Talk:History of chess

List of archived discussions
Archive 1

Reverts on Chinese origin theory and lead section

I have reverted the edit by MountainPriest of oct 13 for the following reasons:

• That edit was in part a revert of my work on the china section in early history, in which I had neutralized the text and given an extra reference. Please give a good reason for that revert.
• The reference to Murray in the lead section was changed. The reference to Murray should be 1913, not 1985 (Murray died in 1955. The book A History Of Chess was republished in 1985, but was first published in 1913).
• I feel that the explanation about hasty-asva-nauka-padata does not merit mention in the lead section and should remain where it is (other material specific to the dynamics of chaturanga should go in the same section or should be on the Chaturanga page.)

HermanHiddema 08:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement about the origin of Chinese chess in India is flawed ("As a strategy board game played in China, chess is believed to have been derived from the Indian Chaturanga.[16]"). It uses the reference of Britannia Encyclopedia, which in fact just makes a simple statement without any reference or proof, a typical case of the blind leading the blind.

The conclusion of the origin of chess in India according Persian and Arabic accounts is also ambiguous. The methodology is simply flawed. You cannot draw a conclusion about the origin of Chess by reciting accounts. The Persian and Arab accounts only mean that they got to know the game from the Indians, no more, no less. However, this has nothing to do with the origin of the game! Let's use an analogy, there is no dispute about the origin of the game of Go, an ancient board game invented in China. However, the game was introduced first to the west by Japanese, as can be seen from its English name Go, a transliteration of the Japanese word for the game. So, following that flawed logic, can the rest of the world draw a conclusion that the game of Go originated in Japan, because the Europeans attribute the game to the Japanese (before they were told the real origin of the game)?

The origin of chess is better put in this way "Just as chess is a difficult game, its origin is a difficult puzzle. We may never know the truth of its birth." (http://chess.about.com/od/history/p/aa06a14.htm)

See WP:NOR. The mainstream academic opinion should be properly reflected in the article. Note that this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, and not a magazine or an article somewhere which can take sides or muse about alternate theories at large. Havelock the Dane ^Talk 09:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view policy. Without bias of significant views including that of the 'mainstream academic opinion' ChessCreator (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Havelock the Dane, "mainstream academic opinion", you make me laugh. "As a strategy board game played in China, chess is believed to have been derived from the Indian Chaturanga.[16]" is this your so-called "mainstream academic opinion"? I suppose the "mainstream academic opinion" about the origin of Chinese chess in the place where it is mostly played is quite different from this "mainstream academic opinion". Who defines which is the "mainsteam"?

No supposing! Do you have any sourced material to present? whoever you are?

Does anyone know Chinese academic opinion on this point? J S Ayer 03:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines the mainstream. It is an encyclopedia considered to be more scholarly than most others and it has not attached any weight age to such a claim.

The Sinologist Joseph Needham is there for the Chinese origins theory, as is David H. Li. We already have an objectionable amount of kilobytes dedicated to this theory as encyclopedias, like the EB, don't give it such massive weightage to it as has been given here.

Keeping sensational theories out of it and including only material of knowledge, as has been done in EB, should be our main concern while writing for this encyclopedia.

Havelock the Dane ^Talk 08:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Havelock, all that you say is true, but what I asked about is academic opinion in China. J S Ayer 02:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was talking to the user on the IP address who made contribs such as this.
Those comments were meant for him.
Havelock the Dane ^Talk 12:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In reply to J.S. Ayers question about chinese scholarship, I suggest reading Facts on the Origin of Chinese Chess by Peter Banaschak, which sets out 5 theories proposed by chinese scholars and discusses the evidence for and against them.
As a brief summary, Banaschak lists 5 theories, these are:

1. Origin in 28th century BC, proposed by a 14th century scholar
   • No evidence, probably an attempt to add status to the game by connecting it with a revered legendary emperor
2. Origin in 27th century BC, proposed by a 11th century scholar
   • No evidence, probably an attempt to add status to the game by connecting it with a revered legendary emperor
3. Origin in 12th century BC, proposed by a 16th sentury scholar
   • No evidence, probably a confusion between Zhou Wuwang (12th century BC) and Beizhou Wudi (6th century AD)
4. Origin in 3rd century BC, proposed by 16th century scholar
   • Earliest mention of XiangQi in literature is from this time, but the game is not described and XiangQi can also refer to other games
5. Origin in 6th century AD, proposed by 10th century scholar
   • There is significant evidence that a book called XiangJing about game called XiangXi was written at this time. This may have been a predecessor of XiangQi

Theory 5 (XiangXi) is also the basis of Joseph Needham's theory.
HermanHiddema 15:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Edits

HermanHiddema, You made this edit on 12:39, 25 October 2007 with the edit summary "revert bad edit that removed properly sourced material"

I would like you to throw some light on the following questions:

1.) You claim that the lines "The oldest surviving remnant of ancient Chinese Liubo (or Liu po) dates to circa 1500 BC. Nevertheless, Liubo, though sometimes considered a battle game, was played with dice." constitute "properly sourced material."

Where are the sources for these lines in your revert ? If you don't have any sources for these lines then how is my removal of unsourced material a bad edit according to you ?

2.) You're using the German historian Peter Banaschak in the same lines as David Li, without mentioning what he has to say about Li's theories.

Do you not think that if you're mentioning Peter Banaschak in connection with David Li then it would be proper for you to mention this as well ?

As far as notability in an encyclopedia is concerned, Li made none I researched, and I still made sure he was represented in the article but representing Peter Banaschak in connection with Li will have to be done completely, not partially as has been done.

Of course then it would raise WP:UNDUE issues on why we're giving the Banaschak-Li connection such heavy place (in terms of kilobytes), so it's best to leave it only to what Li has to say, which again did not make any other encyclopedia of note.

3.) Why have you altered David Li's profession ? Why not let people know that he was an accountant who started writing books after he retired ?

Kindly refrain from making such colorful edit summaries,
With Regards,
Havelock the Dane ^Talk 20:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• If we keep our cool, I think together we can make this article better. It has suffered from having a lot of unsourced and just generally bad claims, and both of you have helped clean them up. Personally I think Li is just wrong. If he was a professor of accounting then I would say his professorship grants absolutely no added status as a chess historian. Claims of Chinese origin of chess need to be discussed in this article, and Li's theory should be mentioned. Havelock, I like your recent work on this article and think it has really improved it. We should be able to work out language that would be acceptable. Quale 20:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I was in the middle of some re writing of my statement when your message came up. I have to ask one question:
What's so wrong with "An alternative theory contends that chess arose from Xiangqi or a predecessor thereof, existing in China since the 2nd century BC.[11] According to a hypothesis by retired accounting teacher David H. Li, general Han Xin drew on the earlier game of Liubo (or Liu po) to develop a Chinese form of chess in the winter of 204 BC–203 BC.[11]" ?[1]
It gives proper due, unnecessary due even, to Li's theories.

In my opinion, these lines are more than enough. The confusing Banaschak-Li connection added to already hefty mention will violate WP:UNDUE by adding unnecessary kilobytes to the section.
Havelock the Dane ^Talk 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems very close to me, although maybe it would be better to not give Li any qualifications and simply let the reader click on David H. Li if they want to know more about him. Since Chinese origin of chess is a distinct minority view, a more detailed discussion of Li's theory probably belongs at his article rather than here anyway. Banaschak's views of Li's work should go there as well. We should see if anyone else has an opinion. User:HermanHiddema and User:J S Ayer may want to express their views. I have a reference or two to check that may pertain to this issue I will look up in a few hours. Quale 21:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Li's career as an accountant has been successful, he has worked with the World Bank Group it seems, and his qualifications should be mentioned since a reader must know who is making these claims. I agree that a more detailed discussion of Li's theory belongs in his article. I wanted to expand the article today but got caught in the whole Banaschak-Li thing. If only Herman Hiddema could have waited till a discussion before just reverting well thought out edits , I would be using my time to try and build the article.
Thanks for your efforts,
Havelock the Dane ^Talk 21:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks, I plan to edit Europe in the near future. The European contributions on WP are almost always less informative than one would expect, I expect to try and cover it to the modern times, if possible. Havelock the Dane ^Talk 20:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This neutral description is good enough for the most part, but still retains "Literary sources indicate that xiàngqí may have been played as early as the 2nd century BC" by Peter Banaschak while the same man says "It remains a fact that the "Xuanguai lu ('Tales of the obscure and peculiar')" by the Tang Minister of State Niu Sengru (779-847) is the first real source on Chinese chess. Until now it has not been convincingly demonstrated that any text or archaeological find is of an earlier date." [2]
Havelock the Dane ^Talk 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The full text was "Literary sources indicate that xiàngqí may have been played as early as the 2nd century BC. Without extra-textual references from archaeology, it is unclear whether these sources refer to an early form of chess or to other games, such as Luibo". This is, I think a very reasonable summary of the source quoted. It very simply states the fact that such literary mention exists but is inconclusive without extra evidence. HermanHiddema 22:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider the following statements:

1) "Literary sources indicate that xiàngqí may have been played as early as the 2nd century BC. Without extra-textual references from archeology, it is unclear whether these sources refer to an early form of chess or to other games, such as Luibo"

2) "It remains a fact that the "Xuanguai lu ('Tales of the obscure and peculiar')" by the Tang Minister of State Niu Sengru (779-847) is the first real source on Chinese chess. Until now it has not been convincingly demonstrated that any text or archaeological find is of an earlier date."

Now, do you still think that Point 1 is a "reasonable summary" of Banaschak 's views ? Do the views not need to included in their entirety ? You did say that you were "aware of what Banaschak has to say about Li" ?

Havelock the Dane ^Talk 22:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think that point 1 is a reasonable summary of the source quoted. The line you quote is from a different article. In my opinion, the article Facts on the Origin of Chinese Chess is a better source than A Story Well Told is not Necessarily True. The first is a good neutral overview of several theories on the origin of XiangQi and what literary sources there are to support those claims. It researches the validity of these claims, and is quite honest in its evaluation that the evidence is inconclusive. The second is an article that deals specifically with a single work, that of Li, and is mainly aimed at discussing errors in Li's work. Regarding Banaschak's view, we might also quote his article Chess Historians and their Definitions of Chess, where he says The hypothesis of an Indian origin of chess games is the most widely propagated and best researched idea on the origin of chess, but it is still unproven. but that is starting to look like quote mining. I think Banaschaks Facts on the Origin of Chinese Chess is a very good article and is a very appropriate source for the section discussing a possible Chinese origin. I think the approriate way to include A Story Well Told is not Necessarily True is to state Li's theory and then add something like 'other chess historians are critical of the quality Li's work' and put the reference there. HermanHiddema 09:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

1.) The date of 1500 BC is referenced on the Liubo page, and could be repeated here, though I personally do not see any particular need for that. The bad edit part mainly refered to the fact that you removed the reference to Banaschak as being a dubious source.

2.) I am aware of what Banaschak has to say about Li. An earlier version of the article gave (IMO) undue attention to Li, and I edited the section by adding material from someone other than Li. My intention was not to make it seem that Banaschak supports Li, and I do not think the text gave that impression.

3.) Regarding the profession of Li, I feel the current edit by J S Ayer is neutral enough. I don't know why Li gets such attention anyway, why not refer to eg Joseph Needham?

HermanHiddema 21:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually,

1) The 1500 BC date has to be referenced here and not on the Liubo page. Kindly mention the source in a verifiable manner so that this can be taken care of.

2) Regardless of the intention, writing "Literary sources indicate that xiàngqí may have been played as early as the 2nd century BC" while not writing "It remains a fact that the "Xuanguai lu ('Tales of the obscure and peculiar')" by the Tang Minister of State Niu Sengru (779-847) is the first real source on Chinese chess. Until now it has not been convincingly demonstrated that any text or archaeological find is of an earlier date." does make it sound like "Banaschak supports Li," especially since you were "aware of what Banaschak has to say about Li."

3) The Profession has been dealt with well enough, his profession as an accountant can also be included.

Havelock the Dane ^Talk 22:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

1) The proper procedure in this case then would have been to add a 'citation needed' to the text, not to remove it.

2) See my earlier comment on the same subject.

HermanHiddema 22:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that particular edit has been unsourced since almost an year and there was no reason to keep an edit like that for another one just so someone might drop by and source it. In order to try and promote the article to a higher quality scale I'll have to further source the whole article and will do so once the Banaschak-Li discussion is over. Presently it reads "Category: Top-importance chess articles" along with "Category:B-Class chess articles," a very bad mix if you ask me.
Havelock the Dane ^Talk 22:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with HermanHiddema and say it's better to flag an uncited statement than to summarily remove it, but in this article I think removal of uncited claims is appropriate. This article has been plagued with so many junk edits that I would recommend that every claim be sourced before it is inserted. Also, I agree with Havelock that the previous wording falsely implied that Banaschak supports Li's views. That definitely needed to be fixed. Quale 00:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't much care for the date of 1500BC anyway. There is no dispute that Liubo is an earlier game than XiangQi, and those interested can find out how old it is on the [[Liu po|Liubo] page. As said before, the reason I reverted the edit was because it claimed Banaschak was a dubious source. Had the edit summary said something else, I probably would not have bothered. HermanHiddema 09:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The very reason I keep using <ref name=XYZ/> after every full stop even when a <ref name=XYZ>XYZ 19XX</ref> at the end ought to cover it is because I feel that we (the present set of editors) will leave WP in some time, and unless a footnote is placed next to every full stop (even in <ref name=XYZ/> format) some vandal will just insert POV of his choosing into the article and make it look like the footnote at the end covers simply everything. I will try and source every single line of this article so that every word is accounted for, and inserting unsourced material is made difficult. Havelock the Dane ^Talk 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In these edits, I've added Banaschak's views on historic Chinese chess sources. The section looks good enough presently and I'll be moving towards sourcing the entire article and promoting it to a higher quality scale during my next round of edits,
Havelock the Dane ^Talk 23:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think actually that Joseph Needham also needs a brief mention in the paragraph about theories of Chinese origin of chess, since his ideas (Science and Civilization in China (1962)) are probably better established than Li's are. (Looking at his wikipedia page I see it doesn't mention his theory on the Chinese origin of chess at all. Should probably fix that.) I think Needham is also wrong, but a very brief description of his ideas and how they are viewed by mainstream chess historians would be appropriate. I don't have a proposed edit yet, but this can be worked on later. If we think that the discussion of Chinese origin of chess gets too long or involved for this page (undue weight to a minority view), it might be possible to use summary style and investigate it in more depth on a separate page. Quale 00:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should mention Needham here as well simply because his works are more respectable than The Genealogy of Chess. I vaguely recall his works connecting Chinese divination with chess or something, but that's just a vague memory. Needham is available easily and I'll try mention him soon, probably as soon as my next round of edits. Havelock the Dane ^Talk 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Needham is now in the article, and I'm taking a break that may put me off WP for the coming 24 hours or so. Just one more thing, with all the sources that we're pouring into the article it would a shame if it doesn't make WP:GA when we're done.
Havelock the Dane ^Talk 03:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, regardless of the Li/Banaschak/XiangQi discussion, I think you're doing good work on an article which badly needed it. The only reason I reverted you was because I had recently made this edit and this edit, in which I tried to neutralize the text on Chinese origin and make it lean less heavily solely on the work of David H Li. I added (IMO) a good extra source on XiangQi. When someone the makes a change back to a text leaning only on the work of Li, with an edit summary that calls Banaschak a 'bad source', I think it is only natural for me to revert that edit, and I still think that makes it a bad edit among many good ones. As you state above about the text after your edit: It gives proper due, unnecessary due even, to Li's theories. I agree, Li gets to much attention when there are other source with (IMO) better credentials (Needham, Banaschak). HermanHiddema 09:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is good. Even if you don't feel that section is perfect yet, I think we can refine it to be acceptable to everyone (except Chinese origin of chess POV pushers, of course). It can be hard to judge intent based on the small amount of explanation that's available in an edit summary, but it sounds like everyone is agreed that we want balanced coverage, acknowledging minority views but without giving them undue weight. We can talk about adjustments again after the article settles down a bit, which probably won't be that long since Havelock seems to work quickly. This article has tended to frustrate conscientious editors because it attracts a lot of poorly sourced fringe theories and bad scholarship. It's been improving for a while now, and you've both made it better. Quale 18:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Chaturanga/Chaturaji

Given that Havelock is currently heavily editing, I will try not to touch the text until his work is done. I would like to point out however, that the current text contains the following:

Chaturanga was a battle simulation game played by four people; two players aligned against the remaining two.

The reference given for this statement is Wilkins 2002. Now as far as I know, the theory that chaturanga evolved from a four to a two player game was already discredited by Murray in 1913. Looking on the internet, I suggest reading this text by Cazaux for a good treatment of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HermanHiddema (talk • contribs) 12:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good link. I think we should include a brief discussion of 2-player vs. 4-player chaturanga in this article. Quale 19:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

For letting me edit the article uninterrupted and for waiting to discuss the nitty gritty until I'm done composing a rough draft (which is what this version basically is). I will be composing a "To-do" list after this rough draft is done (which should not really take very long now) and I hope the other editors add everything that's stopping this article's transition to a higher quality scale to it. Havelock the Dane ^Talk 06:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This rough draft should be ready as soon as the modern times are covered. I should be able to finish that in not too much time.
Havelock the Dane ^Talk 11:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody mind if I move the article to History of Chess ? Origins of chess is a much limited subject and is relatively distant to the spread and development of the game when compared to "History of Chess."
Havelock the Dane ^Talk 11:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, go ahead HermanHiddema 09:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ! The new image looks good BTW.
Havelock the Dane ^Talk 09:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes during the modern times are now covered. Will compose a To-Do list later since the article is just a well sourced rough draft at best.
Havelock the Dane ^Talk 17:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

To-do list

Following is a list for things that can be done to further promote the article. I'll go ahead and add my concerns first, and will try my best to take care of them as soon as I find some time. I'll be signing above the list because this is meant for everyone so please add your concerns here before we nominate the article to WP:GA. Havelock the Dane ^Talk 14:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Some coverage of Japanese Chess.
• Extensive grammar/spelling checks.
• Mention of Modern tourneys. I can't think of a way to do that which can also stop every fan from adding his favs as an important figure in the "History of Chess" resulting in a chain reaction style series of expansions of the later modern times/recent times section. However, some mention of FIDE or other organizations must occur.

Some points I would like to see adressed: HermanHiddema 15:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Find another source on Chaturanga than Encyclopedia Britannica, because EB still erroneously presents chaturanga as a four player game (see also: Cox-Forbes theory).
• Find some way to rewrite/relocate the first section under India so that it makes sense. Maybe move it down?
• Find different sources for the India section, most of this is based on the erroneous Encyclopedia Britannica.
• Incorporate Chinese scholarship into the Far East section.

I like both these lists. Mention of modern tournaments should be brief here, with possibly more extensive coverage elsewhere. We have list of strong chess tournaments, but that article could stand some improvement. Brief mention of FIDE is also appropriate. It has its own article (also could be improved) for more extensive coverage. History of the World Championship itself belongs mostly in World Chess Championship, which is in pretty good shape. As far as chaturanga goes, perhaps we could use Murray unless his discussion isn't sufficient. Quale 20:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Murray is basically sufficient for almost anything with regard to ancient chess, his work is by far the most extensive there is. One of the only issues on which Murray is weak, is Chinese Chess, because Murray distrusted Chinese scholarship (and did not read Chinese, while access to good translations was much harder in those days) HermanHiddema 21:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Shogi (Japanese Chess), I think we should do a brief mention and refer the reader to the Shogi page for a more detailed treatment. The Japanese pretty much went wild in creating new Shogi variants (see eg: Taikyoku shogi), so documenting that whole lineage is probably beyond the scope of this document. HermanHiddema 21:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re

I think that we all agree to the following points:

1.) Japanese Chess needs a mention and then the user can/should check the many variants of the game for himself in the main article as it would provide him/her with details. I'll work to incorporate text pertaining to that view in the near future.

2.) The first section under India can be relocated. I'll get to it ASAP.

3.) A brief mention of the formation and rise of FIDE ought to suffice. Will do ASAP.

4.) I'll apply for a move to History of Chess and will attach a commons link as well.

I have been thinking about this, and perhaps it is not actually a good idea? Perhaps history of chess should be its own article? If we keep Origins of Chess as a separate article, Pages like XiangQi, Shogi, Janggi and Makruk can all refer there for their earliest history. An article by the name 'History of Chess' could then handle subjects like Introduction to Europe (through Italy/Spain), Evolution of the Rules (queen move, castling, etc), Setup of Competitions and Associations (FIDE, World Championship, etc). This way, we keep the option open to have articles like 'History of XiangQi/Shogi/Makruk', which would all refer to 'Origins of Chess' for treatment of the common origin of all chess variants. Including history of western chess in this article makes it a bit strange for XiangQi/Shogi/Makruk to refer here. HermanHiddema 12:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We have to have 100% surety that everyone is on board when a thing like a move is considered. Since that is not the case here the move is off. Havelock the Dane ^Talk 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on the following points:

1.) We have Joseph Needham and even the David H. Li + Banaschak mentioned in the main article and that's more than enough. These guys are seen as experts or popular proponents of the "Chinese origins" theory.
None of the other encyclopedias even care to mention what these sources have to say with regard to chess in such detail as this one currently does. An alternate theory is an alternate theory and that's it. No undue weightage, which would go on to undermine the mainstream theory, should be attached to it in any event. We're building an encyclopedia and not writing a magazine article; for better or for worse the mainstream views have to be represented as they are. Ditto for minority views which already have way too much space here.

2.) Making exclusive edits to source sections using regional scholarship is a bad idea. If such patterns are followed then one would not rely on academic libraries but would have to somehow find regional scholarship to source every line for every region. As far as "Chinese scholarship for China" is concerned I have to say that those familiar with Needham's work will know that he has no western bias whatsoever and is good enough on his own. David H. Li is there too.

3.) I have problems considering EB as "erroneous."

Evolved variations of Chaturanga were played by four people (as documented by Abu Rayhan al-Biruni) and the EB doesn't say that the two player version did not exist or when the game evolved. It just says that shatranj was a popular 2 player variant.

I don't know if the 2002 edition is different, but the 2007 online text reads:

One of those earlier games developed into a four-player war game called chaturanga, a Sanskrit name for a battle formation mentioned in the Indian epic Mahabharata. Chaturanga was flourishing in northwestern India by the 7th century and is regarded as the earliest precursor of modern chess

I don't see very much room for doubt here. EB is simply wrong, it seems. HermanHiddema 12:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The 2002 version has the same text which still doesn't say that the two player version did not exist and still does not conflict with the "already existing 2 player version evolving into a four player one" stream of thought. It simply says that at some point a four layer version was developed. We must type out everything clearly and I intend to make sure that a 2 player version is covered in the article. Havelock the Dane ^Talk 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing EB is something I'm not too comfortable with. However, we should make efforts towards promoting the "2-Handed game precedes the 4-Handed game for about four centuries" view by adding it to the article so no scope for confusion remains. I'll get to it but wholesale removal of EB is something I'm not too comfortable with.

Havelock the Dane ^Talk 04:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It might take me longer to make the edits this time though. Maybe a day or two but I'll try to get there soon. Havelock the Dane ^Talk 04:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have some things to take care of before I can get back to my Wiki-affairs and make the edits. I've just been crazy busy so sorry for the tardiness. Havelock the Dane ^Talk 06:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Much of the material given here is almost exactly found in a very old version of Encyclopedia Britannica. The version is very old so I'll try and find out about other sources. Havelock the Dane ^Talk 07:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It gets better: the material can actually be found in the ninth edition of EB edited by Thomas Spencer Baynes. The ninth edition, published in 1875-89, is often remembered as the "scholar's edition." It embodied as no other publication of the day the transformation of scholarship wrought by scientific discovery and new critical methods.
Havelock the Dane ^Talk 08:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't fully understand. What material exactly is from EB? The text that Cazaux criticizes? If that material is from 1875, it predates Murray and is only just after "Geschichte und Litteratur des Schachspiels" (1874). As such, it is very likely that EB 9th still contained Forbes' theory on the origin of chess. HermanHiddema 15:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you find a public access copy of the EB ninth edition. It is available in some libraries for reading without having a paid membership and such. I never said that EB-9 covers Murray but it does touch on Sir William Jones and Râdhakant and Ravana and Duncan Forbes and Bhavishya Purâna and Hiram Cox and the four handed version and the use of Sir William Jones's work and such. Keep in mind that EB 9 is considered especially scholarly, and the text here is identifiably found in there. Murray, obviously is one of the other references used in the "Four-Handed Chaturanga" paper. Havelock the Dane ^Talk 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to edit for a brief mention of FIDE, checking grammar etc. and perhaps add a short mention of the chess/AI connection ? I'll get to it in some time. Havelock the Dane ^Talk 15:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so much time. Trade Routes failed a GA nom so I tried to fix it. The article passed a second WP:GA review and now I'm trying for FA status. I'll take care of the above mentioned edits (a brief mention of FIDE, checking grammar etc. and a short mention of the chess/AI connection) shortly.
Havelock the Dane ^Talk 03:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Chess in the nordic contries

From this article:

A variation of chaturanga made its way to Europe through Persia, the Byzantine empire and the expanding Arabian empire.[6] Chess appeared in Southern Europe during the end of the first millennium, often introduced to new lands by conquering armies, such as the Norman Conquest of England.[7] Chess remained largely unpopular among the North European people — who could not relate to the abstract shapes — but started gaining popularity as soon as figurative pieces were introduced.[7]

The source is apperantly

Riddler 1998

So I'd like to know if anyone can verefiy that source..

Althou I don't have any good enough evidences right now(and therfore can't edit this yet), I'm told chess where introduced in the nordic contries when vikings visited Mikligarðr, or Byzantium as it was realy named, during trading journeys. This was before the people of normandy invaded england if I'm not much mistaken.. Also there is atleast some mentions to vikings playing chess and there are some founds of chess from during the viking age... I'll try to find some more information about this later one, perhaps even some english sources that's good enough for this article.. Luredreier 00:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Edward Pino

A recent edit has added Edward Pino to the list of twentieth-century leading players who were also leading analysts. I have never heard of him, and an Internet search does not turn him up as a chess-player. Can anyone substantiate this claim? If not, I suppose he'll have to be deleted. J S Ayer (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on this page—I reverted the edit. We don't need to search to know this is bogus. In the context of that sentence, only analysts who are famous enough to be known to all serious chess players qualify, and whoever Edward Pinot might be, he isn't that. Quale (talk)

Tafl is a predessesor

Should not Tafl be mentioned in this article as a predessesor? AWT (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Tafl was a predecessor only in a very limited sense: it was the predominant board game in northern and northwestern Europe before chess displaced it. Medieval chess was already fully formed when it came into contact with tafl. As far as I can see tafl contributed nothing to the evolution of chess. It is of course an interesting subject in itself. J S Ayer (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Noshir Jesung's Contribution

A new section was recently added to this article, in which one Noshir Jesung retold the story of the origin of chess as narrated by Ferdowsi so that the war between the princes Gau and Talhend results in the invention of MODERN chess, with the far-ranging bishop (camel) and queen (minister). This is an engaging piece of literature, but in a serious discussion of history is simply preposterous; those pieces were invented in Europe and grafted into chess in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. The passage also uses curved quotation marks and apostrophes, contrary to Wikipedia practice. It also says that "shah" is an Indian word for "king", although from what little I know of Indo-Iranian languages it is Persian, not Indic. For these reasons I have regretfully deleted the entire tale. J S Ayer (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

New Links

I think the external links added July 15 go to very weak pages; what does anyone else think? J S Ayer (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. Quale (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There was once a link to the Goddesschess website, which contains several essays on the history of chess like those on the IGK website, plus essays on various other subjects. It was deleted; I don't think a reason was given. I didn't object because I wrote one of the essays; I suppose it has been up a year now. Should we link to the several chess essays? J S Ayer (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That might be to http://www.goddesschess.com/chessays/chessaystoc.html J S Ayer (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, everyone is on vacation. I have just deleted those two weak links and added one that contributes more. J S Ayer (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflict here

". That is a conflict here isn't it? So I took what was put in the original chess article and applied it here. Everyone ok with that then ya? ARYAN818 (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

How is "originated in India" in conflict with "attributed to the Indians"? These statements mean roughly the same. The first is worded somewhat stronger, so given the discussion over this, the second one is preferable as being more neutral. HermanHiddema (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you not understand what I said? In the Chess article it says Chess origininted from INdia if you go down to the history section. Do you understand that? Yet here it says that it has "been attributed to the Indians both by the Persians and by the Arabs". Which one is it? Is the main Chess article right that it originated in India? Or is this article right that says the latter?.......and by the way......another reason this is a conflcit because in the chess article it says it originiated in India. Here it says it has been attributed TO THE INDIANS BY THE PERSIANS AND ARABS, (as if there saying an older version is from the Persians and Arabs? How can you not understand what im saying? ARYAN818 (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you do not seem to be a native speaker of English, do you know the meaning of the word attributed? The text here is basically saying "Both the Persian and the Arabs claim that the Indians invented chess", which is not conflicted with "Chess originated in India" at all. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I didnt understand cus it was a big confusing.....But thank you for the insult. Now if I would have done that I would have been blocked. But the dictators of wikipedia let people like u get a pass and insult me.......anyway......in the CHESS article, it says bluntly if u scroll down to the history section, that chess originiated from India. Here it doesnt come off that blunt. Why not? I mean obviously I got confused, so im sure there might be someone else who got confused as well. So why not just say Chess originated from India. Bam period. ARYAN818 (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you were insulted, that was not my intention. Your comment made it clear you misunderstood the meaning of text, and I tried to clarify it for you. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To me it is just two different ways of saying the same thing. Bubba73 (talk), 02:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A source?

The number 2 source on this article, is that even a source? ARYAN818 (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with Wilkinson? (note: when the above comment was made, the article was at this version. In the current version, Wilkinson is the number 1 source. HermanHiddema (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Click the source. IT just has links called A, B, C, D, and when you click th0ose sources it takes you to different parts of the ariticle sometimes? ARYAN818 (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is because this article uses a different quotation style than you are used to, I think. The a b c d are indeed links back into the article, which is normal if someone uses named references of the form <ref name="Name">. The reference is to "Wilkinson 1943". This is a common style to reference books and academic articles, of the form "Author Year-of-Publication". The full reference can be found in the "References" section below, where you will find an entry:

• Wilkinson, Charles K (May 1943). "Chessmen and Chess". The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin New Series 1 (9): 271–279. doi:10.2307/3257111

So this is an article by Wilkinson, published in 1943 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin. The reference contains a link to a web version as well. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Why so complicated? Why not just have a simple source, if possible, that takes you somewhere simply. I mean to the average person who clicks that link, the link just sometime's takes you to different part's of the aritcle. ARYAN818 (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a very common citation style, in fact the wikipedia article on citation uses it. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought a citation was supposed to take you somewhere outside of Wikipedia? I mean if you can use citations in the wikipedia, then I should do that for other ariticle's. But then again they might not allow it cus some people in wikipedia pick and choose what can be allowed an what can't be allowed ARYAN818 (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Citation can be to books, newspapers, academic articles or other printed media. There may not be a copy available online, in which case someone who wants to verify the reference will have to go to a library and borrow it. Your own citation for the Indian origin, for example, is H.J.R. Murray's "A History of Chess". Which is not available online. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Map showing the diffusion of chaturanga from India to the world

I think the large map should be moved out of the section of East Asia because it shows the spread of the chess-like games, not only in East Asia, but even in Africa and Europe as well.PFlores3 (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, why not ? I placed it in the East Asia only for practical reason, as it was the only section without a picture. SyG (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Content fork

The last 2 sections (1850 onwards) a content fork from World Chess Championship. They should be trimmed to a bare minimum (a paragraph, maybe two), with a pointer to WCC. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Things that should probably stay in are: informal matches in the first half of the 19th century; the emergence of national championships (nothing on them yet?) as well as the world championship in the second half of 19th century; FIDE; chess olympiads; womens chess; FIDE takes control of the world championship in 1948; FIDE establishes titles in 1950. It would perhaps be reasonable to end the article at 1950 and refer the reader to World Chess Championship. (Except perhaps the emergenece of computer and internet chess? And the explosion of chess theory also?) It's easy to confuse "History of Chess" with "History of the World Chess Championship", but they're two different things; including national, womens and teams championships helps add the balance. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Placement of the images

Shouldn't the image of the Iranian chess set be moved to the section on Iran? And the image of the Knights Templar playing chess be moved to the section on Europe, Early History? And the image of the map showing the origin and diffusion of chess from India to Asia, Africa and Europe be enlarged a bit?FadulJoseA (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Done! 119.111.86.72 (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

New file File:Chess players by Anthony Rosenbaum.jpg

Recently the file File:Chess players by Anthony Rosenbaum.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. I'm not entirely sure who's who in this image, although the NPG site lists all their names - I'm sure some of them could be cropped out to form portraits for players who don't have images yet. Dcoetzee 06:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a good thing, especially if someone can produce a key to all those faces. The NPG site lists a dozen of the sitters, but there are more than that in the back row. J S Ayer (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are they all:

Es sind: 1 Professor Wayte, 2 Mr Salter, 3 Mr Minchin, 4 Mr Cubison, 5 Earl of Dartrey, 6 Mr Woodgate, 7, 8 Mr Wyvill, 9 10 Mr Greenhough, 11 Mr Day, 12 Mr Donnisthorpe 13 ? waiter, 14 Mr Tinsley, 15 Rev Mr Macdonnell, 16 Mr Lowenthal, 17 Mr Bird, 18 Mr Blackburne, 19 Mr Vyse, 20 Mr Mason, 21Mr Lord, 22 Mr Walker, 23 Mr Hoffer, 24 Mr Steinitz, 25 Mr Zukertort, 26 Mr Potter, 27 Mr Horwitz, 28 Mr Murton, 29 Mr Studd, 30 Dr Ballard Sen., 31 Mr Hirschfeld, 32 Mr Chapman, 33 Mr Clark, 34 Mr Thomson, 35 Mr Walrond, 36 Mr Gastineau, 37 Rev Mr Pearson, 38 Mr Kunwald, 39 Mr Rabbeth, 40 Mr Eccles, 41 Mr Wagner, 42 Mr Gümpel, 43 Mr Coburn, 44 Dr Ballard Junr., 45 Mr Mackern, 46 Mr Rosenbaum, 47 ? waiter. Gerhard Josten