win, e.g. Kt v. R is a drawn game, and so is R and Kt v. R. Even the Fīl might become of higher value than a Faras (Kt v four concordant Qs loses, but B v. four concordant Qs draws) or a Rukh (R v. four concordant Qs loses, B v. the same draws).

The values in RAS are calculated with greater nicety, but the MS. shows a tendency to over-estimate the value of the minor pieces. The MS. gives Q or dirhem; B or dirhem; KP dirhem; QP dirhem; Kt and BP dirhem; and RP dirhem.

Aṣ-Ṣūlī’s estimate enables us to form some kind of comparison with the modern game. I adopt as the unit of my scale the value of the RP in the Muslim game, and as the connecting link the value of the Knight, whose move is the same in both games.

The great increase in the powers of the Bishop and Queen in modern chess has naturally resulted in a relative diminution in the value of the other pieces.

The method of play in the older Muslim game was identical with that followed in the modern European game. The players played alternately, each making a single move (dast, pl. dusūt; ḍarb) in his turn of play.¹⁰

The aim of play was twofold, either to give checkmate to the opponent’s King, or to annihilate his army. To this latter form of victory I have given the Middle-English name of Bare King, which answers closely to the terms Shāh munfarid, isolated King, and mufrad, pl. mufridāt, isolations, of the Arabic MSS. It was obtained whenever a player captured the whole of his opponent’s army, the King excepted, and still retained some of his own men upon the board, or at least one man out of reach of the opponent’s King. If the solitary King could take his opponent’s last remaining man in his move following that in which he was bared, the game was considered drawn. We have already seen (p. 57) that in Ḥijāz there was a local variation in the rule regarding Bare King. There a solitary King was defeated the instant that he was bared, whether he could bare his opponent the following move or not. This win was called the Medinese victory.¹¹

It occasionally happened in the course of the game that a player, whose turn it was to play, found himself unable to move any of his pieces in a legal manner, and yet at the instant his King was not in check. This Ending, to which we give the name of stalemate (Ar. zā’īd, rarely mazīd, from the verb zāda, imp. yazīdu; or zā’īda to stale, deprive of the power of moving, very rarely used of any other piece than the Shāh), was decisive in Muslim chess. The player who found himself in this predicament was held to have lost the game.¹²

A game to which for any reason a decisive result could not be obtained was said to come to a stand (Ar. qā’īm, ’iqāma, qayām; pl. qawā’īm, qā’īma, ’iqā-māt—all derived from qāma, to stand; cf. mod. qūwima, to be drawn), or to be inaccessible (mana‘a: a later term, not used in AH, frequent in H), i.e. to be drawn. This might happen from equality of force (e.g. R v. R); insufficiency of force (e.g. R v. Kt); inability to force exchanges (e.g. Qs and Bs moving on squares which on a chequered board would all be of one colour v. Qs and Bs moving on squares of the other colour); perpetual check; or repetition of move. The problems will contain examples of all these forms of drawn game.¹³

The chess MSS. employ two different methods of describing the squares of the board, which we may conveniently distinguish as the descriptive and the literal, or as it is often called, the algebraic notations. The former is by far the commoner, and is indeed employed in all the MSS. except Oxf. in the problem solutions.

In the descriptive notation the board is regarded as belonging half to one player and half to the other, and the two halves are called Red’s and Black’s accordingly. In each of these halves the squares are defined in terms (1) of the side, e.g. left-hand or right-hand, less frequently King’s and Firzān’s; (2) of the master-piece of the file; (3) of its distance from the edge where the player sits. Thus, assuming that Red sits at the foot, Black at the upper edge of the diagram, g4 is Red’s right-hand Faras’ fourth square, and g5 is Black’s left-hand Faras’ fourth square. Very occasionally the notation was extended right across the board, and we have g7 termed Red’s right-hand Faras’ seventh square. A little ambiguity is introduced as a result of the want of fixity in the initial positions of King and Firzān. In the analysis in L, where the original position of the Kings is known absolutely, the notation is consistent throughout, but in the problem solutions where it is impossible to say for certain where the King stood originally, now the e-file and now the d-file is called the King’s. In many problem positions, the Firzān’s file can be determined on the assumption that the Firzāns in the diagram are the original Firzāns of the game, and in these cases the solutions almost invariably name the central files accordingly. The important fact is that the notation in the vast majority of the solutions assumes the normal arrangement of the opposing Kings. In a few solutions (not more than five in all) the notation is confused, and squares on both central files are described as on the King’s file. I have only found one solution in which the notation is consistent with a crosswise arrangement of the Kings.

This notation does not possess the merit of brevity, but its clearness has given it a long and fruitful life, and with but slight modification it is still the most popular notation in Europe outside of Germany and Switzerland, and in America at the present time. Al-‘Adlī strongly advised players to commit it to memory, and it forms the foundation upon which Y built its hints upon playing chess blindfold.

In the algebraic notation each square is denoted by two letters, the first of which is common to all squares of the same file, the second to all squares of the same row. It is very similar to the notation which I employ in this book. Thus the successive files which I call a, b, &c. are termed in AH, where this notation is employed in connexion with the Knight’s Tours, t, sh, r, f, m, l, k, y, with the numerical meanings of 400, 300, 200, 100, 40, 30, 20, 10. In Oxf., where this notation is used in all the problem solutions, the letters f (80), ‘(70), s (60), n (50) are substituted for the older letters of the files a—d. Both MSS. use for the rows 1, 2, to 8, the letters a, b, j, d, h, w, z, h, with the numerical meanings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Thus c5 is r h in AH or s h in Oxf., e3 is m j, f6 is l w, &c. This notation was also introduced into Europe—first at an early date, and again, in an improved form, by Philip Stamma of Aleppo in 1737. With small alterations it has become the normal notation of German chess-players.

F (Q) and R alone, of all the MSS. which I have consulted, make no use of a regular notation, but describe the moves by reference to other pieces on the board, e.g. ‘moves next to the Firz,’ or by such adverbs as ‘up’, ‘down ‘aslant’, ‘straight’.

The unchequered state of the Muslim board made it a matter of some difficulty to see whether two Firzāns on the same side could defend, or whether two Firzāns of different sides could attack one another. This was a matter of very considerable importance in the Ending, and might mean all the difference between a won and a drawn game. The older masters (see BM, f. 10 b) gave cumbrous roles by which a player could ascertain whether a Pawn promoted on a certain square would move on the same 32 squares as another Firzān. Firzāns and Fīls which moved on different sets of squares (different coloured squares on a chequered board) were said to be discordant (Ar. khālif, mukhtalif, takhāluf, mukhālif, contrary, different), while those which moved on the same set of squares (squares of the same colour on a chequered board) were called concordant (Ar. talāqī, mutlaqī, mutalliq, that which meets, or less frequently muwāfiq, concordant). The existence of these terms is clear evidence for the uncoloured nature of the Muslim chessboard.

Most of the MSS. attempt a classification of chess-players in regard to their skill in play. The different classifications do not entirely agree, and the discussion would seem from the first to have been more academic than practical. Probably at no time did a position in any but the highest class carry any great weight in popular estimation. Apparently al-‘Adlī was the first to treat of the classes of chess-players, but we only know of his proposals from a brief reference which aṣ-Ṣūlī added at the end of his own chapter on the question.

Al-‘Adlī recognized five classes of players. The highest contained the ‘ālīyāt or grandees. The second class, the mutaqāribāt or proximes, received the odds of the Firzān from the ‘ālīya. The third class received the Rook—‘which is silly,’ comments aṣ-Ṣūlī. We know nothing of the remaining classes.

Aṣ-Ṣūlī also recognized five classes, and gives the name of ‘ālīya to the highest. There have never been more than three at any time or place in this class. He names Jābir, Rabrab, Abū’n-Na’ām al-‘Adlī and ar-Rāzī as having been of the first class. The later MS., BM, substitutes al-‘Arī for ar-Rāzī (a clerical error, I believe) and adds the names of two Baghdād players, b. Dandān, and al-‘Qunāf, who must accordingly have flourished between 950 and 1250. The later MSS. merely repeat aṣ-Ṣūlī’s information, and strangely enough none adds aṣ-Ṣūlī’s own name, or that of al-Lajlāj, both of whom were certainly of the highest skill. Aṣ-Ṣūlī goes on to say that Rabrab and ar-Rāzī were the greatest of these masters, that al-‘Adlī had for a while stood alone in the class until ar-Rāzī challenged him and proved his mastership, that ar-Rāzī also stood alone in the class for a time and died before another grandee appeared. The second class, the mutaqāribāt or proximes, contains players who win from two to four games in ten when playing with a grandee, and who receive odds from him, the best, QKtP or RP. the weakest, KP or QP. The grandee is credited with the ability to calculate ten (AH says twenty—an error, surely) moves ahead, the proxime sees far less. The test of a player’s class is his success with a player of known class when playing without odds. If he wins regularly seven or more games in ten, he belongs to a higher class; if fewer, not. The third class receive the odds of the Firzān from the ‘ālīya, the fourth class the Faras, the fifth class the Rook. If a player requires greater odds his skill is accounted nothing; as a player he is beneath contempt. Al-‘Adlī once said, ‘You do not give the odds of the Faras to a player who can plan shāh wa rukh or shāh-māt.’ Elsewhere in the preface of his book, aṣ-Ṣūlī specially instances skill in solving manṣūbāt (problems), knowledge of the Endings and End-game decisions, and knowledge of the ta‘bīyāt, and when to abandon or modify them in play, as distinguishing marks of the ‘ālīya.

The later MSS., H and Man., recognize six classes, introducing one between the third and fourth of aṣ-Ṣūlī’s list, who receive odds from the ‘ālīya greater than the Firzān but less than the Faras.

Closely connected with the classification of players is that of the proper gradation of odds (Ar. ḥaṭṭ). The only discussion of this occurs in RAS, and Forbes (99) abridges the passage thus:

Having now explained the moves of the pieces and their exchangeable value, I shall proceed, O Reader! to inform you of the different degrees of odds established by the masters of old. A true Chess-player ought to play with all sorts of people, and in order to do so, he must make himself acquainted with his adversary’s strength, in order to determine what odds he may give or accept. A man who is unacquainted with the rules for giving or receiving odds is not worthy of the name of Chess-player. It is only by equalizing the strength of the combatants that both of them may reap amusement and edification; for what interest could a first-rate player, such as ‘Adali (i.e. al-‘Adlī), or Ṣūlī, or ‘Alī Shaṭranjī, find in playing even with a man to whom they could each give the Knight or the Rook?

The smallest degree of odds, then, is to allow the adversary the first move. The second degree is to give him the Half-Pawn, which consists in taking either Knight’s Pawn off his own file and placing it on the Rook’s third square. The third species of odds is the giving the Rook’s Pawn; the fourth, that of the Knight; the fifth, that of the Bishop; the sixth, that of the Queen. The seventh degree of odds is to give the adversary the King’s Pawn, which is the best on the board. The eighth species of odds is the King’s Bishop. The ninth is the Queen’s Bishop. The tenth degree of odds is the Queen. The eleventh, the Queen and a Pawn; or what is equivalent, a Knight; for though the Queen and Pawn be slightly inferior to the Knight at the beginning, yet you must take into account the probability of the Pawn becoming a second Queen. The twelfth species of odds is the Knight and Pawn. The thirteenth, the Rook. To give any odds beyond the Rook can apply only to women, children, and tyros. For instance, a man to whom even a first-class player can afford to give the odds of a Rook and a Knight has no claim to be ranked among Chess-players. In fact, the two Rooks in Chess are like the two hands in the human body, and the two Knights are, as it were, the feet. Now, that man has very little to boast of on the score of manhood and valour who tells you that he has given a sound thrashing to another man who had only one hand and one foot.

There is an interesting passage in H, ff. 50 b–51 a, in the middle of an anthology of poems relating to chess, which shows that it was thought useful to discuss the proper line of play to adopt when giving odds. The passage is not very clear, but it deals with the opening play when the odds of the Rook are given in return for a Pawn, the odds of Faras for Pawn, of Faras, of Firzān, and of a Pawn. In the first case, when the Rook is given for a Pawn, two lines of play are given, but it is not stated which Rook and which Pawn are to be removed from the board. As is often the case in Arabic analysis, the play on one side only is given; it can be taken as suggesting the lines upon which the player should attempt to model his development. The two lines of play are as follows: I. (1) Pe3; (2) Kte2; (3) Pg3; (4) Pg4; (5) Ktf4; (6) Ktg2; (7) Pf3; (8) Pf4; (9) Qe2; (10) Qf3; (11) Ph3; (12) Pd3; (13) Pd4; if the opponent now moves P(c6)c5, do not take the Pawn, but play (14) Pc3; if he takes the d-Pawn, play (15) eP×P; (16) Bd3; (17) Pf5. If he takes this Pawn, then retake by g-Pawn. II. (1) Pc3; (2) Pc4; (3) Pd3; (4) Ktc3; (5) Pb3; (6) Pd4; (7) Qc2; (8) Pe3; (9) Kd2; (10) Pa3; (11) Pa4; (12) Ba3; (13) Bd3.

The same line of play is recommended when giving the Faras for a Pawn, but is not advisable in the case of the odds of the Faras alone. The play when giving the Firzān is discussed in a single sentence, too corrupt to be intelligible. When giving a Pawn, the following plan of development is given as best: (1) Pd3; (2) Pd4; (3) Pc3; (4) Pf3; (5) Kth3; (6) Ktf2; (7) Qc2; (8) Qd3; (9) Pg3; (10) Ph3; (11) Ph4.¹⁴ If, however, the opponent play first,

move the Pawns in a body, and do not let him outstrip them. Then bring your Kt to e2. If he moves against your d-P, do not take him until he takes. If you take first, it is to his advantage and spoils your game. If he takes, it is not advisable to take with c-P.

The discussion is interesting, as showing that chess analysis was carried on in Muslim circles to a greater extent than had generally been supposed was the case.

The later MSS., and especially Y,¹⁵ attach considerable importance to the etiquette of play. Thus when two players sit down to their game, the lower in rank is to spread out the board, and to shake the pieces from the bag in which they are kept. He is next to wait until his superior has made his choice of colour, and in arranging his men he is to take care not to place his King and Firzān until his opponent has placed his; he is then to place his King opposite to the other King. If the players are of equal rank, the first to seize the men chooses the positions of the Kings. The stronger player should offer fair odds. Ordinary rules of good manners should be observed; onlookers should keep silence and refrain from remarks on the state of the game or from advice to the players. An inferior should not wilfully play to lose.

It is quite evident from the stories of the early Muslim players that much of this etiquette did not obtain in their time. Traditions respecting Sa‘īd b. al-Musayyib, al-Ḥaṣan al-Baṣrī, ash-Sha‘bī, and Muḥammad b. Sīrīn relate how these tābi‘s used to advise players as to their moves while watching the game.