← catalogue

Chess History and Reminiscences

by H. E. Bird · English · Gutenberg #4902 · 401,449 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Chess History and Reminiscences
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Chess History and Reminiscences

Author: H. E. Bird


        
Release date: January 1, 2004 [eBook #4902]
                Most recently updated: December 28, 2020

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4902

Credits: This etext was produced by Stephen D. Leary


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHESS HISTORY AND REMINISCENCES ***




This etext was produced by Stephen D. Leary







CHESS HISTORY AND REMINISCENCES

by H. E. Bird





======

To
My Highly Esteemed
Chess Opponent And Patron
Of Nearly 40 Years
W. J. EVELYN, Esq.,
Of Wotton, Surrey

======

CONTENTS

PREFACE
PECULIAR AND DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTIC
OF CHESS WRITERS, LACK OF CHESS HISTORY

RETROSPECT, AND HABITS, AND IDIOSYNCRACIES
OF CHESS PLAYERS:
TEMPERAMENT, ATTITUDE AND DEPORTMENT,
STYLE, STAKES, LOSING, LOOKERS-ON, ODDITIES,
AND PATRONS

CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF CHESS:
PREVAILING MISCONCEPTION
ITS EVER GROWING POPULARITY
THEORIES AS TO ITS INVENTION
TRADITIONS
THE THREE INDIAN TRADITIONS
EARLY AND MIDDLE AGE CONJECTURES
PROGRESS OF CHESS
INDIA
CHINA
EGYPT
THE ANCIENT GREEKS AND ROMANS
SCANDINAVIA
PERSIA

ARABIA, SPAIN, FRANCE:
CHOSROES, AL WALID, HARUN, PRINCESS IRENE,
CHARLEMAGNE, OFFA, ALCUIN, EGBERT, AL MAMUN

THE ROMAN EDICT OF 115 B.C.:
SUPPOSED EUROPEAN FIRST KNOWLEDGE:
SCANDINAVIA. ITALY. IRELAND. WALES.

OPINIONS ON CHESS AND ITS ORIGIN:
POPE'S LINES
THE TRACK OF CHESS
(UNIQUE SPECIMEN)--THE INDIAN KING TO SASSA
THE KING OF HIND TO CHOSROES
THE EARLY EXAMPLES OF PRAISE AND CENSURE
THE REMARKABLE ADVANTAGES OF THE ASIATIC
SOCIETIES, AND PHYSICANS RECOMMENDATIONS.
FOOD FOR THE MIND AS WELL AS FOR THE BODY

MIDDLE AGES AND MODERN:
CHAUCER TO LYDGATE
CAXTON, ELIZABETH'S REIGN
VIDA
PRATT
SAUL AND BARBIERE
SALVIC
CARRERA
ENCYCLOPAEDIA
AN AMERICAN VIEW
THE INDIAN PHILOSOPHER
SOVEREIGNS COMMEMORATED AS CHESS PLAYERS
PHILIDOR'S ASCENDENCY, POPULARITY & PATRONS

THE NINETEENTH CENTURY:
SIMPSON'S 1828-1893-CHESS CLUBS
CHESS MASTERS OF THE DAY, MAGAZINE NOTIONS,
THE FORTNIGHTLY REVIEW, AND REPLY IN AN
IMPARTIAL ARTICLE from H. E. BIRD

NATIONAL CHESS OF 1892, THE BELFAST CONGRESS
AND NEWCASTLE SUPPORT. SPECIMENS OF PLAY

BLINDFOLD CHESS
THE GAME OF CHESS, (SUMMARY OR BIRD'S EYE VIEW)
Dedicated to Belfast and Newcastle

FOUR STYLES OF CHESS, "THE LION," "THE
EAGLE," "THE SLOW WORM," AND THE LOCOMOTIVE
A SKIT

VAN DER LINDE'S CONCLUSIONS
CHESS LOSSES
SUPPLEMENTAL AND SEPARATE. REVIEW OF
STEINITZ, PART 1, (8 pages.)

NOTE. Postponed. "Times Reminiscences" (7 in number)
"Ruskin's letters" (28), "Bayley's Article" and "Fortnightly
Review" controversy, and "A few words with the German writer,
and the works of 1872 and 1884."

NOTES AND REFERENCES-BECKETT, LUTHER, CRANMER, WOLSEY, &c.




PREFACE

This little work is but a condensation and essence of a much
larger one, containing the result of what can be discovered
concerning the origin and history of chess, combined with
some of my own reminiscences of 46 years past both of chess play
and its exponents, dating back to the year 1846, the 18th of
Simpson's, 9 years after the death of A. McDonnell, and 6 after
that of L. de La Bourdonnais when chivalrous and first class
chess had come into the highest estimation, and emulatory matches
and tests of supremacy in chess skill were the order of the day.

English chess was then in the ascendant, three years before
Howard Staunton had vanquished St. Amant of France, and was
the recognized world's chess champion, while H. T. Buckle the
renowned author of the History of Civilization was the foremost
in skill among chess amateurs, Mr. W. Lewis and Mr. George
Walker the well known and prolific writers on chess, were among
the ten or twelve strongest players, but were seldom seen in the
public circle, Mr. Slous and Mr. Perigal were other first rate
amateurs of about equal strength. Mr. Daniels who attended
Simpson's had just departed. Captain Evans and Captain Kennedy
were familiar figures, and most popular alike distinguished and
esteemed for amiability and good nature, and were the best
friends and encouragers of the younger aspirants.

At this time Simpson's was the principal public arena for first
class chess practice and development: the St. George's Chess Club
was domiciled in Cavendish Square at back of the Polytechnic. The
London Chess Club (the oldest) met at the George and Vulture on
Cornhill, when Morphy came in 1858, and Steinitz in 1862, these
time honoured clubs were located at King St., St. James, and at
Purssell's, Cornhill respectively.

Other clubs for the practice and cultivation of the game were
about thirteen in number, representing not five percent of those
now existing; the oldest seem to have been Manchester, Edinburgh,
and Dublin, closely followed by Bristol, Liverpool, Wakefield,
Leeds and Newcastle.

Annual County Meetings commenced with that held at Leeds in
1841. The earliest perfectly open Tournaments were two on a
small scale at Simpson's in 1848 and 1849, and the first World's
International in the Exhibition year 1851, at the St. George's
Chess Club, Polytechnic Building, Cavendish Square. In each of
these Tournaments the writer participated.

Three chess columns existed when I first visited Simpson's in
1846, viz., Bells Life managed by Mr. George Walker from 1834
to 1873. The Illustrated London News from 15th February 1845 to
1878, in charge of Howard Staunton, and the Pictorial Times which
lasted from February 1845 to June 1848. The first column started
had appeared in the Lancet 1823, but it continued not quite one
year.

The Chess Player's Chronicle issued in 1841 (Staunton), was then
the only regular magazine devoted to chess, but a fly leaf had
been published weekly about the year 1840, in rather a curious
form of which the following is found noted:

About the year 1840 the Garrick Chess Divan was opened by Mr.
Huttman at No. 4 Little Russell St., Covent Garden. One of the
attractions of this little saloon was the publication every week
of a leaf containing a good chess problem, below it all the
gossip of the chess world in small type. The leaf was at first
sold for sixpence, including two of the finest Havannah Cigars,
or a fine Havannah and a delicious cup of coffee, but was
afterwards reduced to a penny without the cigars. The problem
leaf succeeding well, a leaf containing games was next produced,
and finally the two were merged in a publication of four pages
entitled the Palamede.

The Gentleman's Magazine 1824, 1828, British Miscellany 1839,
Bath and Cheltenham Gazette 1840, and Saturday Magazine 1840,
1845, had contained contributions in chess, but of regular columns
there were only the three before mentioned, now there are about
one hundred and fifty, mostly of larger dimensions.

Mr. George Walker's 1000 games published in 1844, gives no
game of earlier date than 1780, viz., one of Philidor's of whose
skill he gives 62 specimens, and there are 57 games by
correspondence played between 1824 and 1844.

The list of chess works of consideration up to Philidor's time,
number about thirty, but there were several editions of Jacobus
de Cessolus (1275 to 1290) including translations by J. Ferron
and Jean De Vigny, from which last named Caxton's book of 1474
was derived.

Lucena, Vicenz, Damiano, and Jacob Mennell appeared before
1520, Ruy Lopez in 1561, Polerio, Gianuzio, Greco, Salvio,
Carrera, Gustavus Selenus and the translation of Greco, followed
in the interval from 1561 to 1656.

I. Bertin 1735 and the six Italian works of the last century,
were the principal which followed with Philidor's manifold
editions, up to Sarratt the earliest of the nineteenth
century writers.

Dr. A. Van der Linde, Berlin 1874, 1118 pages, 4098 names in
Index, and 540 diagrams includes notice of Cotton's complete
gamester 1664, and Seymour's complete gamester 1720, with
editions of Hoyle's games from 1740 to 1871, in fact about
one-fourth of Linde's book is devoted to the specification of
books and magazines, mostly of the nineteenth century, even down
to the A.B.C. of Chess, by a lady.

Poems have been written on chess, of which the most esteemed
have been Aben Ezra 1175, (translated by Dr. Hyde) Conrad Von
Ammenhusen and Lydgate's "Love Battle" in the fourteenth century
Vida, Bishop of Alba 1525, Sir William Jones 1761, and Frithiofs
Saga by Esaias Tegner 1825.

Of articles which have appeared during the last fifteen years,
the Retrospects of Chess in the Times particularly that of the
25th June 1883, (the first on record) mark events of lasting
interest in the practice of the game, which would well merit
reproduction. Professor Ruskin's modest but instructive letters
(28 in number 1884 to 1892), also contain much of value
concerning chess nomenclature, annotation, ethics and policy
combined with some estimable advice and suggestions for promoting
greater harmony in the chess world.

The able article in Bailey's 1885, on chess competitions and the
progress of the game, and that in the Fortnightly Review of
December 1886, entitled "The Chess Masters of the Day," rank as
the other most noteworthy productions of the last seven years'
period in chess.

I regret that it is not in my power to produce the more extended
work, for to bring that now submitted within assigned compass
and cost, I have had to omit much that would be needful to render
such a work complete, and to give but a Bird's eye view of
chapters which would well merit undiminished space. Thus the
complete scores and analyses of the matches, tournaments and
great personal tests of skill and statistics of the game would
be acceptable to a few, whilst the full accounts of individual
players such as Philidor, Staunton, Anderssen, Morphy, Lowenthal,
Steinitz, Zukertort, Blackburne and perhaps even Bird, (Bailey's
and Ruskin's opinions) would be regarded and read with interest
by many chess players.

Respecting the supposed first source of chess the traditional
and conjectural theories which have grown up throughout so many
ages, regarding the origin of chess, have not become abandoned
even in our own days, and we generally hear of one or other of
them at the conclusion of a great tournament. It has been no
uncommon thing during the past few years to find Xerxes,
Palamedes, and even Moses and certain Kings of Babylon credited
with the invention of chess.

The conclusions arrived at by the most able and trustworthy
authorities however, are, that chess originated in India, was
utterly unknown to the Greeks and Romans, and was first
introduced into Europe from Persia shortly after the sixth
century of our era. In its earliest Asiatic form styled the
Chaturanga, It was adapted for four persons, having four small
armies of eight each. King, three pieces answering to our Rook,
Bishop, and Knight, Elephant (Chariot or Ship,) and Horse, with
four Pawns. The players decided what piece to move by the throw
of an oblong die.

About 1,350 years ago the game under the name Chatrang,
adapted for two persons with sixteen piece on each side, and the
same square board of 64 squares, became regularly practiced, but
when the dice became dispensed with is quite unknown.

It may not be possible to trace the game of chess with absolute
certainty, back to its precise source amidst the dark periods
of antiquity, but it is easy to shew that the claim of the Hindus
as the inventors, is supported by better evidence both inferential
and positive than that of any other people, and unless we are to
assume the Sanskrit accounts of it to be unreliable or spurious,
or the translations of Dr. Hyde, Sir William Jones and Professor
Duncan Forbes to be disingenuous and untrustworthy concoctions
(as Linde the German writer seems to insinuate) we are justified
in dismissing from our minds all reasonable doubts as to the
validity of the claims of the Hindu Chaturanga as the foundation
of the Persian, Arabian, Medieval and Modern Chess, which it so
essentially resembled in its main principles, in fact the ancient
Hindu Chaturanga is the oldest game not only of chess but of
anything ever shown to be at all like it, and we have the frank
admissions of the Persians as well as the Chinese that they both
received the game from India.

The Saracens put the origin of chess at 226, says the "Westminster
Papers," (although the Indians claim we think with justice to have
invented it about 108 B.C. Artaxerxes a Persian King is said to
have been the inventor of a game which the Germans call Bret-spiel
and chess was invented as a rival game.

The connecting links of chess evidence and confirmation when
gathered together and placed in order form, combined so harmonious
a chain, that the progress of chess from Persia to Arabia and into
Spain has been considered as quite satisfactorily proved and
established by authorities deemed trustworthy, both native and
foreign, and are quite consistent with a fair summary up of the
more recent views expressed by the German writers themselves,
and with the reasonable conclusions to be deduced even from the
very voluminous but not always best selected evidence of
Van der Linde.

So much has a very lively interest in chess depended in modern
times upon the enthusiasm of individuals, that the loss of a single
prominent supporter or player, has always seemed to sensibly affect
it. This was notably felt on the death of Sir Abram Janssens and
Philidor towards the end of the last century, and of Count Bruhl,
Mr. G. Atwood and General Conway in this. During the last 15
years the loss of Staunton, Buckle, Cap. Kennedy, Barnes,
Cochrane and Boden, and yet more recently of such friends of
British chess as F. H. Lewis, I. C. H. Taylor and Captain
Mackenzie left a void, which in the absence of any fresh like
popular players and supporters, goes far to account for the
depression and degeneracy of first class chess in England.

Though the game is advancing more in estimation than ever, and
each succeeding year furnishes conclusive evidence of its
increasing progress, in twenty years more under present auspices,
a British Chess Master will be a thing of the past, and the
sceptre of McDonnell and of Staunton will have crumpled into dust,
at the very time when in the natural course of things according
to present indications, the practice of the game shall have
reached the highest point in its development.

We miss our patrons and supporters of the past who were ever
ready to encourage rising enterprize. None have arisen to supply
their places. The distinguished and noble names we find in the
programmes of our Congresses and Meetings, and in the 1884 British
Chess Association are there as form only, and it seems surprising
that so many well known and highly esteemed public men should
allow their names to continue to be published year after year as
Patrons, Presidents, or Vice-Presidents of concerns in which
apparently they take not; or at least evince not, the slightest
interest.

Of the score or so of English born Chess Masters on the British
Chess Association lists of 1862, but five remain, two alone of
whom are now residing in this country.

The British Chess Association of 1884, which constituted itself
the power to watch over the interests of national chess, has
long since ceased to have any real or useful existence, and why
the name is still kept up is not easy to be explained.

It has practically lapsed since the year 1889, when last any
efforts were made to collect in annual or promised subscriptions,
or to carry out its originally avowed objects, and the keeping up
in print annually, of the names of the President and Vice-President
Lord Tennyson, Prof. Ruskin, Lord Randolph Churchill, and Sir
Robert Peel seems highly objectionable.

The exponents of chess for the 19th century certainly merit more
notice than my space admits of. After Philidor who died in 1795,
and his immediate successors Verdoni and E. Sarratt, W. Lewis,
G. Walker, John Cochrane, Deschapelles and de La Bourdonnais,
have always been regarded as the most able and interesting, and
consequently the most notable of those for the quarter of a
century up to 1820, and the above with the genial A. McDonnell
of Belfast, who came to the front in 1828, and excelled all his
countrymen in Great Britain ever known before him, constitute the
principal players who flourished up to 1834, when the series of
splendid contests between La Bourdonnais and McDonnell cast all
other previous and contemporary play into the shade.

The next period of seventeen years to 1851, had produced
Harrwitz, Horwitz and Lowenthal from abroad, and Buckle, Cap.
Kennedy, Bird and Boden at home, whilst the great International
Chess Tournament of that year witnessed the triumph of the great
Anderssen, and introduced us to Szen and Kiezeritzky, then
followed a lull in first class chess amongst us from 1851 to 7,
succeeded by a year of surpassing interest, for 1858 welcomed
the invincible Paul Morphy of New Orleans, considered by some
superior even to La Bourdonnais, Staunton and Anderssen the three
greatest players who had preceded him.

In the year 1862 England's second great gathering took place and
Anderssen was again victorious. In the four years after Morphy's
short but brilliant campaign, a wonderful array of distinguished
players had come forward, comprising Mackenzie, Paulsen, Steinitz,
Burn and Blackburne, The Rev. G. A. MacDonnell, C. De Vere,
Barnes, Wormald, Brien and Campbell. In another ten years two
more of the most illustrious chess players appeared in the persons
of Zukertort and Gunsberg, and we read of matches between
Steinitz, Zukertort and Blackburne, for a modest ten pound note
(see growth of stakes in chess).

In 1867 at Paris, 1870 at Baden, 1873 at Vienna, and 1878 again
at Paris, four more International Chess Tournaments of nearly equal
interest to the 1851 and 1862 of London took place, and they were
won respectively by Kolisch, Anderssen, (third time) Steinitz and
Zukertort, Berlin 1881, a very fine victory for Blackburne, 1882
Vienna, honours divided by Steinitz and Winawer, and 1883 the
Criterion, London, a second remarkable victory for Zukertort
represent the other most noteworthy tournaments.

Of all sorts International and National, there have been 34
meetings with 46 County local gatherings, as well as 20 of the
University matches between Oxford and Cambridge, of which the
two first and greatest were held at Perrott's, Milk St., in 1873
and 1874.

Continuing with the chess giants of more modern date, Mason's
great powers became developed in 1876, and Tchigorin of St.
Petersburg, a splendid player came to the front in 1881. Equal to
him in force, perhaps, if not in style, and yet more remarkable in
their records of success are the present champions Dr. Tarrasch of
Nuremberg and E. Lasker of Berlin. The Havanna people, who,
for five or six years past have spent more money on great personal
chess encounters than all the rest of the world combined, have put
forth Walbrodt of Leipzig. In the above mentioned four players,
chess interest for a time will mostly centre, with Steinitz, yet
unvanquished, and, as many consider, able to beat them all, the
future must be of unique interest, and the year 1893 may decide
which of five favourite foreign players will be entitled to
rank as the world's champion of chess, so far as can be decided
by matches played on existing conditions.

Chess with clocks and the tedious slow time limit of fifteen
moves an hour (say a working day for a single game) must not be
confounded with genuine, useful and enjoyable chess without
distracting time encumbrances as formerly played. Played at the
pace and on the conditions which the exigencies of daily, yea
hourly, life and labour admit of experience shews that there are
yet English exponents that can render a good account of any of
the foreign players.

First class chess enthusiasm and support for the past year has
been limited to Newcastle-on-Tyne and Belfast. The unbounded
and impartial liberality of these very important cities has met
with gratifying reward in the increased appreciation of their
efforts and the enhanced number of club members and interest in
the general circle. These highly successful meetings, however,
have caused no impetus in metropolitan management, and has seemed
to divert the attention of chess editors and the responsible
powers entirely from the fact that the London 1892 First Class
International Chess Tournament promised has been altogether
neglected, if not forgotten. We are thus in grave default with
the German and Dutch Chess Associations, who have so faithfully
and punctually fulfilled every engagement.

The forthcoming monster chess competition at Birmingham,
from which first class players are excluded can scarcely be deemed
a fitting substitute for our owing International engagement with
any true lover of chess and its friendly reciprocity, and least
of all in the eyes of our foreign chess brethren and entertainers.

NOTE. This monster Chess Contest between the North and the South of
England, represented by 106 competitors on each side, which
terminated in a victory for the South by 53 1/2 to 52 1/2, took
place at Birmingham on Saturday, the 28th January last, and has
occasioned considerable interest among the votaries of the game
and reports pronounce it a great success.

As affording indications of general chess progress, since the
game became a recognized item of public recreationary
intelligence, and the time of the pioneer International Chess
Tournament of all nations, London 1851, the event may be deemed
of some import and significance, as evidence of the vastly
increased popularity of the game, but the play seems not to have
been productive of many very high specimens of the art of chess,
and has not been conspicuous for enterprise or originality, and
if these exhibitions are to take the place of the kind of
International Tournaments hitherto held, much improvement must
be manifested, before they can be deemed worthy substitutes,
even from a national point of view only.

Books on the openings in chess have continued fairly popular,
but it is singular how very little novelty or originality has
been imparted into them. Since Staunton and Wormald's works, and
the German hand-books, the Modern Chess Instructor of Mr.
Steinitz, 1889, was looked forward to with the greatest
interest, and the second of the several volumes of which it was to
consist, promised for September, 1890, is still awaited with
anxious expectation. In regard to the practice of the game, the
lack of national chess spirit, or organization, and the
extraordinary denominating influence of the foreign element, is
the remarkable and conspicuous characteristic, and the modest
seat assigned to British Masters in the Retrospects of 1889
and 1890 (Times), will it is feared have to be placed yet
further back.




The Chess Openings:
Considered Critically And Practically
By H. E. BIRD.

"This is the work of one of the most distinguished of
English players. Since the death of Mr. Staunton
nobody can more fairly claim to represent the national
school of players than Mr. H. E. BIRD, who took part in the first
International Tournament of 1851, and also played at Vienna in
1873, at Philadelphia, and recently at Paris. Perhaps his most
brilliant performances have been in single matches, in two of
which he made an equal score with Falkbeer, while, in 1867,
when contending against Steinitz (fresh from his victory over
Anderssen), he won six games against his opponent's seven, while
seven others were drawn. Six years later Mr. BIRD once more
proved his right to be considered second to none among English
players, by defeating Mr. Wisker, the holder of the British
Association Challenge Cup, after a protracted struggle. So far,
therefore, as practical proficiency constitutes a claim to
respect as a teacher of chess-theory, the author of `The
Chess Openings' is in no need of an excuse for coming forward as
an instructor. Mr. BIRD by no means confines himself to mere
reproduction. He has the merit of having identified his name with
several original variations, and of having revived several older
defences, such as the Cunningham Gambit, with no small degree
of success. The book has been evidently the result of painstaking
and accurate analysis, and it may be confidently recommended to
the more advanced players who have graduated in the beaten tracks
of the 'Handbuch,' and are willing to follow in the steps of an
able and original guide. In addition to the usual Appendix of
problems, Mr. BIRD supplies a very useful and attractive feature
in a series of end game positions from the most celebrated
modern match-games. Owing to clear type and large diagrams, the
volume will prove an agreeable companion when a board is out
of reach."--Athenaeum, September 7th, 1880.

------

Chess Masterpieces:
Comprising--A Collection of 156 Choice Games of the past quarter
of a century, with notes, including the finest Games in the
Exhibition of 1851, and in the Vienna Tournament of 1873, with
excellent specimens of the styles of Anderssen, Blackburne,
Der Laza, Hanstein, Kolisch, Lowenthal, Morphy, Staunton,
Steinitz, and the principal English Players. Supplemented by
Games of La Bourdonnais, McDonnell and Cochrane, contested prior
to 1849, Compiled by H. E. BIRD. Cloth, black lettered, 3/6; or,
handsomely bound, gilt and gilt edges 4/-.

The entire series will be found full of interest and points of
excellence, and can scarcely fail to afford amusement and
pleasure, as well as to impart instruction, to all who may avail
themselves of the opportunity of examining them, they will be of
especial service to amateurs who aspire to preeminence in chess.

------

Times, Biographical Notices, Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic,
Pictorial World, American and Continental, Newcastle Chronicle,
and Hereford Times.

Professor Ruskin (from 28 letters in all, since 1884).
"Your games always delight me, as they seem in my humble judgment
specimens of chess skill remarkable for originality and
vivacity."--12th June, 1884.

"Indeed I feel that you have done more for chess at home and
abroad than any other living player."--16th April, 1885.

"Your Catalogue is quite admirably drawn up, and if ever I can
recover some peace of life and mind I hope to be of some use
in furthering the sale of the book and recommending its
views."--7th June, 1887.

H.R.H. PRINCE LEOPOLD, EARL DARTREY, SIR C. RUSSELL, LORD
RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, Etc., Etc., (also great Musicians, Amateur
Chess Players, letters and support.)

------

STEINITZ

As a player, analyst, critic and author. Considerations of his
book on the openings. Notes on his general play, and conduct of
the game, &c., are dealt with in review of Modern Chess Instructor.

Steinitz claims with justice to be very conscientious in the
performance of his work at all times, and he had no need to
excuse himself for the following criticism, which occupied him
(he told me) months in its preparation. It seems to me that an
author has reason to be obliged to any who may point out his real
errors and shortcomings. Steinitz, however, was betrayed into a
degree of unfairness and prejudice in dealing with Staunton and
Wormald's books, and Morphy's play, bordering almost on
imbecility. That the great artist himself is not infallible
appears from my review of his Modern Chess Instructor.

STEINITZ'S REVIEW

The Field, December, 1879.

CHESS OPENINGS, 1879.

The Chess Opening, Considered Critically and Practically.
By H. E. Bird.
London: Dean & Son, 160, Fleet Street.

The public record of chess matches and great tournaments places
the name of the author of this work above that of any living
English competitor for chess honours, excepting Mr. Blackburne.
It is therefore all the more disappointing to find that
Mr. Bird's book has not done justice to his great reputation as
a player. The author's chief defect as an analyst arises probably
from one of his distinguishing qualities as a practitioner over
the board. Few chess masters could excel Mr. Bird in rapid survey
of position and in the formation and execution of surprising
maneuvers, which, though not always sound--and sometimes, as he
admits, even eccentric--tend to raise confusing complications,
difficult for the adversary to disentangle at a quick rate.
These qualities make Mr. Bird one of the most dangerous opponents
in "skittle play," or in matches regulated by a fast time limit;
but they prove almost antagonistic to the acquirement of
excellency as an author on the game. For the first-class analyst
is not merely expected to record results, but to judge the
causes of success or failure from the strictly scientific point
of view, and he has often to supplement with patient research the
shortcomings of great masters in actual play. In such cases every
move of a main variation becomes a problem which has to be studied
for a great length of time; and the best authors have watched the
progress of different openings in matches and tournaments for
years, and pronounced their judgment only after the most careful
comparisons, Mr. Bird is, however, too much of an advocate to be
a good judge, and he evinces great partiality for ingenious traps
and seductive combinations, which form an attractive feature of
his own style in actual play, but which mostly occur only in
light skirmishes. Moreover he often treats his duties as an
analyst in a cavalier fashion. In his quotations from other
authors he embodies variations which stand already severely
condemned by first-class chess critics in various chess
periodicals; and his original researches contain a considerable
portion of "skittle" analysis, which does not bear cursory
examination.

We have no room for lengthened demonstrations, and must confine
ourselves to a few instances of the latter description, all
occurring in the compiler's new additions. On page 6, he
overlooks the winning of a clear piece which White can effect
by Q to R4, followed by P to QR3 if the B be defended. On page
22 Black can win a piece on the 16th move by P to KB4, followed
by P to KKt3, and there is no chance of any counter-attack by
P to KKt4, for Black may afterwards interpose the B at K4, and
get the K into the corner. On page 105 a piece can be won by
Black on the l0th move by B to Q5, for the Kt has no retreat,
a mate being threatened at KB3. The ending of a game between
Messrs. Bird and MacDonnell affords a still more remarkable
illustration. There is abundant proof that the author must have
examined the position at least more than once, for, by a singular
error, the identical ending appears twice in the book--on pages
183 and 197,--each time with a large diagram. On each occasion
a win is demonstrated for White in nine moves, while at least a
piece can be gained at once by Q to K7, followed accordingly by
P to Q6 dis. ch., or B to KKt5. Mr. Bird would be annoyed to
make such oversights over the board; and there is no excuse for
such shallow examples being recommended to the student without
the least comment on their weak points.

As regards the general arrangement, we have to remark that the
variations sometimes seem to have been examined loosely and
separately, irrespective of their relation to each other, or to
the main propositions of the author in reference to the form of
opening he deals with; and the brevity or length of space
assigned to different forms of play have apparently been decided
in a whimsical and arbitrary manner. For instance, on page 29,
in the Philidor's defence, 7. Kt to KB3, is described to afford
the most satisfactory and secure opening for Black. On the next
page the move is repeated under the separate heading, Example II,
and it looks odd enough that one single move should have
received such prominence, the only addition being, "Won by
Harrwitz in 40 moves," as if it were to be forced by Black in
that number, while at the time the positions show little
difference. But, stranger still, four pages later on (page 34)
the identical variation reappears, taken from the same game
between Morphy and Harrwitz (though this is not stated), with
three more moves on each side added to it, but this time the
remark is made, that "White has a good position." To take another
example. On page 78 there is a repetition of 10 moves on each
side, merely for the purpose of indicating a different 11th move
for White. It is scarcely necessary to point out that in each
case the stronger move should have been inserted in the main
variation, while the weaker one could have been disposed of in
a foot-note of one line.

While on this subject we cannot refrain from mentioning the
frequent references to "Chess Masterpieces," a work previously
published by the author, which contained a collection of fine
games partly reproduced from Howard Taylor's "Chess Brilliants,"
and other publications, with additions mostly from Mr. Bird's own
practice. We must confess that some of the so-called variations
extracted from the "Masterpieces," appear to be nothing more than
advertisements. Notably, on page 157, four "examples" are given,
which do not go beyond the 4th move, and leave no mark on the
positions, and then we are gravely informed, in a manner already
described, that White or Black won in so-and-so many moves.

We notice with great pleasure the handsome and courteous
manner in which almost all the prominent chess masters of the day
are mentioned in the book, and the sense of fairness evinced by
Mr. Bird in the selection of variations and examples from his own
practice, irrespective of his victory or defeat. But his chess
historical references are unreliable, and he often wrongly ascribes
the adoption of certain variations to different players in a manner
which could have been easily rectified by taking a little more
trouble. This is not unimportant, for the reputed strength of a
player is evidence of the strength of an opening he favours in
matches and tournaments. We can only adduce a few instances which
are more within the writer's personal knowledge.

The statement about 5. Q to K2, in the Buy Lopez, on page 16,
is much confused. The move was adopted by Mr. Blackburne in
the final tie match of the Vienna tournament, but it never occurred
in the first game of the Steinitz-Blackburne match, as Mr. Bird can
convince himself from his own book, where the latter game is
published in full on page 171. Steinitz is also erroneously credited
with strongly favouring the attack in the Scotch Gambit, for we do
not remember a single game on record in which he ever adopted that
form of opening as first player. On the other hand, a variation in
the Evans Gambit is ascribed to Zukertort, which actually occurred
first in a game between Steinitz and Blackburne, played in the
London Grand Tournament of 1872. This error seems to have been
quoted from Staunton and Wormald's "Chess Theory and Practice."

A few more words about the problems at the end of the book and
we have done with the details. There are about a dozen compositions
mostly by high-class American authors, and some of them of very
good quality; but, unfortunately, Mr. Bird has omitted to indicate
their solutions. We must suppose this to be due to an oversight,
as he gives the key moves of the four problems by English composers.
The omission is deplorable, for many students would wish to
appreciate the author's idea, and the merits of the construction,
if they fail to solve the problem. To quote an instance from our
own experience; we could not find any solution to the problem on
page 224, which composition, we conclude, is either of the highest
order or suffers from the gravest of all faults, that of being
impossible. In either case we should have liked to examine the
solution.

Our judgment of the book, on the whole, is that it cannot be
ranked in the first class with the works of Heydebrand, Zukertort,
Staunton, Lowenthal, Neuman and Suhle, Lange, &c.; but it will
satisfy the demands of the great number of lovers of the game who
do not aspire above the second rank. Mr. Bird's ability and
ingenuity is beyond doubt, and there is ample evidence of his
qualifications in the book before us, but he has not yet acquired
that element of genius which has been defined as the capacity
for taking pains. Mr. Bird could produce a much better book than
this, and we hope he will.




Variously estimated from 3,000 to 1,000 B.C.
CHATURANGA.
The Primeval Hindu Chess.

bp--krnb
np--pppp
rp------
kp------
------pk
------pr
pppp--pn
bnrk--pb

[Diagram of a Chaturanga board with 4 armies. Yellow is in upper
left. Black is in upper right. Green is in lower left. Red is in
lower right.]

------

The Medieval and Modern Chess.
 White
RNBKQBNR
PPPPPPPP
--------
--------
--------
--------
pppppppp
rnbkqbnr
 Black

[Diagram of a standard chessboard, white pieces at the top,
black pieces at the bottom.]

Derived from the Persian Chatrang, 537-540 A.D.

------

833-842.
Problem I. by the Caliph MU'TASIM BILLAH.
 Black
-k------
RnR-----
bN-p--r-
p-nQpB--
p--N-b-r
--------
-P--P---
-qBK----
 White
White to move, and give checkmate at the ninth move.

------

About 1380.
Problem II. by 'ALI SHATRANJ.
 Black
---r---r
ppq---R-
b--bkp-p
--------
--PP----
PP-B-Q--
--K---PP
--B-----
 White
White to play and mate in eight moves.




CHESS HISTORY AND REMINISCENCES

CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF CHESS

A not unfair criterion is afforded of the long prevailing and
continued misconception as to the origin of chess, by the lack of
knowledge regarding early records as to its history exhibited in
the literature of last century, and the press and magazine articles
of this even to the present year. We refer not to lines of poets
such as Pope, Dryden and others, with whom the ancient order of
fiction is permissible, or to writers of previous periods, from
Aben Ezra to Ruy Lopez, Chaucer and Lydgate, or Caxton and
Barbiere, but to presumably studied and special articles, such
as those given in Dictionaries of Arts and Sciences and in
Encyclopaedias. The great work of 1727 dedicated to the King--
which claimed to embody a reasonable and fair account--and even
the best knowledge on all subjects referred to in it; contains an
article on chess of some dimensions, which may well be taken as
an example of the average ignorance of the knowledge of
information existing at the time. The Chinese, it says, claim to
date back their acquaintance with chess to a very remote period;
so with the best testimonies of that country, which acknowledge its
receipt from India in the sixth century the writer seems to
have been quite unacquainted. Nothing occurs in the article as
to the transit of chess from India into Persia, next to Arabia and
Greece, and by the Saracens into Spain; neither does a line
appear as to Egyptian probabilities, or the nature of the game
inscribed on edifices in that country. Though abounding in
traditional names of Trojan heroes, and others equally mythical
as regards chess, the more genuine ones of Chosroes of Persia,
Harun, Mamun and Mutasem of Bagdad, Walid of Cordova,
the Carlovingian Charlemagne of France, Canute the Dane,
William of Normandy the English kings are entirely absent, nor
is there a word concerning Roman games or the edict which
refers to them in which Chess and Draughts (both mentioned)
were specially protected and exempted from the interdiction
against other games; which has escaped all writers, and would
certainly, if known about, have been deemed of some significance.
The Persian and Arabian periods from the time of Chosroes, to
Harun, covers the Golden Age of Arabian literature, which is
more prolific in chess incident than any other; yet even this and
Firdausi's celebrated Persian Shahnama, and Anna Comnena's
historical work escapes notice. We may perhaps, not implicitly
trust or credit, all we read of in some of the Eastern manuscripts
biographical sketches; but there is much of reasonable
narrative we need not discredit nor reject. We may feel
disposed to accept, with some reservation, the account of the 6,000
male and 6,000 female slaves, and 60,000 horses of Al Mutasem,
(the eighth of Abbasside). The prodigious bridal expenditure,
comprising gifts of Estates, houses, jewels, horses, described in
the history of Al Mamun (the seventh of Abbasside, and the most
glorious of his race), may seem fabulous to us; the extraordinary
memories of certain scholars narrated in biographies, who could
recite thousands of verses and whole books by heart may appear
worthy of confirmation; the composition of two thousand manuscripts
by one writer, and the possession of forty thousand volumes
by another, may somewhat tax our credulity. We may feel a little
surprised to hear that Chosroes' chess men were worth an amount
equivalent to one million of our money in the present day; we
may doubt, or disagree with the opinions attributed to Hippocrates,
or to Galen; that cures were effected, or even assisted of
such complaints as diarrhea and erysipelas by the means of chess;
or, that, as the Persian suggests it has been found a remedy of
beneficial in many ailments from the heart ache to the tooth ache.
We may doubt whether the two Lydian brothers, Lydo and
Tyrrhene, in the story of Herodotus really diminished the pangs
of hunger much by it; but, amidst all our incredulity, we can
believe, and do believe, that Chosroes and chess, Harun and
chess, Charlemagne and chess, Al Mamun and chess, Canute and
chess, are as well authenticated and worthy of credit, as other
more important incidents found in history, notwithstanding that
encyclopaediasts and writers down from the days of the Eastern
manuscripts, the Persian Shahnama and Anna Comnenas history
to the days of Pope and Philidor, and of the initiation of
Sanskrit knowledge among the learned, never mention their names
in connection with chess as exponents of which the Ravan, king of
Lanka of the Hindoo law books, the famous prince Yudhisthira
and the sage Vyasa of the Sanskrit, and Nala of the poems, and
in more modern accounts, Indian King Porus, Alexander the
Great and Aristotle, are far more reasonable names inferentially,
if not sufficiently attested, than those cherished by traditionists
such as Palamedes, Xerxes, Moses, Hermes, or any of the Kings of
Babylon or their philosophers.

NOTE. The ever growing popularity of chess is forcibly and
abundantly proved in a variety of ways. One conclusive proof of
it is afforded by the enormous and ever increasing sale of
Chess Equipages, Boards, Men and Figures, Diagrams, Scoring
Books, Sheets, &c., a somewhat matter of fact, it is true, but
at the same time practical, reliable, and satisfactory species
of evidence. Its progress is further attested by the extreme
favour in which Chess Tournaments both International and National,
are held, at home and abroad, which attract a degree of attention
and awaken an interest little dreamt of during any past period of
the history of the game; and it is further illustrated by the
continued formation of Chess Clubs in every sphere, the ever
widening interest in the home circle, and by many other facts
which indicate with absolute certainty its highly enhanced
appreciation among the thoughtful and intelligent of all classes
of the community.

The humble and working classes have, in recent years, began to
avail themselves very considerably of the enjoyment of the game,
and this is a powerful and laudable ground for gratification,
because chess, besides being innocent, intellectual and mentally
highly invigorating, though soothing also, is essentially
inexpensive and does not tend to the sort of excitement too often
occasioned by some other games where the temptation, too often
indulged, of spending money principally when losing, in hopes of
obtaining supposed stimulating consolation and nerve, is so
frequently manifested, that it appears at times to be so
irresistible an accompaniment of the game as to become almost a
condition and part of the play.

Chess in fact, affords the greatest maximum of enjoyment, with
the smallest minimum of expense; it is at the same time the most
pleasingly absorbing, yet the most scientific of games; it is
also looked upon as the most ancient, and with, perhaps, the
exception of Draughts probably is. The reason why it has been
for so many ages, and still is called the "Royal Game" is, because
it came to Europe from Persia, and took its name from Schach or
Shah, which, in that language signifies King, and Matt dead from
the Arabic language making combined "Schach Matt" the King is
dead, which is the derivation of our "Checkmate."

The degree of intellectual skill which chess admits of, has
been considered and pronounced so high, that Leibnitz declared
it to be far less a game than a science. Euler, Franklin, Buckle
and others have expressed similar views; and the Egyptians, the
Persians, and the Arabians according to many writers, including
Mr. Warton and the Rev. Mr. Lambe, have also so regarded it.

Chess is so ancient that, by that distinction alone, it seems
taken beyond the category of games altogether; and it has been
said that it probably would have perished long ago, if it had
not been destined to live for ever. It affords so much genuine
intrinsic interest that it can be played without pecuniary stake;
and has been so played more than all other games put together,
and continues to be so during the present time on occasions,
by the very finest players. It exists, flourishes, and gains
ground continually and prodigiously, although the average annual
support in amount for first class chivalrous chess competitions,
tournaments and matches in all Great Britain does not equal that
put on in former years as the stake of a good prize fight; whilst
the receipts of a great football match at Bradford and other
important cities, which can be named, exceeds the combined
incomes of all the few remaining British chess masters derived
from chess instruction and skill in play.

Chess is, moreover, surrounded by a host of associations, and is
suggestive of a pleasant mass of memories, anecdotes, manners,
and incidents, such as no other game, and hardly any science may
presume to boast; and though never yet honoured throughout its
long life by any continuous history, or consecutive and connected
record, its traditions from time immemorial have been of the most
illustrious, royal, and noble character.

More apt at figures, than at diction, I have no claim to powers
of writing or learning, which can afford me any hopes of doing
full justice to so important a task as a worthy work on the
history of chess would be; my labours and experience, however,
may have enabled me to gather together materials for a more
solid and substantial chess structure, than at present exists
and I am not without confidence that competent and skilful
workers will be found to construct an edifice more worthy of our
day, which present, and pending, grand developments will still
further consolidate in interest and glory; a building in fact
cemented by the noblest and most worthy, praiseworthy, and
commendable associations with which the aspiring and deserving
artisan and mechanic of the present and future, may be as
closely identified as the greatest rulers, deepest thinkers,
and most accomplished and profound scholars, and distinguished
men of science of the past; affording also a substantial boon,
which may be conferred by philanthropists on their less
fortunate brethren in society, as it is calculated to induce
temperate as well as peaceful and thoughtful habits. A bond of
social union also to all who appreciate and care to avail
themselves of the relief and advantages which chess is so
well known to afford, over other less innocent, less
intellectual and more expensive and objectionable movements.

------

The following notice of chess shortly after the death of
Dr. Zukertort, add materially to an increasing appreciation of
chess among the working classes, and help the good work on.

"THE WEEKLY DISPATCH," June 24th, 1888.

By the sudden death of Dr. Zukertort, last Wednesday morning,
the royal game of chess loses one of its most interesting and
brilliant exponents. This distinguished master was only forty-six,
and he has been cut off right in the middle of an interesting
tournament at the British Chess Club, in which he stood the best
chance of winning the first prize. Amongst his last conversations
was his arranging to play Blackburne on Saturday, the 23rd, and
Bird on Monday, the 25th. The extreme painfulness of Zukertort's
death to his friends cannot be estimated by the general public.
Famous cricketers and famous actors are applauded by those they
entertain or amuse. The chess master receives no applause; over
the board, however, he enters into conversation with amateurs,
and is rewarded by friendships that far outweigh the wildest
ephemeral outbursts of approval. The friendships so formed by
Zukertort have now been snapped, and his removal has caused, in
the words of the old player Bird, "a severe blank." Bird himself
is an interesting character. He is by far the oldest chess master,
does the chess correspondence for the Times, and is as well known
by his chess books as by his play. The game between him and
Zukertort in the tournament now in progress was looked forward to
with intense interest, for he and Zukertort were the leading
scorers, and the fight for the first prize would have centred in
this contest. A good feature in Bird's character is his disposition
to make acquaintances with working men. He has taught many of them
his "charming game," and has frequently been told afterwards
that it has been the means of saving them a few shillings every
week. This is easily understood, for a man that plays chess is
not likely to play "penny nap" nor to drink much four-ale. Such at
any rate, is Mr. Bird's theory; and he is just now endeavouring to
promote a scheme for the popularising of chess amongst the
industrial classes.




CHESS NOTES AND REFERENCES

THEORIES AS TO THE INVENTION OF CHESS

The honour of the invention of chess has been claimed, we are
told, by seven countries, China, India, Egypt, Greece, Assyria,
Persia and Arabia.

Capt. Kennedy, in one of his chess sketches observes, and Mr.
Staunton, in his Chess Player's Chronicle repeats the statement,
thus: "That this is as many countries as aforetime there were
cities in Greece, each of which, it is said, having peacefully
allowed Homer to starve during his life-time, started up after he
died in a fierce contention for the glory of having given him
birth.

My old friends, Capt. Kennedy and Mr. Staunton, no doubt,
used the words "starved" figuratively, for neglected by his country,
for myself, I really do not know whether Homer really was
neglected by his country or not.

------

TRADITIONS AS TO THE ORIGIN

The traditions of chess are numerous and conflicting, Zakaria
Yahya a writer of the tenth century in "The Delight of the
Intelligent in Description of Chess" referring to stories extant
and fables respecting its invention to that time remarks, "It
is said to have been played by Aristotle, by Yafet Ibn Nuh
(Japhet son of Noah) by Sam ben Nuh (Shem) by Solomon for the
loss of his son, and even by Adam when he grieved for Abel.

Aben Ezra, the famous Rabbi, interpreter, and expounder of
scripture, and who is said to have excelled in every branch of
knowledge, attributed the invention of chess to Moses. His
celebrated poem on chess, written about 1130 A.D., has been
translated into nearly all languages of the civilized globe,
into English by Dr. Thomas Hyde, Oxford, 1694.

The unknown Persian, author of the imperfect M.S. presented
by Major Price the eminent Orientalist, to the Asiatic Society,
and upon which N. Bland, Esq., mainly bases his admirable
treatise on Persian Chess, 1850, says--"Hermes, a Grecian
sage, invented chess, and that it was abridged and sent to
Persia in the sixth century of our era."

The famous Shahnama, by Firdausi, called the Homer of
Persia, and other Eastern manuscripts as well as the M.S. of the
Asiatic Society, give less ancient traditions of the adaption of
chess relating to the time of Alexander the Great and Indian
Kings, Fur, Poris, and Kaid; in one of these the reward of a grain
of corn doubled sixty-four times was stipulated for by the
philosopher, and the seeming insignificance of the demand
astonished and displeased the King, who wished to make a
substantial recognition worthy of his own greatness and power,
and it occasioned sneers and ridicule on the part of the King's
treasurer and accountant at Sassa's supposed lack of wisdom and
judgment. However, astonishment and chagrin succeeded before
they were half way through their computation, for when the total
was arrived at, it was found to exceed all the wealth of the
world, and the King knew not which to admire most, the
ingenuity of the game itself, or that of the minister's demand.

The earliest European work on chess is supposed to be that of
Jacobus de Cessolus, a monk of Picardy, which appeared (it is
said) in 1290 (scheilt swischen 1250-1275 Linde 1-10). His
favourite names are Evil Merodach, King of Babylon and a
philosopher named Xerxes, Massman, 1830, gives Ammelin,
Amilin, Amilon and Selenus, Ibl, Xerxes whose Greek name was
Philometer to whom 597 B.C. has been assigned.

Palamedes and Diomedes of Trojan celebrity, the Lydians of
Herodotus, the Thoth of Plato, the Hermes of the Asiatic Society's
philosopher; in fact nearly every one of the Gods who has in turn
served as the Great Mythological Divinity has been credited with
the discovery of chess.

NOTE. There are few parts of learning so involved in obscurity, as
the history of Pagan idolatry. It may, perhaps, be some
satisfaction to us to think that the ancients themselves knew
even less of the matter than we do; but if so, it furnishes a
strong argument for the necessity of being very cautious in
drawing our conclusions. We believe it may safely be said, that
there is not one among all the fabled deities of antiquity, whom
(if the writers of antiquity may be trusted) it is not possible
to identify with every other--Saturn, Jupiter, Mercury, Pan,
Hercules, Priapus, Bacchus, Bel, Moloch, Chemosh, Taut, Thoth,
Osiris, Buddha, Vishnou, Siva, all and each of these may be shown
to be one and the same person. And whether we suppose this person
to have been the Sun, or to have been Adam, or Seth, or Enoch,
or Noah, or Shem, or Ham, or Japhet, the conclusion will be still
the same, each of them, it may be shewn was worshipped as the Sun,
and all of them, wherever their worship was established, were
severally considered as the Great Mythological Divinity.

So far, It would not appear that there is any room for much
difference of opinion, at least, not if ancient authorities may
be depended on.

------

Dr. Salvic states on the strength of one of his authorities, and
Alexandre apparently quite seriously has repeated the statement
that the text in Samuel of Abner and Joab's twelve chosen
champions "Let the young men now arise and play before us"
may be applicable to chess, but the context of the chapter is
opposed to any such conclusion. All the foregoing fabulous
accounts may be at least declared "not proven" if not utterly
unworthy even of the verdict pronounced in those two words.
There are three more modern traditions or accounts, the first of
which is referred to Alexander the Great's time 336 to 322 B.C.,
and the two others to about the time of Chosroes--900 years later.
Forbes devotes thirteen pages to them and they are given with
less detail by the Rev. R. Lambe in 1764 and N. Bland in 1850.

------

THE THREE INDIAN TRADITIONS

In this, the first Indian tradition referred to the time of
Alexander the Great, it is related in the Shahnama that a very
powerful King of India named Kaid, satiated with war, and having
no enemies without, or rebellious subjects within his kingdom,
thus addressed his minister Sassa.

"Day and night my mind is harassed with the thoughts of war
and strife; when in the hours of the night sleep overpowers me, I
dream of nothing but battlefields and conquests, and in the
morning, when I awake, I still think over my imaginary combats and
victories. Now you are well aware that I have no longer one
single enemy or rebel in my whole dominions with whom to
contend. It is utterly repugnant to justice and common sense,
to go to war without any cause. If I were to do so God would be
displeased with me, and a severe retribution for my evil deeds
would soon overtake me, even in this world, for is it not said
that a kingdom governed by falsehood and oppression is void of
stability, and it will soon pass away. Tell me, then, O Sassa,
for great is thy wisdom, what am I to do in order to regain my
peace of mind, and obtain relief from my present state of
weariness and disgust?"

Sassa hereupon bethought himself of a rare game, the invention
of an ancient Grecian sage, by name Hermes, which had recently
been introduced into India by Alexander and his soldiers, who
used to play it at times of leisure. Sassa procured and modified
the game and board from 56 pieces and 112 squares to 32 pieces
and 64 squares, and explained it to the king, who practised it with
both satisfaction and delight, Sassa's stipulation of a reward of
a grain of corn doubled again and again 64 times, which was at
first deemed ridiculous, was found to amount to
18,446,744,073,709,551,615 rating the barley corn at two
shillings the bushel, the value required from the Indian king by
the philosopher was 3,385,966,239,667 pounds and 12s an
unexpected and amazing sum.

The second version is of another highly ambitious and successful
king of Hind, name Fur, who died and left a young son,
inexperienced in war and in danger of losing his possessions. The
wise men consulted together, and Sassa, the son of Dahir,
brought the chess board and men to the Prince, saying, "Here
you have an exact image of war, which is conducted on principles
similar to those which regulate this wonderful game. The same
caution in attack and coolness in defence which you have to
exercise here, you will have to put in practice in the battlefield.
The Prince with eagerness availed himself of Sassa's instructions
until he made himself fully acquainted with the principles of the
game. He then assembled his army and went forth in full
confidence to encounter his enemies, whom he defeated at all
points. He then returned home in triumph, and ever after he
cherished his love for the game of chess to a knowledge of
which he considered himself indebted for the preservation of
his honour, his kingdom and his life."

The third account relates--"After Belugi, reigned Giumhur
who had this royal seat in the City of Sandali, in the province of
Cachemir. When he died, his brother, called May, was chosen
King, who had two sons, Ghav and Talachand. Upon the death of
May, their mother Paritchera, that is, endued with angelic beauty,
reigned. These two young Princes being grown to maturity,
desire to know from their mother who of them was to be her
successor. The mother concealing her mind, gave them both hopes
separately. In the meantime, the brothers quarrel, and raise
armies, and the mother endeavored to reconcile them by her
good advice, but in vain, for soon after they broke out into open
war. After various battles, it fell out that Talachand was slain.
Upon this, the mother goes to her surviving son, and complains to
him of these things.

"Then the wise men of the kingdom set about to compose the
game Shatranji, representing the battle of Ghav and Talachand.

"The sorrowful mother contemplates this game, and by daily
playing it, brings into her mind the battle and death of her son
Talachand. She could not forbear to torment herself with the
remembrance of his death, and every day for a long time, to give
herself up to the meditation thereof."--SHAHNAMA.

------

>From the early ages of the Christian era back to the times of
Homer, Herodotus, Sophocles, Plato, and Aristotle, traditions,
concerning the origin of this wonderful game have come down to
us of a very various and conflicting character; the Arabian and
Persian historians from the commentators on the Koran interdict
against lots and images to the days of the Persian Shahnama of
Firdausi and the Asiatic Society's famous manuscript, have spoken
of the origin and history of chess, Aben Ezra, the famous Rabbi,
contemporary of Maimonides, Jacobus de Cessolus the Monk of
Picardy, Ruy Lopez the Spanish priest, Damiano the Portuguese
Apothecary, Gustavus Selenus (the Duke of Luneburg), Dr. Salvic,
Carrera, and the writers of the Italian school, have all contributed
to the remarkably delusive and often mythical theories propounded
in regard to it. In our own Country we have them from Chaucer,
Lydgate, Caxton, Barbiere and the Encyclopaediasts, and Pope
writing just before knowledge of the Sanskrit became imparted
among the learned, and ere the classical Sir William Jones had
began to enlighten us, thought probably he had set the matter at
rest by declaring that the invention of chess, (which we had and
could enjoy without caring to know from whence it came) and
which was an imperishable monument of the wisdom of its
unknown founder, involved a problem which never would be solved.

------

PROGRESS OF CHESS

It has been a subject of regret with writers that complete games
of chess cannot be found for the earlier ages, and it has been
suggested that a few well annotated games of the great Eastern
players of one thousand years ago, and of the rival champions of
Spain, Italy and Sicily in the Sixteenth century would be of
more interest than all the problems and positions handed down
to us in existence and, it certainly would be pleasing and
instructive to be able to compare the styles Ali Suli, Adali,
Lajlaj, Abbas and Razi, the great players of the Golden Age of
Arabian Literature, and that of Ali Shatranji of Timur's Court
and Ruy Lopez, Leonardo and Paolo Boi with those of Philidor and
the leaders of the Nineteenth century.

The first half of the Nineteenth century witnessed the
commencement of Press notice, and the growth of a literature for
chess, and was distinguished by the number of works devoted to
the play of the game, not half a score of books could be traced in
England before Philidor's, besides which Caxton, 1474, dedicated
to the Duke of Clarence, Rowbotham, 1561, to the Earl of
Leicester, and Saul and Barbiere, 1617 and 1640, to Lucy, Countess
of Bedford, which constitute the most noted works recorded,
conveyed but little knowledge concerning the game, and were
scarcely more than translations of foreign works from that of
Jacobus de Cesso1us, 1290, and others, and were rather moralities
and philosophical treatises than works of practical utility from a
scientific point of view.

During the second half, the advance in the appreciation and
practice of chess has been yet more astonishing as compared with
the single club in St. James' Street, and the meeting place for
chess players in St. Martin's Lane, which existed in Philidor's
time, and the thirty clubs or so which had arisen by 1851, we
have now at least five hundred, and as against the earliest chess
columns in the Lancet, Bell's Life, and the Illustrated London
News, we can specify near one hundred. It is among the middle
and humbler classes that the spread of a taste for chess has been
most apparent, with the fashionable or higher classes, so far as
any manifestation of public interest or support is to be taken as
a criterion, its appreciation has died out, and for twenty noble
names among its patrons in Philidor's time, we cannot reckon
one in ours. Another singular feature is the grave diminution
in the recognized number of able exponents, commonly called
Masters, which in the British list are reduced to less than a
third of the well-known names of 1862. The support of chess,
trifling as it is, comes from about a score of Her Majesty's
subjects, and the total in a year does not now equal a sum very
usual in a glove fight, or a Championship Billiard match, and
the sums provided in a generation by our present machinery would
not equal the value of one Al Mamun's musk balls or the rewards
to Ruy Lopez for a single match.

The time allowed for consideration of the moves in chess, and
the management of the clocks used to regulate such is a most
important element in estimating the relative strength of chess
players. So important, in fact, that pure chess, and chess with
clocks is found by experience to be a very different thing with
certain players. Bird finds the clocks more trouble than the
chess, and as everybody knows is heavily handicapped by them,
hence his force and success in ordinary play is far greater than in
tournaments. Take the time limit alone for two players of equal
reputation, who may not be disturbed or distracted by the clocks,
a difference in the time limit of ten or even five moves an hour
would in some cases turn the scale between them. Passing over the
faster Bird; and other English players who prefer the slower rate
take a very notable example, Steinitz and Zukertort. After the
Criterion Great Tournament of 1883 opinions differed much as to
which of these was the stronger player, but after the match at
15 moves an hour, in the United States, won by Steinitz with a
score of 10 to 4, the palm has been generally awarded to
Steinitz, and without any qualification whatever the term of
champion of the chess world has been universally accorded to him
and still continues to be so, notwithstanding the superior claims
of Dr. Tarrasch based upon victory in three successive
International Chess Tournaments, Breslan 1889, Manchester 1890,
and Dresden in 1892, in the two first named not losing a single
game, and in the last, one only, feats never accomplished by
Steinitz.

Zukertort was undoubtedly a far more ready, and we have long
thought a finer player than Steinitz, but skill was so nicely
balanced between them that a very slight variation or acceleration
in rate would have been in Zukertort's favour. At 25 moves
an hour or at any faster rate it would have been odds on Zukertort,
at 15 moves an hour or less it would have been safer to back
Steinitz. Staunton, Kolisch, and Paulsen seem to have been the
slowest of the players, 10 moves an hour would suit them better
than 15, a 10 or 12 hour game with them was not uncommon.
Bird is the fastest, and his best games have averaged 40 moves an
hour or two or three hours for a game, a reasonable rate for
recreationary chess.

In the last century one-and-a-half or two hours was considered
a fair duration for a good game, 30 moves an hour would give
three hours for a game of 45 moves or four for a game of 60
moves, and such could be finished at the usual sitting without
adjournment.

The period dating from the France and England Championship
Match between St. Amant and Staunton in 1843, to the Vienna
Tournament of 1873, was singularly prolific in very great chess
players. In addition to Anderssen 1851, and Morphy 1858, there
appeared in the metropolis in 1862 Louis Paulsen, William
Steinitz, and J. H. Blackburne, three players who, as well as
Captain Mackenzie competed in the British Chess Association's
Tournaments of that year, and were destined with Zukertort and
Gunsberg of ten years later growth, to rank as conspicuously
successful among even the score or so of the pre-eminently
distinguished players of the highest class the world has ever
produced, the Rev. G. A. MacDonnel1 and Barnes were of five and
Boden of 12 years earlier reputation, all were competing in the
1862 contest, Buckle died in this year, and his opponent Bird
had retired from chess, other pursuits entirely absorbing his
time mostly abroad. He had been the hardest fighter and most
active of the English combatants of 15 years before, and it was
his fate about four years later, once more to become not the
least prominent and interesting of the leading chess players.

Chess as now played with the Queen of present powers, imported
into the game dates back about four centuries, to near the time
when the works of the Spanish writers, Vicenz and Lucena,
appeared in 1495, and shortly before that of Damiano the
Portuguese in 1512. In 1561 Ruy Lopez, the Spanish priest of
Cafra, a name familiar to the present generation, from one of the
openings most approved in modern practice being named after
him, wrote the best work of a scientific character which had
appeared in Europe to that time, and he was considered in Spain
the very best player in the world, until the memorable contests
between him and Leonardo da Cutri, and Paolo Boi of Syracuse
left the question of supremacy doubtful. These famous struggles
are reverted to not without interest in our days, when the not
very profitable task of attempting to institute comparisons between
past and present great players is indulged in, for in the absence
of a single published complete and annotated game until the 19th
century, there is little advantage in conjecturing whether Al Suli
was equal to Philidor, Razi or Greco to A. McDonnell of Belfast,
Ali Shatranji to La Bourdonnais, Paoli Boi to Anderssen, Ruy
Lopez to Staunton, or Leonardo to Morphy, though these
conjectural comparisons in varied forms are not uncommon in
modern chess talk.

The records of incidents, and the anecdotes appertaining to chess
or chess players in the middle ages, are so scattered, scant, and
meagre, that no writer has attempted to put them into shape, or
make a consecutive or connected narrative of them. Even
Professor Duncan Forbes the most elaborate of all the European
writers on the history of chess, dismisses the period from 750 to
1500 A.D., in a very few words not vouchsafing to it in his volume
of 400 pages a chapter of a single page, though his book able as it
is, contains much description of games of the past in different
countries, the interest in which seems not considerable in present
days. The Hon. Daines Barrington writing in 1787, says, (and
others have followed him to a like effect), "Our ancestors
certainly played much at chess before the general introduction of
cards, as no fewer than twenty-six English families have
emblazened chess boards and chess rooks on their arms, and it
therefore must have been considered as a valuable
accomplishment."

The opinions so commonly entertained and expressed, however,
so far at least as they can be taken to apply to the period before
Queen Elizabeth's reign, rest upon but slender data, and it is
highly probable that even in that monarch's reign the practice of
chess was confined to a very limited circle for we read of no fine
player, great games, or matches, or public competitions of any
kind, in our climes until Philidor's time; his career in England
though intermittant extended close upon fifty years and from his
time may be dated the budding forth of the popularity of chess,
which began to come to full bloom about 1828, (33 years after his
death) and produced its fruits in the France and England
championship contests of 1834 and 1843, and the inception of
International Tournaments in 1851 which first established
Germany's great reputation and furnished a chess champion of the
world from among them.

Though the contests between the rival champions of Spain and
Italy, were promoted as tests of skill, at the courts of Philip and
Sebastian, and rewarded with a liberality unheard of, since the
days of Chosroes and Al Mamun, and took place during the
contemporary reign of Queen Elizabeth, when chess had become
decidedly fashionable in England, we find no record of the games,
or that any interest or enthusiasm appears to have been evoked by
them in any country except those where they took place. They
seem to have led to no emulation in other parts of Europe, and we
read of no chess competitions of any kind in France, Germany, or
England. It was not till a century later that the debut and
successes of the brilliant Greco the Calabrian, in Paris, began
to cause a little more chess ambition in France and gave the
ascendancy in the game to that country which it still held in
Legalle and Philidor's time in 1750, and continued to maintain
until the matches of 1834, between Alex. McDonnell of Belfast
and the famous Louis de La Bourdonnais of Paris, followed in 1843
by Staunton's victory over M. S. Amant, first advanced British
claims to a first class position in chess, and left our countryman
Staunton the admitted world's champion in chess, until the title
was wrested from him by Professor Anderssen of Breslau, in the
International tournament held in London during the Exhibition
year 1851.

The career of England's champion, Staunton, for about ten years
successful as it was, is considered generally to have been even
surpassed by that of Anderssen which lasted till his death in 1879
near thirty years. Their chess performances like those of Philidor
from 1746 to 1795, and of Paul Morphy from 1855 to 1858,
would well merit full record in a longer work.

NOTE. A translation of Greco was published in London in 1656,
with a likeness of Charles the First in it.

------

Space precludes the admission of the sketches and
comparisons of the chess careers of Philidor, Staunton, Anderssen,
and Morphy, and confines us to the brief account of Philidor's
extraordinary support and influence on the future of chess and
such references as occur in the sketches of Simpson's.

Continuously from the date of Philidor's death in 1795, to the
ascendancy of Deschapelles in 1820, France maintained the
lead in chess which she had held for one hundred and fifty years,
producing in the interval the famous de La Bourdonnais, who for
genius, invention and force has never been excelled, and may be
ranked with Anderssen, whose supremacy for Germany first became
manifested in 1851, and the unparalleled Paul Morphy, of New
Orleans, who in 1857 and 1858, electrified the whole chess world
by his signal successes in New York, London and Paris.

Taking strength, style, and rapidity of conception combined,
these are probably the three greatest players which the world has
produced since Al Suli in the Tenth century who was considered
a marvel among the best of the Eastern players, and Paolo Boi,
Leonardo and Ruy Lopez in the Sixteenth century.

Even in the pools at Paris in 1820, when Deschapelles essayed
to give the pawn and move to La Bourdonnais and Cochrane, and
in a boastful manner challenged the whole world on the same
terms the superiority of La Bourdonnais was already manifested,
and for succeeding years became unquestionable.

There are yet remaining old chess enthusiasts who recall with
pleasure the satisfaction of the British chess circle at the zeal
and prowess of Alexander McDonnell, of Belfast, on his appearance
in London in 1828, and his continued pluck, perseverance
and improvement, and gallant stand against the most formidable
of French or living chess players, and which first began to
establish English chess claims to equality with France and the
very learned German school which had sprung up of which Dr.
Bledow, Heydebrand Der Lasa, Hanstein and Bilguer soon became
like Anderssen so especially distinguished. Staunton, a household
word in chess, first came decisively to the front in 1840, the year
in which La Bourdonnais died. McDonnell had already departed
in 1837. They lie close together in the northwest corner of
Kensal Green Cemetery. Staunton became the recognised English
Champion, and by defeating St. Amant, the French representative,
and all other players he encountered, further enhanced British
chess reputation by upholding his title against all comers, until his
wane and defeat by Anderssen, of Breslau, in the First
International Tournament of 1851, a result quite unexpected at home
and abroad, but subsequent events confirmed what the character
of Staunton's play in this competition seemed to indicate that he
had passed his best, for two English amateurs, very young, but
rising into fame, not then considered by any means equal in force
to Staunton, yet fully held their own in 1852 against Anderssen,
the first great German conqueror in games which Germany has
ever held in very high estimation.

In British chess circles, H. T. Buckle, writer and historian
was now the most patient and scientific of the players. S. S.
Boden, the most learned and profound, H. E. Bird the most rapid,
ready and enthusiastic. The last-named, a favourite opponent of
the English leaders, also encountered one by one the phalanx of
great Foreign players assembled, such as Anderssen himself, Szen,
Lowenthal, Kieseritzky, Harrwitz and Horwitz, and sustained our
chess reputation, particularly in those dashing contests of short
duration, which exigencies of time and other pursuits alone
rendered practicable. The years 1853 to 1857 were not notable
for first-class chess contests. Boden and Bird had both retired.
The appearance of the invincible Paul Morphy from America in
1858, caused a revival of chess; he came to play a great match
with Staunton, but no individual contest ever took place between
them. Barnes a very strong amateur chess player encountered
Morphy but lost by a large majority. Boden next came forth
from his retirement and played some excellent games with him.
Bird, long out of chess happening to return from a long absence
abroad, also met him, but neither English player proved equal to
Morphy, and it was regretted that the more experienced Staunton
would not, and that Buckle could not test conclusions with
him, Lowenthal and Paulsen had both been defeated by Morphy
in America, and the young American proved decisively successful
in matches against Lowenthal and Anderssen in London [Paris], and
Harrwitz in Paris.

NOTE. Schallop, Dufresne and Alexis at the Berlin Chess Club
pointed out the great appreciation by Anderssen for these games
when Bird was in Berlin some years ago.




CHESS HISTORY AND REMINISCENCES

THE ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY OF CHESS

When it first entered my thoughts to say a few words about chess
and its principal exponents during the Nineteenth century, and
particularly of the forty years during which I have been in the
circle, any idea of inquiring or examining into, and much less
of attempting to reconcile the many conflicting theories so well
known to exist in regard to the early history and progress of the
game, had never once occurred to me. Like many others, I was
slightly acquainted with Professor Forbes' important work of 1860,
in which the age of chess was fixed at about 5,000 years, and
India assigned as its birthplace; and I was more or less familiar
with the theories advanced as to its supposed first introduction
into Europe and also into our own country. That the assumed great
starting point of chess on a board of sixty-four squares (as at
present used), with thirty-two figures, and played by two persons,
was Persia, and that the time was during the reign of Chosroes
Cosrues, or Khosrus (as it is variously written), about A.D.
540, was to the limited few who took any particular interest in the
matter, considered, if not altogether absolutely free from doubt,
certainly one of the best attested facts in early chess history;
whilst the opinions of Sir William Jones (1763), the Rev. R.
Lambe (1764), Hon. Daines Barrington (1787), F. Douce, Esq. (1793),
and Sir Frederick Madden (1832), to the effect that chess first
found its way into England from France after the first Crusade,
at about. A.D. 1100, were, I know--although unfounded and
erroneous--generally accepted as embodying the most probable
theory.

The circumstance which first induced me to take some additional
interest in this question of chess origin, was the perusal of the
lines attributed to Pope (quoted by Forbes at the foot of Chapter
XII of his book), and the vague and uncertain, and I now think
unreasonable date fixed for our own probable first knowledge of
the game, though concurred in with tolerable unanimity by so many
ancient writers among those regarded as the chief authorities on
the subject.

This, however, is not all, for in regard to the European origin
of the game of chess, as to which there is such a consensus of
agreement; it may be that all the authors are yet still more at
fault; for with one accord they all assume that chess reached
Europe from Persia not earlier than the sixth century, the Arabs
and Saracens getting it about A.D. 600, Spain and the Aquitaine
Dominions being commonly pointed to as the countries which first
received it from the Arabs or Saracens in Europe after the Persian
period above named. There is no indication in any of the works of
a notion of the knowledge and practice of chess in Europe at an
earlier date, so it appears not unreasonable to conclude that the
following extract, which applies to a period seven hundred years
before the Persian epoch, must have entirely escaped the notice
of all the writers. The article occurs in the "Biographical
Dictionary of the Society for Diffusing Useful Knowledge"
(Longman & Co., Vol. I, Part II, pp. 842, 512), under the head
of "Ahenobarbus." The following is an extract of the Biography,
which is given in full in the Appendix:

"Ahenobarbus triumphed at Rome for his victory over Averni,
and, according to Cicero, over the Allobroges also, in
B.C. 120. In their Consulship (B.C. 115), Ahenobarbus and his
colleague, L. Coecilius Metellus Dalmatius, prohibited all
scenic exhibitions at Rome, except that of the Latin flute
players, and all games of chance, except Chess or Draughts,
&c., &c."

(Signed) W. B. D.
(Presumably William Bodham Donne.)

The contributions of W. B. D. are not frequent in the Biography
as those of Duncan Forbes, Aloys Sprenger, Pascual de Gayangos,
and William Plates are, and he does not apparently write, like them,
as an authority upon Eastern questions, and I might have overlooked
this reference to chess had I not read through the whole of the
volumes.

It will be observed that both Chess and Draughts are referred to
in the notice, which is important, for had chess alone been
mentioned, it is probable that exception would be taken that
the game was but a species of the latter; it is doubtful, also,
whether Ludus Latrunculorum, a game of the Romans, might not
also have been suggested.

I cannot find any writer who has referred to chess in Rome or
elsewhere at this period, and it is not improbable that the extract
given may cause some little astonishment to those well-known
writers who have assumed that the Romans knew nothing of chess
till some centuries later. The generally accepted theory is
that chess reached Persia from India in the sixth century of our
era during Chosroes' reign, as stated by Lambe, 1764; Bland,
1850; and others; and this is almost universally concurred in.
The practice of chess in Rome, as indicated by the foregoing
edict seven hundred years before, may, however, tend somewhat
to disturb all existing theories as to its first European
origin, and it will be of interest to know what the learned in
such matters will think in regard to it, while it may tend to
closer investigation by more learned and able men, who have
already devoted attention to the subject, and have greater
facilities for extracting reliable information.

Spain is stated by all authorities to be the first country in
Europe where chess was known, 600 to 700 A.D. being the period
assigned. The Franks and Aquitaines had it very soon afterwards,
certainly in Charles Martell's reign, and evidence that the
game was held in high esteem during the reigns of his successors,
Pepin and Charlemagne, may now be regarded as perfectly
satisfactory.

As the views of Pope before referred to represent something like
those of many others, and they may not be altogether devoid of
interest in the present day, I append them, with Forbes' sweeping
animadversions thereon. The lines which have been published as
original (or without acknowledgment) by more than one chess writer
in modern magazines, are as follows:

"When and where chess was invented is a problem which we
believe never will be solved. The origin of the game recedes every
day further back into the regions of the past and unknown.
Individuals deep in antiquarian lore have very praiseworthily
puzzled themselves and their readers in vain, in their endeavours
to ascertain to their satisfaction how this wonderful pastime
sprang into existence.

"Whether it was the product of some peaceful age, when science
and philosophy reigned supreme, or whether it was nurtured amid
the tented field of the warrior, are questions which it is equally
futile and unnecessary now to ask. Sufficient for us that the game
exists, and that it has been sung of by Homer, that it has been
the delight of kings, scholars, and philosophers in almost every
age; that it is now on the flood tide of success, and is going
on its way gathering fresh votaries at every step, and that it
seems destined to go down to succeeding ages as an imperishable
monument of the genius and skill of its unknown founder."

Forbes introduces this article by observing: "Pope has much to
answer for as the originator of a vast deal of rhetorical rubbish
upon us in chess lectures and chess articles in periodicals.
Here (he says), for example, is a fair stereotype specimen of
this sort," and he concludes: "We recommend the above eloquent
moreceaux, taken from a chess periodical now defunct, to the
attention of chessmen at chess reunions, chess lectures, and
those who are ambitious to do a spicy article for a chess
periodical."

This appears somewhat severe on Pope, even if it be reasonable
and consistent, which may be doubted; for Forbes himself, writing
to the "Chess Player's Chronicle," in 1853, about 120 years
after Pope, and seven years before the appearance of his own
"History of Chess," thus expressed himself:

"In the present day it is impossible to trace the game of chess
with moral certainty back to its source amidst the dark shades of
antiquity, but I am quite ready to prove that the claim of the
Hindoos as the inventors, is far more satisfactory than that of
any other people."

Pope needs no defenders. There are writers of more recent date,
who have inflicted what Forbes would probably call more rhetorical
rubbish upon chess readers. Here is one other example, which
appeared in 1865:

"Though the precise birth and parentage of chess are absolutely
unknown, yet a light marks the track of this royal personage adown
the ages, by which we may clearly enough discern one significant
note of his progress, that he has always kept the very best of
company. We find him ever in the bosom of civilization, the
companion of the wise and thoughtful, the beloved of the studious
and mild. Barbarous men had to be humanized and elevated before
he would come to them. While the East remained the better part
of the world he confined himself to the East; when the West was
to be regenerated he attended with the other agents of beneficial
destiny, and helped the good work on. He seems to have entered
Europe on two opposite sides. Along with philosophy and letters
Spain and Portugal received him, with other good gifts, from their
benefactors the Saracens; and he is seen in the eighth century
at Constantinople, quietly biding his time for a further advance.
>From that time to the present, chess has been the delight of
kings and kaisers, of the reflecting, the witty, and the good."

------

The Indian and American views will be found in the sequel.

It is a peculiar and distinguishing characteristic in the very
long life of chess, that at no period of its existence has any
attempt ever been made to place on record a narrative of its
events, either contemporary or retrospective, or to preserve its
materials and to construct a lasting history for it; and,
notwithstanding, the enormous advance and increase in chess
appreciation and chess reporting in 19th century ages, it will
not, perhaps, be very rash to predict that a future generation
will be scarcely better informed of our chess doings than we are
of the past, and that the 20th century will, in this respect, be
to the 19th as that is to the 18th and preceding ones. The
valuable scientific and weighty works of Dr. Hyde, Sir William
Jones, and Professor Duncan Forbes were mostly devoted to chess
in the East, and to arguments on the probabilities of its origin
and proofs that it came from India. The book of Forbes, the most
elaborate and latest of them, is much devoted to the Sanskrit
translations of the accounts of the ancient Hindu Chaturanga;
and descriptions of other games which, however able and
interesting from a scientific point of view, observation and
experience seem to indicate to us, few care to follow or study
much in the present day.

The period of 750 to 1500 is dismissed by Forbes in less than a
single page. His work contains no account of Philidor or his works,
nor of the progress of chess in this century up to 1860 when his
own book appears, and makes no mention of modern chess events or
players and it is an expensive work when viewed by popular notions
on the subject. These foregoing works with the admirable
contributions and treatises of the Rev. R. Lambe, the Hon. Daines
Barrington, F. Douce, H. Twiss, P. Pratt, Sir F. Madden,
W. Lewis, Sarratt, George Walker, C. Kenny, C. Tomlinson,
Captain Kennedy, Staunton and Professor Bland all combined fail
to supply our wants, besides which there is no summing up of them
or their parts, or attempt to blend them into one harmonious
whole, and each writer has appeared too well satisfied with his
own conclusions to care to trouble himself much about those of
anybody else.

The Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and French writers who refer
to chess, and in our own country Chaucer, Lydgate, Caxton,
Barbiere, Pope, Dryden, Philidor, and the Encyclopaediasts deal
mainly with traditions, each having a pet theory; all, however,
conclude by declaring in words, but slightly varied, that the
origin of chess is enshrouded in mist and obscurity, lost in
the remote ages of antiquity, or like Pope pronounce it a problem
which never will be solved.

The incomparable game of chess, London, 1820, says, under
"Traditions of Chess." Some historians have referred to the
invention of chess to the philosopher Xerxes, others to the
Grecian Prince Palamedes, some to the brothers Lydo and Tyrrhene
and others, again, to the Egyptians, the Chinese, the Hindus,
the Persians, the Arabians, the Irish, the Welsh, the Araucanians,
the Jews, the Scythians, and, finally, their fair Majesties
Semiramis and Zenobia also prefer their claims to be considered
as the originators of chess.

Chess history, it may be assumed, has never been regarded as a
very profitable subject to write upon; and, even in these days of
very advanced appreciation of chess, it is highly probable, that
only a very few among the more curious of its admirers, who care to
consider the basis and essence of things, will take any particular
interest in this branch of the subject; but it is just for such that
we venture to submit a very brief outline of what we find suggested
from the fairest inferences, which can be gathered from existing
information, as to the source from whence our favourite and
charming game first sprung.

Enquiries as to the habits and the idiosyncrasies of chess
players known to fame, have, always, appeared to be of interest,
and have been frequent and continuous from our earliest
recollections, both at home and abroad. We have met with people,
who would devote an hour to questions of this sort, who would not
care to listen five minutes to chess history or devote that time to
look at the finest game. In America, once, a most pertinacious
investigator, in for a very long sitting (not an interviewer with
his excellent bait and exquisite powers of incision but a genuine
home brew), was easily disposed of by the bare mention of the
words India, Persia, China, Chaturanga, Chatrang, Shatranji and
Chess Masterpieces.

This thirster after knowledge would have absorbed willingly
any account of Staunton's appearance and manners, his elevated
eyebrows and rolling forehead, Munchausen anecdotes, Havannah
cigars and tobacco plantations, Buckle's peculiarities, pedantic
and sarcastic Johnsonian's gold-headed walking stick, so often
lost yet always found, but once, and the frequent affinity between
his hat and the spittoon, the yet greater absence of mind of
Morphy and Paulsen and their only speeches, the gallantry, kid
gloves, lectures of Lowenthal and his bewilderment on the subject
of Charlemagne, the linguistic proficiency of Rosenthal, the chess
chivalry, bluntness extreme taciturnity, amorous nature and
extreme admiration for English female beauty, of Anderssen,
McDonnell's jokes and after dinner speeches, Boden's recollections,
Pickwickian and other quotations, and in fact little incidents
relative to most of the celebrated chess players, constantly flit
through the memory in social chat, which invariably seem to
entertain chess listeners whom a minute's conversation about the
history, science, or theory of the game would utterly fail to
please.

The early censurer of chess in the old Arabian manuscript who
declared that the chess player was ever absorbed in his chess
"and full of care" may have reflected the chess of his time, but
he did not live in the Nineteenth century and had never seen a
La Bourdonnais, a McDonnell or a Bird play or he might have
modified his views as to the undue seriousness of chess. The
Fortnightly Review in its article of December, 1886 devoted some
space to the fancy shirt fronts of Lowenthal, the unsavoury
cigars of Winawer, the distinguished friends of one of the
writers, the Foreign secretary, denial that Zukertort came over in
two ships, and other less momentous matters, so we may assume
that the authors who greatly control the destinies of chess
could even, themselves, at times appreciate a joke.

Despite however the preference so decidedly evinced on these
subjects, concerning which we are advised to say a little, the real
origin of chess, the opinions in regard to it and its traditions
and fables interest us more, and tempt a few remarks upon
prevailing misconceptions which it appears desirable as far as
possible to dispel, besides there may yet be a possibility that
some of the more learned who admire the game may produce a work
more worthy of the subject, which, though perhaps of trifling
importance to real science and profound literature, certainly
appears to merit, from its many marked epochs, and interesting
associations, somewhat more attention than it has ever yet received.

------

CHESS AND OPINIONS IN REGARD TO ITS ORIGIN

Chess is the English name for the most intellectual as well as
diverting and entertaining of games. It is called in the East the
game of the King, and the word Schach mat, or Shah mat in the
Persian language signifies the King is dead, "Checkmate." Chess
allows the utmost scope for art and strategy, and gives the most
various and extensive employment to the powers of the
understanding. Men whose wisdom and sagacity are unquestioned have
not hesitated to assert that it possesses qualities which render it
superior to all other games, mental as well as physical; it has so
much intrinsic interest that it can be played without any stake
whatsoever, and it has been so played and by the very finest players,
more than all other games put together. The invention of chess
has been termed an admirable effort of the human mind, it has
been described as the most entertaining game the wit of man has
ever devised, and an imperishable monument of human wisdom.
It is not a mere idle amusement, says Franklin, partakes rather
of the nature of a science than a game, says Leibnitz and Sir
Walter Scott, and would have perished long ago, say the Americans
if it had not been destined to live for ever.

The earliest opinion found on record concerning chess, after the
Muslim commentaries on the Koran passage concerning lots and
images, is from a philosopher of Basra named Hasan, of celebrity
in his day, who died A.D. 728, who modestly and plainly termed
it "an innocent and intellectual amusement after the mind has
been engrossed with too much care or study."

In our age, Buckle, foremost in skill, who died at Damascus
in 1862, and more recently Professor Ruskin and very eminent
divines have expressed themselves to a like effect; highly valuing
the power of diversion the game affords and giving reasons for its
preference over other games; Buckle called his patiently hard
contested games of three, four or five hours each a half-holiday
relief; Boden and Bird, two very young rising amateurs, then
approaching the highest prevailing force at the time would, to
Buckle's dismay, rattle off ten lively skirmishes in half the time
he took for one. The younger of the two aspirants became in
1849 a favourite opponent of the distinguished writer and historian
whom, however, he somewhat disconcerted at times by the rapidity
of his movements and once, and once only, the usually placid
Buckle falling into an early snare as he termed it; and emulating
Canute of old and Lord Stair in modern times got angry and
toppled over the pieces.

Colonel Stewart used frequently to play at chess with Lord
Stair who was very fond of the game; but an unexpected checkmate
used to put his Lordship into such a passion that he was
ready to throw a candlestick or anything else that was near him,
at his adversary: for which reason the Colonel always took care
to be on his feet to fly to the farthest corner of the room when he
said "Checkmate, my Lord."

In older times the narrative is silent as to the temper of
Charlemagne when he lost his wager game to Guerin de Montglave,
but Eastern annals, the historians of Timur, Gibbon and others tell
us that the great potentates of the East, Al Walid, Harun Ar
Rashid, Al Mamun and Tamerlane shewed no displeasure at being
beaten, but rather appreciated and rewarded the skill of their
opponents. They manifested, however, great indignation against
those who played deceitfully or attempted to flatter by allowing
themselves to be overplayed by their Monarchs.

Concerning the origin of chess considerable misconception has
always prevailed, and the traditions which had grown up as to its
invention before knowledge of the Sanskrit became first imported
to the learned, are various and conflicting, comprising several
of a very remarkable and even mythical character, which is the
more extraordinary because old Eastern manuscripts, the
Shahnama of Persia, the Kalila Wa Dimna, the fables of Pilpay
in its translations and the Princess Anna Comnena's history
of the twelfth century (all combined) with the admissions of the
Chinese and the Persians in their best testimonies to point out
and indicate what has been since more fully established by Dr.
Hyde, Sir William Jones, Professor Duncan Forbes and native
works, that for the first source of chess or any game with pieces
of distinct and various moves, powers and values we must look to
India and nowhere else, notwithstanding some negative opposition
from those who do not attempt to say where it came from or to
contravert the testimony adduced by Dr. Hyde, Sir William Jones
and Professor Duncan Forbes, and despite the opinion of the
author of the Asiatic Society's M.S. and Mill in British India
that the Hindoos were far too stupid to have invented chess
or anything half so clever.

Not a particle of evidence has ever yet been adduced by any
other nation of so early a knowledge of a game resembling chess,
much less of its invention, and it is in the highest degree
improbable that any such evidence ever will be forthcoming.

NOTE. There are some who do not concur in this wholesale
reflection on Indian intelligence, among others, may be mentioned
Sir William Jones, Professor Wilson, a writer in Fraser's, and
Professor Duncan Forbes.




AS TO THE SUPPOSED ORIGIN OF CHESS

One of Sir William Jones' Brahman correspondents, Radha
Kant, informed him that it is stated in an old Hindoo law book,
that the wife of Ravan King of Lanka, the capital of Ceylon
invented chess to amuse him with an image of war, when his
metropolis was besieged by Rama in the second age of the world,
and this is the only tradition which takes precedence in date of
the Hindu Chaturanga.

The Princess Anna Comnena in the life of her father Alexius
Comnenus, Emperor of Constantinople who died A.D. 1118, informs
us that the game of chess which she calls Zatrikion was
introduced by the Arabians into Greece, The Arabians had it from
the Persians, who say that they themselves did not invent it, but
that they received it from the Indians, who brought it into
Persia in the time of the Great Chosroes, who reigned in Persia
48 years, and died A.D. 576, he was contemporary with the
Emperor Justinian who did A.D. 565.

Of all the claims which have been advanced to the invention
and origin of chess, that of the Hindu Game the Chaturanga is the
most ancient, and its accounts contain the earliest allusion worthy
of serious notice to anything partaking of the principles and form
of chess. The description of it is taken from the Sanskrit text,
and our first knowledge of it is obtained through the works of Dr.
Hyde, 1693, and Sir William Jones, 1784, Professor Duncan
Forbes in a History of Chess, dedicated to Sir Frederic Madden
and Howard Staunton, published in 1860, further elaborated the
researches of his predecessors and claims by the aid of his better
acquaintance with chess, and improved knowledge of the Sanskrit
to have proved the Chaturanga as the first form of chess beyond
a shadow of doubt. Accounts of it also appear in native works
published in Calcutta and Serampore in the first half of this
century, and it receives further confirmation in material points,
from eminent Sanskrit scholars, who refer to it rather incidentally
than as chess-players.

The accounts of the Hindu Chaturanga (which means game of
"four angas," four armies, or "four species of forces," in the
native language, Hasty-aswa-ratha-padatum, signifying
elephants, horses, chariots and foot soldiers) (According to the
Amara Kosha, and other native works as explained by Dr. Hyde and
Sir William Jones) give a description of the game sufficiently
clear to enable anyone to play it in the present day.

NOTE. We have tried it recently. So great of course is the element
of luck in the throw, that the percentage of skill though it might
tell in the long run is small, perhaps equal to that at Whist.

------

With every allowance for more moderate estimates of antiquity by
some Sanskrit scholars, the Chaturanga comes before any
of the games mentioned in other countries sometimes called chess,
but which seem to bear no affinity to it. The oldest of these
games is one of China, 2300 B.C., attributed to Emperor Yao or
his time, another in Egypt of Queen Hatasu daughter of Thotmes
I, 1771 to 1778 B.C., and that inscribed on Medinet Abu at
Egyptian Thebes, the palace constructed by Rameses IV
(Rhameses Meiammun, supposed grandfather of Sesostris) who
according to the scrolls, we are told reigned 1559 to 1493 B.C.,
and is said to be the monarch represented on its walls. According
to the Bible Chronology he would be contemporary with Moses
who lived 1611 to 1491 B.C.

The moves of all the pieces employed in the Chaturanga were
the same as those made in Asia and Europe down to the close of
the Fifteenth century of our era. The Queen up to that time was
a piece with only a single square move, the Bishop in the original
game was represented by a ship, the Castle or Rook (as it is now
indiscriminately called) by an elephant, the Knight by a horse,
the two last named have never at any time undergone the slightest
change, the alteration in the Bishop consists only in the extension
of its power of two clear moves, to the entire command of its own
coloured diagonal. The total force on each side taking a Pawn
as 1 for the unit was about 26 in the Chaturanga as compared
with 32 in our game. There appear ample grounds for believing
that the dice used, constituted the greatest if not the main charm
in the game with the Brahmans, and that the elimination of that
element of chance and excitement, destroyed its popularity with
them.

------

THE ANCIENT HINDU CHATURANGA

The Chaturanga signifies the game of four angas, or four species of
forces, which, according to the Amira Kosha of Amara Sinha and
other authorities means elephants, horses, chariots and foot
soldiers, which, in the native tongue is Hasty, aswa, ratha,
padatum. It was first brought to notice by the learned Dr. Thomas
Hyde of Oxford, in his work De Ludus Orientalibus, 1694.
About 90 years later the classical Sir William Jones, also of
Oxford, who became Judge of the Supreme Court in India from
1783 to 1794 gave translations of the accounts of the Chaturanga.
This was at a time when knowledge of Sanskrit had been only
just disclosed to European scholars, the code of Gentoo laws, &c.,
London 1781, being the first work mentioned, though by the year
1830 according to reviews, 760 books had appeared translated
from that language, no mention of the Chaturanga is found in
Europe before the time of Dr. Hyde, and all the traditionists
down to the days of Sir William Jones would seem to have been
unacquainted with it. In respect to Asia, so far as can be judged
or gathered, the details and essence of the Sanskrit translations
mentioned in the biography of the famous and magnificent Al
Mamun of Bagdad 813 to 833 or those for the enlightened Akbar
1556 to 1605 are unknown to European scholars; there are no
references to any translation of them, or to the nature of those
alluded to in the Fihrist of Abu L. Faraj.

Eminent contributors to the Archaeologia, F. Douce, 1793, and
Sir F. Madden, 1828, adopt the conclusions of Dr. Hyde and Sir
William Jones and they receive confirmation from native works of
this century, and incidentally from Sanskrit scholars who wrote
not as chess players.

Duncan Forbes, L.L.D., Professor of Oriental languages in
King's College, London, is the next great authority upon the
Chaturanga; in a work of 400 pages published in 1860 dedicated
to Sir Frederic Madden and Howard Staunton, Esq., he further
elaborated the investigations of Dr. Hyde and Sir William Jones
and claimed by a better acquaintance with chess and choice of
manuscripts and improved knowledge of the Sanskrit language to
have proved that the game of chess was invented in India and no
where else, in very remote times or, as he finally puts it at page
43: "But to conclude I think from all the evidence I have laid
before the reader, I may safely say, that the game of chess has
existed in India from the time of Pandu and his five sons down
to the reign of our gracious Sovereign Queen Victoria (who now
rules over these same Eastern realms), that is for a period of
five thousand years and that this very ancient game, in the
sacred language of the Brahmans, has, during that long space
of time retained its original and expressive name of Chaturanga."

The Chaturanga is ascribed to a period of about 3,000 years
before our era.

According to the Sanskrit Text of the Bavishya Purana from
which the account is taken, Prince Yudhisthira the eldest and
most renowned of the five sons of King Pandu, consulted Vyasa,
the wise man and nestor of the age as to the mysteries of a game
then said to be popular in the country, saying:

"Explain to me, O thou super-eminent in virtue, the nature of
the game that is played on the eight times eight square board.
Tell me, O my master, how the Chaturaji (Checkmate) may
be accomplished."

Vyasa thus replied:

"O, my Prince, having delineated a square board, with eight
houses on each of the four sides, then draw up the red warriors
on the east, on the south array the army clad in green, on the
west let the yellow troops be stationed, and let the black
combatants occupy the north.

"Let each player place his Elephant on the left of his King,
next to that the Horse, and last of all the Ship, and in each of
the four Armies, let the Infantry be drawn up in front. The Ship
shall occupy the left hand corner next to it the Horse, then the
Elephant, and lastly the King, the Foot Soldiers, as are stated
being drawn up in front."

The sage commences general directions for play with the
following advice:

"Let each player preserve his own forces with excessive care,
and remember that the King is the most important of all."

The sage adds:

"O Prince, from inattention to the humbler forces the king
himself may fall into disaster."

"If, on throwing the die, the number should turn up five, the
King or one of the Pawns must move; if four, the Elephant; if
three, the Horse; and if the throw be two, then, O Prince, the
Ship must move."

------

ON THE MOVES OF THE PIECES

"The King moves one square in all directions; the Pawn moves
one square straightforward, but smites an enemy through either
angle, in advance; the Elephant, O Prince of many lands, moves,
(so far as his path is clear), In the direction of the four
cardinal points, according to his own pleasure. The Horse moves
over the three squares in an oblique direction; and the Ship, O
Yudhisthira, moves two squares diagonally."

NOTE. The Elephant had the same move as our Rook has, the Horse
the same as our Knight. The ship had two clear moves diagonally
(a limited form of our Bishop). The King one square in all
directions the same as now. The Pawn one square straightforward.
There was no Queen in the Chaturanga, but a piece, with a one
square move, existed in the two handed modified Chatrang. The
Queen, of present powers is first mentioned in the game at the
end of the 15th century, when the works of the Spanish writers
Lucena and Vicenz appeared in 1495.

------

About two thousand six hundred years are supposed to have
elapsed between the time of King Pandu, Prince Yudhisthira,
Vyasa, and the records of the ancient Chaturanga, to the days of
Alexander the Great, to which period the references concerning
chess and the Indian Kings contained in Eastern accounts,
Firdausi's Persian Shahnama and the Asiatic Society's M.S.
presented to them by Major Price, relate.

NOTE. The Shahnama, it is recorded, occupied thirty years in its
preparation and contains one hundred and twenty thousand verses.

The long interval of three or four thousand years, between the
date ascribed to the Chaturanga, and its reappearance as the
Chatrang in Persia, and the Shatranj in Arabia, has perplexed
all writers, for none can offer a vestige of trace of evidence,
either of the conversion of Chaturanga into Chatrang or Shatranj;
or that the game ever continued to be practiced in its old form
either with or without the dice, it is conjectured merely, that
when the dice had to be dispensed with, as contrary to the law
and the religion of the Hindus and when such laws were vigorously
enforced, it then became a test of pure skill only, and was
probably more generally engaged in by two competitors than four;
but, it appears reasonable, when we recollect the oft translated
story of Nala, and the evident fascination of the dice to the
Hindus, to suppose that the dice formed far too an important
element in the Chaturanga to be so easily surrendered; and it is
not at all improbable that the prohibition and suppression of
the dice destroyed much of its popularity and that the game
became much less practiced and ceased to be regarded with a
degree of estimation sufficiently high to make it national in
character, or deemed worthy of the kind of record likely to be
handed down to prosperity. Notwithstanding that the moves of
Kings, Rooks and Knights in the Chaturanga were the same as they
are now, the absence of a Queen, (which even in the two-handed
chess was long only represented by a piece with a single square
move) and the limited power of the Bishops and Pawns, must have
made the Chaturanga a dull affair compared with present
chess as improved towards the close of the Fifteenth century;
and it is not so very remarkable that it should have occurred
to Tamerlane to desire some extension of its principles, even
with our present charming and, as some consider, perfect game,
we find that during the 17th and 18th centuries, up to Philidor's
time not a good recorded game or page of connected chess history
is to be found and we may cease to wonder so much at the absence
of record for four or three thousand years or more, for a game
so inferior to ours. Were the Chaturanga now to be revived
without the dice it would probably not prove very popular.

Authorities say "But, unquestionably, the favourite game among
the ancient Hindus, was that of chess; a knowledge of which in
those primitive times formed one of the requisite accomplishments
of a hero, just as skill in chess was considered among us in the
palmy days of Chivalry."

What this game was is not explained; beyond the description of
the oblong die of four sides, used to determine which piece had
to move in the Chaturanga; we have no information how a game of
interest could be made with dice alone, as is not easy to understand.

------

We have no means of ascertaining, says Forbes the exact era at
which the Chaturanga passed into the Shatranj, or in other words
at what period as the Muhammadans view it, the Hindus invented
the latter form of the game. The earlier writers of Arabia and
Persia do not agree on the point, some of them placing it as early
as the time of Alexander the Great and others as late as that of
Naushurawan. Even the poet Firdausi, the very best authority
among them though he devotes a very long and a very romantic
episode to the occasion of the invention of the Shatranj, is quite
silent as to the exact period; all that he lets us know on that
point is that it took place in the reign of a certain prince who
ruled over northern India and whose name was Gau, the son of
Jamhur.

Sir William Jones was Judge of a Supreme Court of Judicature
in Bengal, from 27 April, 1783 to 27 April, 1794, when he died
at Calcutta. It is recorded that he came much in contact with
intelligent Brahmans and was much esteemed. He states on the
authority of his friend the Brahman "Radha Kant" "that this
game is mentioned in the oldest (Hindu) law books; and that it
was invented by the wife of Ravan, King of Lanka, the capital
of Ceylon, in order to amuse him with an image of war while
his metropolis was closely besieged by Rama in the second age
of the world."

NOTE. Sir William Jones says: If evidence be required to prove
that chess was invented by the Hindus, we may be satisfied with
the testimony of the Persians, who, though as much inclined as
other nations to appropriate the ingenious inventions of a foreign
people, unanimously agree that the game was imported from the west
of India, together with the charming fables of Vishnusarma, in the
Sixth century of our era. It seems to have been immemorially known
in Hindustan by the name of Chaturanga, that is the four "angas"
or members of an army, which are said in the Amarakosha to be
Hasty-aswa-ratha-padatum, or Elephants, Horses, Chariots and Foot
Soldiers, and in this sense the word is frequently used by epic
poets in their descriptions of real armies. By a natural corruption
of the pure Sanskrit word, it was changed by the old Persians into
Chatrang; but the Arabs, who soon after took possession of their
country, had neither the initial or final letter of that word in
their alphabet, and consequently altered it further into Shatranj,
which found its way presently into the modern Persian, and at
length into the dialects of India, where the true derivation of
the name is known only to the learned. Thus has a very significant
word in the sacred language of the Brahmans been transferred by
successive changes into axedres, scacchi, echecs, chess and by a
whimsical concurrence of circumstances given birth to the English
word check, and even a name to the Exchequer of Great Britain!

"The beautiful simplicity and extreme perfection of the game, as
it is commonly played in Europe and Asia, convince me that it was
invented by one effect of some great genius; not completed by
gradual improvements, but formed to use the phrase of the
Italian critics, by the first intention, yet of this simple game,
so exquisitely contrived and so certainly invented in India. I
cannot find any account in the classical writings of the Brahmans."

------

Eminent contributors to the Archaeological Society and to
Asiatic Researches have adopted the conclusions of the foregoing
authors, (Dr. Hyde, Sir W. Jones and Professor Forbes). Francis
Douce, Esq., after referring to Dr. Hyde's labours, says, "Yet I
shall avail myself of this opportunity of mentioning the latest and
perhaps most satisfactory opinion upon this subject; for which we
are indebted to the labours of that accomplished scholar Sir
William Jones." He has informed us that chess was invented
by the Hindoos from the testimony of the Persians who,
unanimously, agree that it was imported from the West of India in
the Sixth century and immemorially known in Hindustan by the name
of Chaturanga or the four members of an army, viz. Elephants,
Horses, Chariots and Foot Soldiers.

Sir F. Madden, 1828, remarks: "It is sufficient, at present, to
assume on the authorities produced by the learned Dr. Hyde and
Sir William Jones that for the invention and earliest form of
this game we must look to India, from whence through the
medium of the Persians and the Arabs, as proved demonstratively
by the names of the chessmen it was afterwards transmitted to
the nations of Europe."

It seems that we may be satisfied that chess is of Asiatic origin,
and India its birth place without subscribing entirely to the
view that even the ancient Hindu Chaturanga so minutely
described and which comes so long before any other game
mentioned in China or Egypt is even the first of chess; but we
may say this much, that, notwithstanding, the doubts expressed by
Crawford in his history and Rajah Brooke in his journal, and the
negative opposition of Dr. Van der Linde, we cannot bring
ourselves to be skeptical enough to discredit the trustworthiness of
the accounts furnished to us in the works of Dr. Hyde, Sir. William
Jones and Professor Duncan Forbes of the existence of the game
called the Chaturanga at the time stated.

NOTE. The Amara Kosha was one of the most valued works of Amara
Sinha one of the nine gems which adorned the throne of Vikramaditya.
The period, when he lived, was that from which the Hindoos date
their present chronology; that is he lived about the middle of
the first century B.C. The Amara Kosha was one of his numerous
works preserved, if not the only one that escaped. They perished,
it is said, like all other Buddhistical writings at the time of
the persecutions raised by the Brahmans against those who
professed the religion of Buddha.

------

Sanskrit scholars, including Colebrooke and Captain Cox, writing
rather incidentally than as chess players, inform us that the pieces
used in our game, viz. the Rook, Knight, and Bishop are
referred to in old Indian treatises, under their respective names of
Elephant, Horse, and Ship, which is a most convincing item of
evidence to chess players. This is one of the three main things
which historians fail to notice; the Roman Edict of 115 B.C. and
790 to 793 A.D., the least unlikely period for English acquirement
of the game, on Alcuin's three years visit from Charlemagne's
court, being the two others most meriting attention and noticed in
their respective places.

NOTE. The Roman Edict of 115 B.C. exempting chess and Draughts from
prohibition, when other games were being interdicted, seems to
have escaped the notice of all writers, and does not harmonize
with the Germans Weber and Van der Linde's theories of 954 A.D.
for the earliest knowledge of chess in its precise form.

NOTE. Alcuin, 735-804, is a name forgotten by all writers in
considering the Charlemagne, Koran, and Princess Irene period
and English probabilities.

NOTE. The Sanskrit translations for the glorious Al Mamun, 813
to 833, those mentioned in the Sikust (980), and for the
enlightened Akbar, 1556 to 1615, seem to have been unknown to
European scholars, who throughout the early and middle ages do
not strike us as having been remarkable for zeal and application.

------

The Chinese claims made apparently rather for than by them,
are recorded in the annals of the Asiatic Society as being in
respect of a game called "War Kie," played with 360 pieces, said
to have been invented by Emperor Yao so far back as B.C. 2300,
the next account is of a game called Hsiang Kie, attributed to
Wa Wung B.C. 1122, with 16 pieces on each side, like draughts
with characters written on each so recently as 1866, it was claimed
to be played all over the country. The great dictionary of Arts
and Sciences dedicated to our King in 1727, merely says:

"The Chinese claim to date back their acquaintance with chess
to a very remote period." The Chinese call chess the game of the
Elephant, and say that they had it from the Indians. The
Haipiene or great Chinese Directory under the word Sianghki,
says that this happened in the reign of Vouti, about the year of
Christ 537. Notwithstanding this statement there is an account
of Real Chess given in 1793, by Eyles Irwin, Esq., a gentleman
who had passed many years of his life in India, and contained in
a communication to the President of the Irish Society. He says
379 years after the time of Confucius (which is equal to 172 B.C.),
King Cochu, King of Kiangnan, sent an expedition into the Shensi
Country, under the command of a Mandarin, called Hansing, to
conquer it, and during the winter season, to allay the discontent
of his army at inaction, chess was invented to amuse them, with
results entirely satisfactory.

The board, or game, Irwin says, is called Chong Ki or Royal
Game. Forbes says the game is called by the Chinese "Choke
Choo Hong Ki."

The board is 64 squares with a chasm in the middle, the army
9 pieces, 2 rocket boys, and 5 pawns on each side.

It has become the fashion to this day to dish up the great poets'
lines more or less seasoned or to repeat, one or the other of the
fabulous stories, or fallacious theories so constantly put forward
in regard to the origin of chess, so it may be not amiss to state
what is known or can be gathered in regard to it, concerning the
claims of countries other than India.

Such consideration as can be found devoted to the game in Egypt
mostly relates to hypothesis and conjectures in regard to the
inscriptions on tombs and on the walls of temples and palaces;
some discussion has arisen in our own time, in notes and queries,
and particularly in regard to Mr. Disraeli's references in the book
Alroy, concerning which the Westminster Chess papers in 1872,
instituted a criticism. Chapter 16 of Alroy begins "Two stout
soldiers were playing chess in a coffee house," and Mr. Disraeli
inserts on this the following note (80). "On the walls of the
palace of Amenoph II, called Medeenet Abuh, at Egyptian Thebes,
the King is represented playing chess with the Queen. This
monarch reigned long before the Trojan War."

A critic, calling himself the author of Fossil Chess adds "In
the same work may be found some account of the paintings on
the tombs at Beni Hassan, presumably the oldest in Egypt, dating
from the time of Osirtasen I, twenty centuries before the
Christian era, and eight hundred years anterior to the reign of
Rameses III, by whom the temple of Medeenet Abuh was commenced,
and who is the Rameses portrayed on its walls." An unaccountable
error on Mr. Disraeli's part in the same note assigns its
erection to Amenoph II, who lived 1414 B.C.

Closer investigators of the Hieroglyphics of Ancient Egypt, state
Rameses Merammun (15th King of the 18th dynasty and grandfather
of Sesostris), who reigned as Ramses IV from 1559 to 1493 B.C.,
is the name that appears on the great palace of Medinet Abu, and
some other buildings in the ruins of Thebes.

According to the tables of Egyptian Chronology most approved
in 1827 reviews Sethos or Sesostris reigned as Ramses VI from
1473 to 1418 B.C. The reviews observe that Herodotus thought
that Sesostris ascended the throne a few years later than
1360 B.C. Amenophis II reigned from 1687 to 1657 B.C.

The draughtmen and board of Queen Hatasu among her relicts
in the Manchester Exhibition of 1887, are assigned to 1600 B.C.;
but she was the daughter of Thotmes I, who according to the
tables referred to, reigned 1791 to 1778 B.C.

Egyptian chronology seems not to be conclusively agreed upon;
however, the game found inscribed on the walls of Medinet Abu is
not proved to resemble chess, and is generally assumed to be
draughts, besides whether ascribed to Amenoph II 1687 to 1657
B.C., or to Ramses IV 1559 to 1493 B.C.; the date is long after the
period ascribed to the Sanskrit writings, (said to be about 3000
B.C.) even taking the shortest estimate of the age of the Ancient
Hindu and Brahman writings assigned by Sanskrit scholars.

Sir Gardiner Wilkinson says, the pieces are all of the same size
and form, and deduces from this the inference that the game
represented a species of draughts.

Mr. Lane the Egyptologist, apparently no chess player himself,
in describing the sedentary games of Egypt, says that the people
of that country take great pleasure in chess, (which they call
Sutreng), Draughts (Dameh), and Backgammon (Tawooleh).

Sir F. Madden says, it is however possible that the Ancient
Egyptians may also have possessed a knowledge of chess, for
among the plates of Hieroglyphics by Dr. Burton No. 1, we find
at Medinet Habou two representations of some tabular game, closely
resembling it, and I am informed that a more perfect representation
exists on the Temples at Thebes.

Sir John Gardiner Wilkinson, the celebrated Egyptologist,
in a note appended to Mr. George Rawlinson's of Herodotus
says:

"Still more common was the game of Draughts miscalled
chess, which is Hab, a word now used by the Arabs for Men or
Counters. This was also a game in Greece, where they often
drew for the move, this was done by the Romans also in their
Duodecim Scripta, and Terence says--

                         Ti ludis tesseris.
Si illud, quod maxime opus est facto non cadit.
Illud quod cecedit forte, id arte ut corrigus.
                         Adelph iv. 7. 22-24.

NOTES. According to Dr. Young, 1815, and M. Champollion, 1824,
Ramses III was the 15th Monarch of the 18th dynasty, the date
affixed to him being 1561 to 1559 B.C., but the British Museum
Catalogue, page 60 says: The principal part of the monuments in
this room are of the age of King Ramses II, the Sesostris of the
Greeks, and the greatest monarch of the 19th dynasty; but, in the
tables, he appears as the 14th of the 18th dynasty 1565 to
1561 B.C. and the catalogue is probably a slip.

No consensus of agreement however has been arrived as to
Egyptian Chronology. Sesostris for example 1473 to 1418 B.C.,
(Manetho, the scrolls Young, Champollion) Herodotus thought,
ascended the throne about 1360 B.C.

Some Bible Commentators have even called the Shishak of Scripture
558 B.C. Sesostris.

Bishop Warburton was wont to vent his displeasure on those who
did not agree with him. For instance, on one Nicholas Mann,
whose provocation was that he argued for the identity of Osiris
and Sesostris after Warburton had pronounced that they were to be
distinguished, he revenged himself by saying to Archbishop Potter
in an abrupt way, "I suppose, you know, you have chosen an Arian."

Under Exodus 1 C.B. 1604 a note occurs.

The Pharaoh, in whose reign Moses was born, is known in general
history by the name of Rameses IV, surnamed Mei Amoun. He reigned
66 years, which agrees with the account given Ch. 4, 19, that he
lived till long after Moses had retired to the desert. The
Pharaoh who reigned when the Israelites went out of Egypt was
Rameses V surnamed Amenophis.

Moses' birth is under B.C. 1531, Exodus ii., his death under
B.C. 1451, Deuteronomy xxxiv., but as he was 120 years old when
he died, one of these dates must be wrong, he was probably born
B.C. 1571.

Opposite Chapter 14 v.25 of 1st of Kings B.C. 958 says: There
can be no rational doubt that this Shishak was the famous
Sesostris the conqueror of Asia. Herodotus, the father of
profane history, relates that he, himself, has seen stones in
Palestine erected by the Conqueror, and recording his achievements.

------

It is confidently asserted by the writers of the Eighteenth
century, and this, that the ancient Greeks and Romans were totally
unacquainted with chess, but a Roman edict of 115. B.C., specially
exempting "Chess and Draughts" from prohibition passes
unobserved by all the writers; and might have materially qualified
their perhaps too hasty and ill-matured conclusions, and have
suggested further inquiry into the nature of the sedentary games
and amusements practiced and permitted by the Romans.

The Roman edict mentioned by Mr. W. B. Donne, in his
biographical sketch of Ahenholarbus, 842, has evidently escaped the
observation of all writers on the game. Chess and Draughts are
specially exempted in it from the list of prohibited games of
chance under date B.C. 115. The Hon. Daines Barrington 1787,
Sir F. Madden 1832, Herbert Coleridge, Esq., 1854, and Professor
Duncan Forbes 1860 are prominent among those who confidently
assert that the Romans as well as the ancient Greeks were quite
unacquainted with the game of chess, at least, says Coleridge,
without giving any reason for his qualification, before the time of
Hadrian. These writers having apparently satisfied themselves
that the Romans as well as the Greeks played a game with pebbles,
assume therefore that they knew not chess, but might have known
a game something like Draughts. Here in the edict, however,
Chess and Draughts are both mentioned inferring a recognized
distinction between the two. It seems reasonable to assume that
the writers would have paused and have searched a little deeper
into the nature of the sedentary games which the Romans knew
and permitted if they had seen this explicit statement. It has
never been suggested by any writer that the Romans ever left an
inkling or taste for intellectual pastimes in Britain. The name
of Agricola or that of any other Roman is not associated with
any tradition or story of the game, even Aristotle and Alexander
the Great and Indian Porus (names we find in Eastern accounts)
are names not so familiar in speculatory traditions as to chess,
though less remote, than that of Thoth the Egyptian Mercury who
Plato says invented chess "Hermes" (Asiatic M.S.) or the more
frequently mentioned Moses, and the Kings of Babylon with their
philosophers. The favoured notion that chess (first) came into
Europe through the Arabs in Spain about 710 to 715 A.D. may yet
prove ill matured and require modification, and for English first
knowledge of the game, we may on inferential and presumptive
evidence prefer the contemporary period of Offa, Egbert and
Alcuin when Charlemagne, the Greek Emperors and the Khalifs
of the East so much practised and patronized the game, rather
than the conquest or Crusaders theory of origin among us, which
is also beside inconsistent with incidents related in the earlier
reigns of Athelstan, Edgar and Canute, and moreover is not
based upon any direct testimony whatever.

In proof of the ancient use of chess among the Scandinavians.
In the Sages of Ragnar Lodbrog printed in Bioiners collection,
and in an ancient account of the Danish invasion of Northumberland
in the Ninth century entitled Nordymbra, it is stated that
after the death of Ragnar, messengers were sent to his sons in
Denmark by King Alla to communicate the intelligence and to
mark their behaviour when they received it. They were thus
occupied, Sigurd Snakeseye played at chess with Huitzeck the
bold; but Biorn Ironside was polishing the shaft of a spear in the
middle of the hall. As the messengers proceeded with their story
Huitzeck and Sigurd dropped their game and listened to what
was said with great attention, Ivar put various questions and
Biorn leant on the spear he was polishing. But when the
messengers came to the death of the chief, and told his expiring
words that the young bears would gnarl their tusks (literally
grunt) if they knew their parent's fate, Biorn grasped the handle
of his spear so tight with emotion that the marks of his fingers
remained on it, and when the tale was finished dashed it in pieces,
Huitzeck compressed a chessman he had taken so with his
fingers that the blood started from each whilst Sigurd Snakeseye
paring his nails with a knife was so wrapped up in attention
that he cut himself to the bone without feeling it.

All authorities down to the end of the Eighteenth century,
ascribe the first knowledge of chess in England, to the time of the
reign of William the Conqueror, or to that of the return of the
first Crusaders, some adding not earlier than 1100 A.D., H. T.
Buckle the author and historian who was foremost in skill among
chess amateurs, in his references to the game, satisfied apparently
with the evidence of Canute's partiality for it, (1017 to 1035)
thought it probable that it was familiarly known in England a
century or so before that monarch's reign. Sir Frederick Madden
writing from 1828 to 1832 at the outset of his highly interesting
communications to the Asiatic Society, at first inclined to the
Crusaders theory, but upon further investigation later in his articles
he arrived at the conclusion that chess might have been known
among us in Athelstan's reign from 925 to 941, and Professor
Forbes writing from 1854 to 1860 concurred in that view. Both
of these authorities after quoting old chess incidents and anecdotes
of Pepin's and Charlemagne's times with other references to chess
in France, Germany, and Scandinavia, then pass on to chess in
England, and after asserting the probability that the Saxons most
likely received chess from their neighbours the Danes then fix
apparently somewhat inconsistently so late as the Tenth century
for it. They assert that the tradition of the game having been
brought from the North certainly existed, and is mentioned by
Gaimar who wrote about the year 1150, when speaking of the
mission of Edelwolth from King Edgar to the castle of Earl Orgar,
in Devonshire to verify the reports of his daughter Elstreuth's
beauty. When he arrived at the mansion,

          "Orgar juout a un esches,
          Un gin k'il aprist des Daneis,
          Od lui juout Elstruat lu bele,
          Sus ciel n'ont donc tele damesele."

          "Orgar was playing at the chess,
          A game he had learnt of the Danes,
          With him played the fair Elstrueth,
          A fairer maiden was not under heaven."

Edgar reigned from 958 to 975, English history referring to
this incident among the amours of Edgar, make no mention of the
Earl of Devonshire and his daughter being found playing chess
together. Hume says Elfrida was daughter and heir of Olgar
Earl of Devonshire and though she had been educated in the
country, and had never appeared at court, she had filled all
England with the reputation of her beauty.

The mission of Earl Athelwold, his deception of the king, and
marriage of Elfrida follows, next the king's discovery, the murder
of Athelwold by the King, and his espousal of Elfrida.

This incident with others, such as the presentation to Harold
Harfagra, King of Norway of a very fine and rich chess table,
and the account of and description of seventy chess men of
different sizes belonging to various sets dug up in the parish of
Uig, in the Isle of Lewis, are referred to by the writers as the
chess allusions of the North, but Sir Frederick Madden who confines
himself to the supposition of the Saxons having received the game
from the Danes, rather disregards a statement of Strutt, Henry
and others, based on a passage in the Ramsey chronicle that chess
was introduced among the Saxons, so early as the Tenth century.
Forbes however who usually agrees with Madden, sees no
improbability in it or grounds for disputing, and thinks that England
may have obtained its knowledge from France between the Eighth
and Tenth centuries. It is curious that Forbes stops here like
Madden and all other writers, he evidently knew nothing of the
Roman edict of 115 B.C., and neither of them cast a thought to the
earlier reigns of Alfred, Egbert, and Offa, which were
contemporary with the Golden Age of Literature in Arabia and the
period when chess had so long travelled from Persia to other
countries, and was so well known and appreciated in Arabia;
Constantinople, Spain, and among the Aquitaines as well as by
the Carlovingian Monarchs. Al Walid the first Khalif noted for
chess, the most powerful of the house of Umeyyah, who (through
his generals Tarak and Musa invaded, conquered, and entered
Spain, reigned from 705 to 715 B.C.), and comes before Offa,
whose reign commenced five years after the foundation of the
mighty Abbasside Dynasty, which displaced the first house of
Umeyyah, and thirteen years before that of Charlemagne, with
whom he was contemporary 26 years, and Egbert was 13 years.
Harun Ar Rashid; of Abbasside, the Princess Irene, and the
Emperor Nicephorus of Constantinople, and the successors of
Harun, viz., Al Amin, Al Mamun, the Great Al Mutasem and Al
Wathik (the two last contemporary with our Alfred), all
cultivated and practiced chess and the strongest inference, and
a far more striking one than any yet adduced, is that we got
chess during the long reign of Charlemagne, and his Greek,
Arabian and Spanish contemporaries, and this might well happen,
for Charlemagne knew both Offa and Egbert (the latter personally),
and the knowledge becomes somewhat more than a matter of
inference, for the Saxon scholar Alcuin was in England from
790 to 793, on a farewell visit after being domesticated in
Charlemagne's household as his treasured friend, adviser, and
tutor and preceptor in the sciences for more than twenty years,
and could not be otherwise than familiar with the Emperor's
practice and enthusiasm for chess, in which he may to some extent
have shared. Alcuin would certainly have communicated a game like
this, in which he knew other civilized people were taking so much
interest, to his countrymen. The connecting links of evidence
which Sir F. Madden and Professor Forbes have illustrated in
Athelstan's and Edgar's reigns, would have been greatly
strengthened and confirmed, if they had thought of Alcuin's
residence and influence at a court where chess was not only
played, but talked about and corresponded upon. Charlemagne's
presents included the wonderful chess men which he valued so
highly, and with which we are tolerably familiar through the
reports of Dr. Hyde, F. Douce, Sir F. Madden, and H. Twiss, and
the engravings in Willeman's work, and by Winckelman and Art
Journal. These chessmen (still preserved) were perhaps often seen
by Alcuin and were possibly also shewn by Charlemagne to the
youthful Egbert when in refuge at his court, and on the whole it
seems unreasonable to assume that chess was unknown in England
after Alcuin's last sojourn, and during Egbert's reign.

It may be also that on further consideration of the Roman edict
and references to their games, and the accounts relating to the
fourth century B.C., many will be indisposed to accept the dictum
that Herodotus, Plato and Aristotle meant nothing more than a game
of pebbles, when they referred to chess and propounded their
theories as to its invention.

------

PERSIA

"Khusra Anushirawan" Naushirawan or Chosroes as he is
more frequently called, being the Byzantine title applied to him,
was King of Persia and reigned 48 years, from 528 to 576 as
stated by some authors, or from 531 to 579 according to others.
He is described also as Chosroes the Just. The receipt of chess
in Persia from India early in his reign, and the great appreciation
and encouragement of it, is the best attested fact in chess history,
if not really the only one as to which there is entire concurrence
in opinion among all writers.

The Persian and Arabian historians are unanimous that the
game of chess was invented in India, some time previous to the
Sixth century of our Era, and was introduced into Persia during
the reign of Kisra Naushirawan, the Chosroes of the Byzantine
historians, and the contemporary of Justinian, they differ only as
to the time of its modification, some ascribing it to about this
period, and others to that of Alexander the Great, 336 to 323 B.C.

Although several works concur in stating that chess first came
to Persia from India, through Burzuvia the physician, most
learned in languages with the materials of the book called Culila
Dimna, quite early in Chosroes' reign, some think differently and
attribute Burzuvia's mission to India and return to a late date.
It is related from the Shahnama, the great Persian poem that it
came from Kanoj, Kanauj, commonly written Canoge, by means
of a magnificent embassy from the King of Hind, accompanied by
a train of elephants with rich canopies, together with a thousand
camels heavily laden, the whole escorted by a numerous and
gallant army of Scindian cavalry. After depositing the various
and costly presents, last of all the Ambassador displayed before
the King and the astonished court, a chess board, elaborately
constructed together with the chessmen, tastefully and curiously
carved from solid pieces of ivory and ebony. Then the
Ambassador presented a letter richly illumined, written by the hand
of the Sovereign of Hind, to Naushirawan the translation of which
is given as follows:

The King of Hind's address to Chosroes with the Chess

"O, King, may you live as long as the celestial spheres continue
to revolve; I pray of you to examine this chess board, and to lay
it before such of your people as are most distinguished for learning
and wisdom. Let them carefully deliberate, one with another;
and if they can, let them discover the principles of this wonderful
game. Let them find out the uses of the various pieces, and how
each is to be moved, and in to what particular squares. Let them
discover the laws which regulate the evolutions of this mimic
army, and the rules applicable to the Pawns, and to the Elephants,
and to the Rukhs (or warriors), and to the Horses, and to the
Farzin, and to the King. If they should succeed in discovering
the principles and expounding the practice of this rare game,
assuredly they will be entitled to admission into the number of
the wise, and in such case I promise to acknowledge myself, as
hitherto, your Majesty's tributary. On the other hand, should you
and the wise men of Iran collectively fail in discovering the nature
and principles of this cunning game, it will evince a clear proof
that you are not our equals in wisdom; and consequently you will
have no right any longer to exact from us either tribute or impost.
On the contrary we shall feel ourselves justified in demanding
hereafter the same tribute from you; for man's true greatness
consists in wisdom, not in territory, and troops, and riches, all
of which are liable to decay."

When Naushirawan had perused the letter from the Sovereign
of Hind, long did he ponder over its contents. Then he carefully
examined the chess board and the pieces and asked a few questions
of the Envoy respecting their nature and use.

The latter, in general terms, replied, Sire, what you wish to
know can be learned only by playing the game, suffice it for me,
to say, that the board represents a battle field, and the pieces
the different species of forces engaged in the combat. Then the
King said to the Envoy, grant us the space of seven days for the
purpose of deliberation; on the eighth day we engage to play with
you the game, or acknowledge our inferiority.

Then followed the assembling of the men esteemed learned and
wise, the sages of Iran, and seven days of perplexity. At last
Buzerjmihr hastened to the presence of Naushirawan and said:
"O, King of victorious destiny, I have carefully examined this
board and these pieces, and at length by your Majesty's good
fortune, I have succeeded in discovering the nature of the game.
It is a most shrewd and faithful representation of a battle field,
which it is proper your Majesty should inspect in the first place.
In the mean time let the Indian Ambassador be summoned into
the royal presence together with the more distinguished among
his retinue, also a few of the wise and learned of our own court
that they may all bear witness how we have acquitted ourselves in
accomplishing the task imposed upon us by the King of Kancj.
When Buzerjmihr had explained the evolutions of the ebony and
ivory warriors, the whole assembly stood mute in admiration and
astonishment. The Indian Ambassador was filled with mingled
vexation and surprise, he looked upon Buzerjmihr as a man
endowed with intelligence far beyond that of mere mortals, and
thus he pondered in his own mind: How could he have discovered
the nature and principles of this profound game? Can it be
possible that he has received his information from the sages of
Hind? Or is it really the result of his own penetrating research,
guided by the acuteness of his unaided judgment? Assuredly
Buzerjmihr has not this day his equal in the whole world. In the
meanwhile Naushirawan in public acknowledged the unparalleled
wisdom of his favourite Counsellor. He sent for the most costly
and massive goblet in his palace and filled the same with the
rarest of jewels. These, together with a war steed, richly
caparisoned, and a purse full of gold pieces he presented to
Buzerjmihr."

The other version of the first receipt of chess in Persia, based
upon eastern works and perhaps more reasonable, if not resting
upon yet better attestation, records that Burzuvia, a physician,
and the most expert that could be found in the knowledge of
languages, and art and ability in acquiring them, at the request
or command of Chosroes, King of Persia, undertook to explore the
national work of the Brahmans and the famous book, the Kurtuk
Dunmix, and the result of his mission and labours were, after
considerable research in India, the materials for and production
of the Culila Dinma, a national work greatly treasured by Chosroes
and future kings of Persia, and which work contained the art of
playing chess. This work is said to have been jointly translated
by Burzuvia and Buzerjmihr the vizier of Chosroes and it is highly
probable that the latter did assist, and thus learnt the secret, and
this seems to form the most likely solution of the circumstance of
his unraveling the mysteries of chess as alleged, without the
slightest clue, to the amazement and delight of Chosroes and his
court, when it was received as a test of wisdom and profound
secret from the King of Hind. Writers who concur in or do not
dissent from either of these accounts, yet differ as to which should
take priority in point of date, the more reasonable supposition
seems to be, that Burzuvia not unwilling to propitiate Chosroes'
favourite vizier and Counsellor, reserved his knowledge from all but
Buzerjmihr in which no doubt he exercised wise policy and did
not himself go unrewarded. The chief Counsellor and vizier of a
great King was a desirable person to conciliate in those days, and
afterwards as is abundantly proved throughout Eastern history
and dynastics from the time of Abu Bekr, Omar, Osman, Abdullah,
and the Prophet, and later from Harun, and Al Mamun (786-833)
even to the time of the enlightened Akbar, (1556-1605), continued
examples are to be found in the reigns of the rulers through all
these ages where the real sway vested in the vizier who frequently
combined a great knowledge of learning with an extraordinary
capacity for war.

------

THE TEN ADVANTAGES OF CHESS ACCORDING TO THE PERSIAN
PHILOSOPHER, ARE THUS GIVEN IN TRANSLATION.

The "first advantage" of which the commencement is wanting
in the M.S., turns chiefly on the benefits of food and exercise
for the mind in which chess is marked out as an active agent,
intended by its inventor to conduce to intellectual energy in
pursuit of knowledge, for as the human body is nourished by
eating which is its food, and from which it obtains life and
strength, and without which the body dies, so the mind of man is
nourished by learning which is the food of the soul, and without
which he would incur spiritual death; that is ignorance, and it is
current that a wise man's sleep is better than a fool's devotion.
The glory of man then is knowledge, and chess is the nourishment
of the mind, the solace of the spirit, the polisher of intelligence,
the bright sun of understanding, and has been preferred by the
philosopher its inventor, to all other means by which we arrive
at wisdom.

The Second Advantage is in Religion, illustrating the Muhammedan
doctrines of predestination (Sabr and Cadar) by the free
will of man in playing chess, moving when he will, or where he
will, and which piece he thinks best, but restricted in some
degree by compulsion, as he may not play against certain laws,
nor give to one piece the move of another, whereas, on the
contrary, Nerd (Eastern Backgammon) is mere free will, while in
Dice again all is compulsion. This argument is pursued at some
length in the text. Passing from this singular application of
theology to chess play, we find the Third Advantage relates to
Government, the principles of which the author declares to be
best learned from chess. The board is compared to the world,
and the adverse sets of men to two monarchs with their subjects,
each possessing one half of the world, and with true eastern
ambition desiring the other, but unable to accomplish his design
without the utmost caution and policy. Perwiz and Ardeshir are
quoted as having attributed all their wisdom of government to
the study and knowledge of chess.

The Fourth Advantage relates to war, the resemblance to which
of the mimic armies of chess, is too obvious to detain the
philosopher long.

The Fifth Advantage of chess is in its resemblance to the
Heavens. He says, the board represents the Heavens, in which
squares are the Celestial houses and the pieces Stars. The
superior pieces are assimilated to the Moving Stars, and the Pawns
which have only one movement to the Fixed Stars. The King is
as the Sun, and the Wazir in place of the Moon, and the Elephants
and Taliah in the place of Saturn; and the Rukhs and Dabbabah
in that of Mars, and the Horses and Camel in that of Jupiter,
and the Ferzin and Zarafah in that of Venus, and all these pieces
have their accidents, corresponding with the Trines and Quadrates,
and Conjunction and Opposition, and Ascendancy and Decline,
such as the heavenly bodies have, and the Eclipse of the Sun is
figured by Shah Caim or Stale Mate. This parallel is completed
by indicating the functions of the different pieces in connection
with the influence of their respective planets, and chess players
are even invited to consult Astrology in adapting their moves to
the various aspects.

The Sixth Advantage is derived from the preceding, and assigns
to each piece, according to the planet it represents, certain
physical temperaments, as the Warm, the Cold, the Wet, the Dry,
answering to the four principal movements of chess, (viz, the
Straight, Oblique, Mixed or Knights, and the Pawns move). This
system is extended to the beneficial influence of chess on the
body, prescribing it as a cure for various ailings of a lighter
kind, as pains in the head and toothache, which are dissipated by
the amusement of play; and no illness is more grievous than
hunger and thirst, yet both these, when the mind is engaged in
chess, are no longer thought of.

Advantage Seven, "In obtaining repose for the soul." The
Philosopher says, the soul hath illnesses, like as the body hath,
and the cure of these last is known, but of the soul's illness there
be also many kinds, and of these I will mention a few. The first is
Ignorance, and another is Disobedience, the third Haste, the
Fourth Cunning, the fifth Avarice, sixth Tyranny, seventh Lying,
the eighth Pride, the ninth Deceit, and Deceit is of two kinds,
that which deceiveth others, and that by which we deceive
ourselves; and the tenth is Envy, and of this also there be many
kinds, and there is no one disorder of the soul greater than
Ignorance for it is the soul's death, as learning is its life; and
for this disease is chess an especial cure, since there is no way by
which men arrive more speedily at knowledge and wisdom, and in
like manner, by its practice all the faults which form the diseases
of the soul, are converted into their corresponding virtues. Thus,
Ignorance is exchanged for learning, obstinacy for docility, and
precipitation for patience, rashness for prudence, lying for truth,
cowardice for bravery, and avarice for generosity, tyranny for
justice, irreligion for piety, deceitfulness for sincerity, hatred
for affection, emnity for friendship.

The Eighth may be called a social advantage of chess, bringing
men nearer to Kings and nobles, and as a cause of intimacy and
friendship, and also as a preventive to disputes and idleness and
vain pursuits.

The Tenth and last advantage is in combining war with sport,
the utile with the dulce, in like manner as other philosophers
have put moral in the mouths of beasts, and birds, and reptiles,
and encouraged the love of virtue and inculcated its doctrines by
allegorical writings such as the Marzaban, Namah, and Kalila wa
Dimnah, under the attractive illusion of fable.

------

VIDA

There is scarcely any writer who has gone through so many
editions and translations as Marcus Hieronymus Vida, Bishop of
Alba. The Scacchia Ludus was published at Rome in 1527, and
since then no fewer than twenty-four editions have been published
in the original Latin, the last at London in 1813. Of translation
there have been eleven in Italian, four in French, and eight in
English, including the one ascribed to Goldsmith, which appears
in an edition of that poet's works published by Murray in 1856.
The only German translation hitherto noticed in this country is
that printed at the end of Kochs Codex (1814) but we learn from
an editorial note that the version now given in the Schachtzeitung
is by Herr Pastor Jesse, and that it was published at Hanover in
1830. It was from Vida that Sir William Jones obtained the idea
of his poem Caissa, which Mr. Peter Pratt described in his Studies
of chess as an "elegant embellishment" an "admired effusion"
and a classical offering to chess. In the Introduction is found:

To THE READER, GREETING. Strange perchance may it seem
to some (courteous Reader) that anie man should employ his time
and bestow his labour in setting out such bookes, whereby men
may learn to play, when indeede most men are given rather to
play, than to studie and travell, which were true, if it were for
the teaching of games unlawfull, as dice play, or cogging, or
falsehoods in card play, or such like, but forasmuch as this game
or kingly pastime is not only devoid of craft, fraud, and guile,
swearing, staring, impatience, fretting and falling out, but also
breedeth in the players a certaine studie, wit, pollicie, forecaste,
and memorie not only in the play thereof, but also in action of
publick government, both in peace and warre, wherein both
Counsellors at home and Captaines abroade may picke out of these
wodden pieces some prettie pollicie both how to govern their
subjects in peace, how to leade or conduct lively men in the field
in warre: for this game hath the similitude of a ranged battell,
as by placing the men and setting them forth on the march
may very easily appeare. The King standeth in the field in
middle of his army, and hath his Queene next unto him and his
Nobilitie about him, with his soldiers to defend him in the
forefront of the battell.

Sith therefore this game is pleasant to all, profitable to most,
hurtful to none. I pray thee (gentle reader) take this my labour
in good part, and thou shalt animate me hereafter to the setting
forth of deeper matters. Farewell. LUDUS SCACCHI.

Peter Pratt of Lincoln's Inn, author of the "Theory of Chess,"
(1799) a work referred to by Professor Allen, the biographer of
Philidor as "the most divertingly absurd of all chess books."
Some idea of the plan and style of the work may be obtained
from the following extract from the author's preface: "The game
of chess, though generally considered as an emblem of war (the
blood stained specie of it) seemed to him (the author) more to
resemble those less ensanguined political hostilities which take
place between great men in free countries, an idea which was at
once suggested and confirmed by observing that when one
combatant is said to have conquered another, instead of doing
anything like killing or wounding him, he only casts him from his
place and gets into it himself." Fortified in this conceit the
ingenious author converts the Pawns into Members of the House
of Commons, the Rooks into Peers, while the Queen is transformed
into a Minister, and the whole effect of this curious nomenclature
upon the notation of the games is ludicrous in the extreme.

An American view was presented in the following words, it
would probably have also have disturbed the equanimity of
Forbes like that of Pope's did (page 20).

The date to which I have referred the origin of chess will
probably astonish those persons who have only regarded it as the
amusement of idle hours, and have never troubled themselves to
peruse those able essays in which the best of antiquaries and
investigators have dissipated the cloudy obscurity which once
enshrouded this subject. Those who do not know the inherent
life which it possesses will wonder at its long and enduring career.
They will be startled to learn that chess was played before
Columbus discovered America, before Charlemagne revived the
Western Empire, before Romulus founded Rome, before Achilles
went up to the Siege of Troy, and that it is still played as widely
and as zealously as ever now that those events have been for
ages a part of history. It will be difficult for them to comprehend
how, amid the wreck of nations, the destruction of races, the
revolutions of time, and the lapse of centuries, this mere game
has survived, when so many things of far greater importance
have either passed away from the memories of men, or still exist
only in the dusty pages of the chroniclers. It owes, of course,
much of its tenacity of existence to the amazing inexhaustibility
of its nature. Some chess writers have loved to dwell upon the
unending fertility of its powers of combinations. They have
calculated by arithmetical rules the myriads of positions of which
the pieces and pawns are susceptible. They have told us that a
life time of many ages would hardly suffice even to count them.
We know, too, that while the composers of the orient and the
occident have displayed during long centuries an admirable
subtility and ingenuity in the fabrications of problems, yet the
chess stratagems of the last quarter of a century have never been
excelled in intricacy and beauty. We have witnessed, in our day
contests brilliant with skilful maneuvers unknown to the sagacious
and dexterous chess artists of the Eighteenth century.

Within the last thirty years we have seen the invention of an
opening as correct in theory, and as elegant in practice as any
upon the board, and of which our fathers were utterly ignorant.
The world is not likely to tire of an amusement which never
repeats itself, of a game which presents today, features as novel,
and charms as fresh as those with which it delighted, in the
morning of history, the dwellers on the banks of the Ganges and
Indus.

An Indian philosopher thus described it:

It is a representative contest, a bloodless combat, an image, not
only of actual military operations, but of that greater warfare
which every son of the earth, from the cradle to the grave, is
continually waging, the battle of life. Its virtues are as
innumerable as the sands of African Sahara. It heals the mind in
sickness, and exercises it in health. It is rest to the overworked
intellect, and relaxation to the fatigued body. It lessens the
grief of the mourner, and heightens the enjoyment of the happy.
It teaches the angry man to restrain his passions, the light-minded
to become grave, the cautious to be bold, and the venturesome to be
prudent. It affords a keen delight to youth, a sober pleasure to
manhood, and a perpetual solace to old age. It induces the poor to
forget their poverty, and the rich to be careless of their wealth.
It admonishes Kings to love and respect their people, and instructs
subjects to obey and reverence their rulers. It shows how the
humblest citizens, by the practise of virtue and the efforts of
labour, may rise to the loftiest stations, and how the haughtiest
lords, by the love of vice and the commission of errors, may fall
from their elevated estate. It is an amusement and an art, a sport
and a science. The erudite and untaught, the high and the low,
the powerful and the weak, acknowledge its charms and confirm
its enticements. We learn to like it in the years of our youth,
but as increased familiarity has developed its beauties, and
unfolded its lessons, our enthusiasm has grown stronger, and our
fondness more confirmed.

NOTE. The earliest example of praise and censure of chess strikes
us as very curious and sufficiently interesting to be presented
as illustrating two varieties of Arabian style, and as exhibiting
two sides of the question. It is from one of the early Arabian
manuscripts called the Yawakit ul Mawakit in the collection Baron
Hammer Purgstall at Vienna.

                    By Ibn Ul Mutazz.
                    CENSURE OF CHESS.

The chess player is ever absorbed in his chess and full of care,
swearing false oaths and making many vain excuses, one who careth
only for himself and angereth his Maker. 'Tis the game of him who
keepeth the fast only when he is hungry, of the official who is in
disgrace, of the drunkard till he recovereth from his drunkenness,
and in the Yatimat ul Dehr it is said, Abul Casim al Kesrawi hated
chess, and constantly abused it, saying, you never see a chess
player rich who is not a sordid miser, nor hear a squabbling that
is not on a question of the chess board.

                    IN PRAISE OF CHESS

O thou whose cynic sneers express the censure of our favourite chess,
Know that its skill is science self, its play distraction from
  distress,
It soothes the anxious lover's care, it weans the drunkard from excess,
It counsels warriors in their art, when dangers threat and perils press,
And yields us when we need them most, companions in our loneliness.

------

The manuscript of the Asiatic Society presented to them by
Major Price, is a curious but interesting production, the author is
unknown, but he is regarded as a very quaint individual, an
opinion perhaps not unwarranted by his preface, and many a one
(he says) has experienced a relief from sorrow, and affliction in
consequence of this magic recreation, and this same fact has been
asserted by the celebrated physician, Mohammed Zakaria Razi,
in his book, entitled "The Essence of Things," "and such is
likewise the opinion of the physician Abi Bin Firdaus as I shall
notice more fully towards the end of the present work for the
composing of which I am in the hope of receiving my reward
from God, who is most high and most glorious.

"I have passed my life since the age of fifteen among all the
masters of chess living in my time, and since that period till now,
when I have arrived at middle age, I have travelled through Irak
Arab, and Irak Ajarm, and Khurasam and the regions of Mawara
al Nahr (Transoxania), and I have there met with many a master
of this art, and I have played with all of them, and through the
favour of Him who is adorable and Most High, I have come off
victorious. Likewise in playing without seeing the board I have
overcome most opponents, nor had they the power to cope with
me. I, the humble sinner now addressing you have played with
one opponent over the board and at the same time I have
carried on four different games with as many adversaries without
seeing the board, whilst I conversed freely with my friends all
along and through the Divine favour I conquered them all."

The ten advantages of chess as set forth by the anonymous
author of the Asiatic Society's M.S. form the most remarkable
specimens of chess criticism. The first discusses it as food and
exercise for the mind, the second, he says is in Religion and free
will, 3 relates to Government, 4 to war, 5 to the Heavens
and stars, 6 to the Temperaments, 7 in obtaining repose, 8
The social advantage of chess, 9 Wisdom and knowledge, 10,
In combining war with sport.

Advantage the ninth is in wisdom and knowledge, and that
wise men do play chess, and to those who object that foolish men
also play chess, and though constantly engaged in it, become no
wiser, it may be answered, that the distinction between wise and
foolish men in playing chess, is as that of man and beast in eating
of the tree, that the man chooses its ripe and sweet fruit, while
the beast eats but the leaves and branches, and the unripe and
bitter fruit, and so it is with players of chess. The wise man
plays for those virtues and advantages which have been already
mentioned, and the foolish man plays it for mere sport and gambling,
and regards not its advantages and virtues. Thus may be seen,
one man who breaks the stone of the fruit and eats the kernel,
while another will even skin it to obtain the innermost part, and
in pursuit of knowledge men do likewise. One man is content
with the exterior and apparent meaning of the words, nor seeks
its hidden sense, and this is the man who eats the fruit and throws
away the kernel. Another desires to be acquainted with the
secret and inmost meaning that he may enjoy the whole benefit
of it, and he is like unto the man who takes out the very oil of
the nut, and mixes it with sugar and makes therewith a precious
sweetmeat, which he eats and throws away the rest. This is the
condition of the wise man, and the foolish man in playing chess.

The game of chess received by the Arabians from the Persians
was differently regarded by the various sects, some practising,
others disapproving it. Familiar references occur to it in the
time of the Prophet, who died 632 A.D. Commentators considered
that a passage in the Koran concerning lots and images embraced
chess within the meaning of the latter term. The words are "O
true believers, surely wine, and lots, and images, and divining
arrows are an abomination of the works of Satan, therefore avoid
ye them that ye may prosper."

Mussulman commentators supposed that the interdict applied
not to the game itself in which chance had no part, but to the
carved figures, representing the pieces, Men, Horses, Elephants,
&c.

According to Sokeiker of Damascus, the author of the book
Mustatraph and others, it is related from the Sunna. That about
the time of Mahomet they played in the East at chess with figured
men. As Ali accidentally passed by some men playing at chess
he said to them, "What are these small images upon which ye are
so intent." From which it appears says the historian, the
Prophet saw small images of which he knew not the use. The
Mahometans of the Persian sect, it is said, used figures, and the
Turks and Arabians plain pieces.

The Arabians had among them very expert chess players.

The progress of chess from Persia to Arabia plainly appears
from the number of Persian words which are never used by the
Arabians except in this game. The Elephants which held a place
in it, and the Chariot, Ship, or Boat, original terms for the Bishop
of our game are among the proofs adduced of its Indian origin
which neither European nor Asiatic writers seem to doubt, whilst
with chess players the agreement in principle and identity of
pieces in the present game with the ancient Chaturanga is deemed
almost conclusive.

Al Suli, who died in 946 is recorded to have been the greatest
player among the Arabians. Adali al Rumi was also a player of
the very highest class, both of these as well as Abul Abbas a
physician, who died in 899, and Lajlaj in the same age wrote
treatises on the game. Ibn Dandun and Al Kunaf, both of
Bagdad were of the first class, called Aliyat.

NOTE. Khusra Naushirawan, King of Persia, who reigned 528 to 576
(Anna Comnena, Lambe) or 531 to 579 (Forbes and biographers) seems
to be the first Royal patron of chess and if we consider the
accounts of Alexander the Great, and his contemporary Indian
Kings insufficiently vouched Shahnama, (Asiatic Society's M.S.),
ranks as our earliest reigning great patron, (Justinian perhaps
coming next). Al Walid, conqueror of Spain, 705 to 715 A.D. is
the first mentioned among Arabian rulers before the famous Harun Ar
Rashid. The enlightened, mild and humane Al Mamun (second son of
Harun) the great patron of science, comes seventh on the list, and
is supposed to have been the most enthusiastic and liberal of all
the Khalifs, and we are told that it was a happy thing for any
worthy man of learning or scholar to become known to him. "Unluckily
it is said for Oriental literature, but few of the Arabian treasures
have been preserved, and of those that have, scarcely any are
translated," but there are abundant references to shew that some
of the most powerful Eastern rulers were chess players, (Gibbon
and others and Eastern historians) and probably as has been
suggested, (Lambe, Bland, Forbes, &c., &c.,) many of them were
devoted to or partial to the game, list of the Khalifs, Sultans,
Emperors and Kings of the East, Africa, Spain and at times of
Egypt and Persia, from Abu Bekr 632 to 1212 A.D. (the great battle)
which finally overthrew the Moorish ascendancy.

The versions of Persian Chess. Burzuvia 1, King of Hind 2.

------

Abu Feda, who is regarded as one of the most reliable historians
in the annals of the Muslims, records the following letter from
Nicephorus, Emperor of the Romans to Harun, "Sovereign of
the Arabs," the date given being about 802 A.D.

After the usual compliments the epistle proceeds:

"The Empress (Irene) into whose place I have succeeded
looked upon you as a Rukh, and herself as a mere Pawn,
therefore she submitted to pay you a tribute more than the double
of which she ought to have exacted from you. All this has
been owing to female weakness and timidity. Now, however,
I insist that you immediately on reading this letter repay to me
all the sums of money you ever received from her. If you
hesitate, the sword shall settle our accounts."

In reply to this pithy epistle, Harun in great wrath wrote on
the back of the leaf:

"`In the name of God the Merciful and Gracious.' From
Harun the Commander of the Faithful to the Roman dog,
Nicephorus.

"I have read thine epistle, thou son of an infidel mother. My
answer to it thou shalt see not here. Nicephorus had to sue for
peace, and to pay the tribute as before."

The above is adduced as tending to confirm by the familiar
allusion to Rukh and Pawn that the game was known to the
Greeks and Arabians in the eighth century.

NOTE. The unknown Persian philosopher in his M.S. presented by
Major Price, the eminent Orientalist to the Asiatic Society
attributes the invention of chess to Hermes, who lived in the
time of Moses. This M.S. which is the one upon which Bland mainly
bases his admirable treatise on Persian Chess is imperfect, many
pages being missing, including that in which the title, name of
author and date would doubtless appear if the M. S. was perfect,
what exists however is singularly curious and interesting. It
commences with a description of the author himself, and his
prowess and achievements. It then sets forth under ten headings
the advantages of chess, explains its terms, and describes it
fully, gives the names of great players with many positions,
including some of Al Mutasem, eighth Khalif of Abbaside, (833 to
842) and 18 by Ali Shaturanji the Philidor of Timur's time. Bland
assigns about the Tenth century, between the time of the death of
Al Razi the physician of Bagdad, and that of the poet Firdausi, as
the age of the document. Forbes strongly contends that it was
more probably written in the time of Tamerlane, between 1380 and
1400 A.D. and hints that it may have been prepared to please that
monarch himself with an illustration of the great game called the
Complete or Perfect Chess of Timur (with 56 pieces and 112 squares)
to which he had become much attached. Blindfold play by the author
and others is described in the M.S. as well as the giving of odds,
there being no less than thirteen grades of players enumerated.

Anna Comnena was born 1083 and died 1148, she was the daughter of
the Emperor "Alexis Comnenus" and "The Empress Irene." During the
latter years of her life she composed a work to which she gave
the name of Alexius, which is divided into 15 books, and has
been more or less esteemed by critics, generally, and is called
a memorable work by all.

The Biographical Dictionary 1842 describes it as one of the most
important and interesting works of the time, and the chief source
for the life of Alexius I, mention is made of her great beauty and
extraordinary talents, also of her learning, and that her palace
was the rendezvous of the most eminent Greek scholars, poets,
artists, and statesmen, and was surrounded by many of the
distinguished barons of the first Crusaders, on their appearance
at Constantinople; reference is made to her attachment to arts and
sciences, but as to chess or music, or the diversions, or recreations,
common to the period, or favoured at the Court not one word is said,
and this seems very remarkable, as due prominence is given to her
notice of chess by chess writers. The article is initialed W. P.
William Plate, L.L.D., M.R., Geographical Society of Paris. This
gentleman may have been unacquainted with chess, and so may Don
Pascual de Gayangos and Dr. Sprenger, the other writers in the
Biography, but it happens that many of the articles in the same
volume are by Duncan Forbes, who in other works so prominently
makes due mention of Anna Comnena and her references to chess, and
the fact that her father Alexius was in the habit of playing
the game.

We are told by Hyde that the Princess Anna Comnena relates, in
the Alexius a work written by her in the beginning of the 12th
century, "that the Emperor (Alexius), her father, in order to
dispel the cares arising from affairs of state, occasionally
played chess at night with some of his relations or kinsfolk.
She then says that this game had been originally brought into use
among the Byzantines from the Assyrians." The fair historian says
nothing as to the time when the game came from Assyria, which may
have been five centuries before she wrote, her statement, however,
proves that it came from Persia, and not from Arabia, for Assyria
formed an important portion of the Persian Empire under the
Sassassian dynasty, and in fact was for some centuries a kind of
debatable land, and alternately occupied by the Persians and Romans,
according as victory swayed to one side or the other. The term
Assyria, then, denoting Persia in general, is used here in a well
known figurative sense "per synecdechen," a part taken for the
whole, just as the term Fers is employed to at this day to denote
the whole of Persia, whereas it is only the name of a single
insignificant province of that kingdom. Finally, the once splendid
empire of Assyria, of Media, and of Persia, had all passed away
long before Anna Comnena wrote, so that one name is just as
likely to be employed by her as another. (Forbes.)

------

The European origin of chess, or rather the supposed time of
its first introduction through the Arabs into Spain 713, 715,
though resting on a general consensus of agreement may yet prove
to be ill matured, for though it is clear that Spain did get
knowledge of it at the conquest and occupancy during Al Walid's
reign by the armies under Musa Ibn Nosseyr and Tarik Ibn Yeyzad
it is not so certain, if the Romans were acquainted with it at
the time of the edict, 830 years earlier, that it may not have
been known in some parts of Europe before the time supposed,
besides which we have the Asiatic Society's statement, through
its Persian M.S., and from the Shahnama applicable to Alexander
the Great's time, and the Indian Kings in treaty with him.

The commonly accepted theory, that England first got chess
through William of Normandy at the Conquest or on the return
of the first Crusaders (in the latter case about 1100 A.D.),
though concurred in with tolerable unanimity by all writers until
Sir Frederic Madden raised his doubts in 1828 also appears scarcely
consistent with previous incidents found on record. Canute's
partiality for chess (he reigned 1017 to 1035) events mentioned
in the reigns of Athelstan and Edgar and the chess pieces and
boards we read of including those dug up at the Isle of Lewis,
and of Pepin, Charlemagne, Harfagia, King of Norway, and in
Iceland seem to be unnoticed or too slightly regarded by those
who wrote on assumed Saxon or English chess, first knowledge.
The period assigned for chess in England is 500 years later than its
arrival in Persia, and subsequent receipt in Arabia, and probably
in Greece, and nearly 400 years after its practice among the
Spaniards, the Aquitaines and the Franks. The Saxon monarchs
who first became most given to the search after knowledge of all
kinds and who were acquainted with and contemporary with
Pepin and Charlemagne and Harun and the great Al Mamun may
well have heard of and acquired some knowledge of a game so
popular as chess had become at the Carlovingian and Greek
Courts, and in the Eastern dominions and Mohammedan Spain.

The reigns of Offa and Egbert seem not improbable ones in
which chess might have become known among us, the scholar
Alcuin from his long sojourn and domestication with Charlemagne
and his family, by all of whom he was revered and beloved, was
familiar with that monarch's tastes and amusements. He was in fact
his preceptor in the sciences. By arrangement with Charlemagne he
paid a visit to his native country, England, during the years 790
to 793 A.D., he probably knew chess and was familiar with the
celebrated chess men which the Emperor valued so much, and
have been reported on in our own times, and he seems the least
unlikely person to have noticed and assisted in encouraging a
judicious practice of it in England. Offa also corresponded with
Charlemagne. Egbert took refuge at his Court before he began to
reign and was well received, and for a time served in the
Emperor's army, and that those kings may have known of
the royal game, through Alcuin, or even direct is not impossible
or even improbable.

H. T. Buckle, the author and historian, (born 1822, died at
Damascus in 1862) foremost in skill among chess amateurs,
satisfied with the evidence of Canute's partiality for the game
thought it very probable that it might have been known before
the commencement of that monarch's reign (1016), and suggested
perhaps a century earlier. Sir Frederick Madden (1828 to 1832)
at the outset of some highly interesting communications to the
"Asiatic Researches," at first inclined to the Crusaders' theory,
but upon later consideration in his articles he arrived at the
conclusion that chess must have been known among us as early as
the reign of Athelstan (925 to 940), and Professor Duncan Forbes
(1854 to 1860) concurred in that view, both writers regard the
incident related of the Earl of Devonshire and his beautiful
daughter being found playing chess together, when Earl
Athelwold, King Edgar's messenger arrived to test the report of
her great beauty as not unworthy of credit. Edgar reigned from
958 to 975. English history referring to this incident among the
amours of Edgar makes no mention of the Earl of Devonshire and
his daughter being found playing chess together. Hume says
Elfrida was daughter and heir of Olgar (Orgar), Earl of
Devonshire, and though she had been educated in the country and had
never appeared in Court she had filled all England with the
reputation of her beauty. The mission of Earl Athelwold, his
deception of the King and his own marriage with Elfrida follows,
next the King's discovery, the murder of Athelwold by the King,
and his espousal of Elfrida.

This incident in Edgar's reign with some in Athelstan's,
including the present to Harold Harfagra, King of Norway, of a
very fine and rich chess table, and the account and description of
seventy chessmen of different sizes, belonging to various sets, dug
up in the parish of Uig, Isle of Lewis, are mentioned among the
matters which cause the impression and assumption that a
knowledge of chess had existed in the north of Europe, and in
England earlier than the Conquest days assigned to it by all
writers before Madden's views of 1832 appeared.

So early as the Eighth century some courtesies began to be
extended and enquiries made between contemporary monarchs on
theological, scientific, and social matters. The presents received
by the Carlovingian rulers from Constantinople and the East
included the chess equipages deposited and preserved as sacred
relics in France, which had belonged to Pepin and to Charlemagne.
The latter was contemporary with the famous Harun Ar Rashid
of Bagdad and Princess Irene and her successor Emperor
Nicephorus of Constantinople. Greetings and embassies passed
between them.

Offa corresponded with Charlemagne and despatched the
scholar Alcuin to assist him in refuting certain religious
heresies (as alleged) propounded by one Felix, a bishop of
Urgel. Egbert, we read, took refuge at Charlemagne's Court,
was well received by him and served for a time in his army.
Alcuin was the preceptor and became the life-long friend and
adviser of Charlemagne, was domesticated with him and greatly
revered in his family. 232 letters of Alcuin's are referred to
in Forbes' edition.

The Emperor's taste for chess, his celebrated chessmen and
his communications on scientific and social matters with the East
and elsewhere could be no secrets to Alcuin.

Charlemagne seems to have fancied himself at chess, and from
his avidity to find an opponent Alcuin may have been induced to
test conclusions of chess skill with him. On his visit to England
in 793 Alcuin brought his knowledge with him and he is the
least unlikely person to have noticed chess and to have assisted
in diffusing a knowledge of it in England.

Egbert, a young man of the most promising hopes gave
great jealously to Brithric, the reigning prince, both because he
seemed by his birth better entitled to the crown, and because he
had acquired, to an eminent degree the affections of the people.
Egbert, sensible of his danger from the suspicions of Brithric,
secretly withdrew into France where he was well received by
Charlemagne. By living in the Court, and serving in the armies
of that prince, the most able and most generous that had appeared
in Europe during several ages, he acquired those accomplishments
which afterwards enabled him to make such a shining figure on the
throne, and familiarizing himself to the manners of the French,
who, as Malmesbury observes, were eminent, both for valour and
civility above all the Western Nations, he learned to polish the
rudeness and barbarity of the Saxon character, his early
misfortunes thus proved a singular advantage to him.

------

THEORIES AS TO THE INVENTION OF CHESS

In the second volume of the "History of British India," by
James Mill, Esq., we are told that the Araucanians invented the
game of chess.

Forbes sums up an article upon this claim by saying, "We must
in charity suppose that Mr. Mill really knew nothing of chess,
whether Hindu, Persian, or Chinese."

Professor Wilson's opinion of Mr. Mill's work is better worth
recording. "History of British India," by James Mill, Esq.,
fourth edition, with notes and continuation, by Horace Hayman
Wilson, M.A., F.R.S., &c., London 1840, 9 vols., 8 vo., Vide
Preface by Professor Wilson, page vii, &c.

Of the proofs which may be discovered in Mr. Mill's history of
the operation of preconceived opinions, in confining a vigorous
and active understanding to a partial and one-sided view of a
great question, no instance is more remarkable than the
unrelenting pertinacity with which he labours to establish the
barbarism of the Hindus. Indignant at the exalted, and it may
be granted, sometimes exaggerated descriptions of their advance
in civilization, of their learning, their sciences, their talents,
their virtues which emanated from the amiable enthusiasm of Sir
William Jones, Mr. Mill has entered the lists against him with
equal enthusiasm, but a less commendable purpose, and has sought
to reduce them as far below their proper level as their encomiasts
may have formerly elevated them above it. With very imperfect
knowledge, with materials exceedingly defective, with an implicit
faith in all testimony hostile to Hindu pretensions, he has
elaborated a portrait of the Hindus which has no resemblance
whatever to the original, and which almost outrages humanity.
As he represents them, the Hindus are not only on a par with the
least civilized nations of the old and new world, but they are
plunged almost without exception in the lowest depths of
immorality and crime. Considered merely in a literary capacity,
the description of the Hindus, in the history of British India is
open to censure for its obvious unfairness and injustice, but in
the effect which it is likely to exercise upon the connexion
between the people of England and the people of India, it is
chargeable with more than literary element, its tendency is evil,
it is calculated to destroy all sympathy between the rulers and
the ruled.

A writer in Fraser's Magazine, observes: "The native
of India is defective in that mental and moral energy, that
restless enterprise, which distinguishes the Anglo Saxon genius,
and which gives him such a preponderance over the impassive
and contemplative Oriental, but, on the other hand, the
native of India possesses in a high degree that acute perception
and common sense strengthened by numerical traditions and
maxims, which enable him to judge correctly of both the acts and
motives of his Foreign superior. It should be recollected to their
credit, that the germ of almost every known invention, the
original idea of nearly every useful secret in arts, the knowledge
of the highest branches of the abstract sciences, had been familiar
to the wise men of the East, and were taught in the most perfect
language in the world, the mother of all other languages, the
Sanskrit.

The anonymous or rather unknown author of the Asiatic
Society's M.S. often declares that the Hindus were far too stupid
a people to have invented chess.

------

SALVIO, DOCTOR OF CIVIL LAWS

The inventor as some authors declare, and among them Jacobus
de Cessolus, a Friar and Master of the Dominican Order, is Xerxes,
a philosopher and minister of Ammolius, King of Babylon whose
object was to admonish his monarch of the errors that had been
committed in the government of the realm. This opinion is
followed by many, of whom the author of the Historia del Mondo
is one. St. Gregory of Nazianzen in his third oration, Cassiodorus
the Great in his thirty-first epistle and eighth book, Allesandri
Allesandro in the third book and twenty first chapter of his Dies
Geniales, Torquato Tasso in his Romeo del Gioco, Thomas Actius
in his Tractatus de Ludo Scaccherum, and other legal authors who
have treated of play, say that chess owes its origin to Palamedes
who at the siege of Troy, employed it in order that his soldiers
should not remain inactive, and not being able to practice actual
warfare, they might amuse themselves with mimic conflicts. For
which reason Palamedes played it with Thersites, as Homer tells
us in the second book of the Iliad, so also did the other heroes
of the Grecian armies, as is related by Euripides in his tragedies.

Carrera 1617, published a large volume concerning the origin
of chess, in which he attempts to prove from Herodotus,
Euripides, Sophocles, Philostratus, Homer, Virgil, Aristotle,
Seneca, Plato, Ovid, Horace, Quintilian, and Martial Vida, that
Palamedes invented chess at the siege of Troy.

The Encyclopaedia or Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences,
dedicated to the King in 1727, contains an account of chess, but
it is neither a well informed nor useful article beyond the
statement that Schach is originally Persian, and that Schachmat in
that language, signifies the king is dead, it vouchsafes neither
reasonable nor useful information.

The traditionary names mentioned in the article are Schatrinscha
a Persian philosopher, Palamedes, Diogenes and Pyrrhus, its
authorities, Nicod, Bochart, Scriverius, Fabricius, and Donates,
and it concludes with a sample of the stereotyped character, with
which we are so familiar of the trace of chess origin, being lost
in the remote ages of antiquity. Chess is thus described in it:

"An ingenious game, played or performed with little round
pieces of wood, on a board divided into 64 squares, where art and
address are so indispensably requisite, that chance seems to have
no place, and a person never loses but by his own fault. On
each side are eight noblemen and as many pawns, which are to be
moved and shifted, according to certain rules and laws of the
game."

The same work specifies the various ancient opinions upon the
origin of the game, inclining to those of Nicod and Bochart,
supported by Scriverius, who state that Schach is originally
Persian, and Schachmat in that language signifies the king dead.

Another opinion is that of all the theories enunciated, the most
probable is that of Fabricius, who avers that a celebrated Persian
astronomer, one Schatrinscha, invented the game, and gave it his
own name, which it still bears in that country. It adds, Donatus
observes, that Pyrrhus the most knowing and expert prince of his
age, ranging a battle, made use of the men at chess, to form his
designs, and to shew the secrets thereof to other. The common
opinion was that it was invented by Palamedes at the siege of
Troy, others attributed it to Diomedes, who lived in the time of
Alexander, but the text concludes by remarking, "The truth
appears to be that the game is so very ancient, there is no tracing
its author."

------

CHAUCER

In the Fourteenth and Fifteenth centuries, chess continued to be
extremely popular, Chaucer in one of his minor poems "The
Boke of the Duchesse," introduces himself in a dream as playing
at chess with Fortune, and speaks of false moves, as though
dishonest tricks were sometimes practised in the game.
He tells us:

          At chesse with me she gan to playe,
          With her fals draughts (moves) dyvers,
          She staale on me and toke my fers (Queen),
          And wharne I sawe my fers awaye,
          Allas I couthe no longer playe,
          But seyde, farewell swete yuys,
          And farewell ul that ever ther ys,
          Therwith fortune seyde Chek here,
          And mayte in the myd poynt of the Chek here, (chess board)
          WIth a paune (pawn) errante allas,
          Ful craftier to playe she was,
          Than Athalus that made the game,
          First of the chesse, so was hys name.
            (ROBERT BELL)-CHAUCER, Vol. VI. p. 157.

------

SAUL AND BARBIERE

Barbiere 1640, in his work, "The famous game of chess play,"
dedicated to Lucy, Countess of Bedford, observes:

"For the antiquity of this game, I find upon record, that it was
invented 614 years before the Nativity of Christ, so that it is now
2,252 years since it hath been practiced, and it is thought that
Xerxes (a puissant King) was the deviser thereof, though some be
of opinion that it was made by excellent learned men, as well
appeareth by the wonderful invention of the same."

The title is quaintly expressed.

The famous game of chesse play, "Being a princely exercise
wherein the learner may profit more by reading of this small book,
than by playing of a thousand mates. Now augmented by many
material things formerly wanting and beautified by a threefold
methode of the Chesse men, of the Chesse play, of the Chesse
moves."
                    by J. BARBIERE, P.
To which is added representation of a chesse board and pieces,
with two players thereat, in the act of drawing for the move with
the following lines:

          "If on your man you light,
          The first draught you may play,
          If not tis mine by right,
          At first to leade the way.

Printed in London, for John Jackson, dwelling without Temple
Barre, 1460.

The introduction is in the following words:

                    To
                 The Right
Honourable, Thrice Noble, and Vertuous Lady,
Lucy Countesse of Bedford, one of the Ladies of Her
Majesties Privie Chamber.

This little book, not so much for the subject sake (though much
esteemed), as for bearing in front your Honour's honoured name
having found that good acceptance with the world, as now to come
to be re-imprinted. I have been desired by the printer, my friend,
little to review it, and finding it indeed a prettie thing, but with
some wants specially or a good methode, I have to my best skill
rectified it for him, leaving to the author (now deceased), with
the good respect and commendation due to him for his honest and
generous endeavour, his phrase and stile whole as farre as I might
of this Madame, I now presume to offer your Honour the censure
whose singular judgment, and love in and unto this noble
exercise, is reported to be a chief grace to the same, that so both
his labour and mine herein, may returne to the sacred Shrine of
your Honour's vertues, there still to receive protection against
ignorance and malice.

For which attempt of mine, humbly craving pardon I rest,
          Noble Madame of Your Honour,
   The most submissive observant, J. BARBIERE, P.

------

JOHN LYDGATE

The earliest English references to chess, are in the works of
Chaucer, Gower, Occreve, Price, Denham, Sir Philip Sydney, Sir
Walter Raleigh, &c.

John Lydgate the English Monk of St. Edmund's-Bury, calls
this game, the Game Royal, and he dedicates his book, written in
the manner of a love poem, to the admirers of chess, which he
compares to a love battle, in the following words: M.S.

            JOHN LYDGATE.

          To all Folky's vertuose,
          That gentil bene and amerouse,
          Which love the fair play notable,
          Of the Chesse most delytable,
          Whith all her hoole full entente,
          Where they shall fynde, and son anoone,
          How that I not yere agoone,
          Was of a Fers so Fortunate,
          Into a corner drive and maat.

The old English names in Lydgate, are 1, Kynge, 2, Queen or
Fers, 3, Awfn, or Alfin, 4, Knyght, or Horseman, 5, Roke or
Rochus, 6, Paune.

Although Shakespeare makes no mention of chess in his works,
some of his brother dramatists, and other writers who were
contemporary with him, were fond of referring to it. Skelton, poet
laureate to Henry the Eighth, says:

          For ye play so at the chesse,
          As they suppose and guess,
          That some of you but late,
          Hath played so checkmate,
          With Lords of High estate,
        And again,
          Our dayes be datyed,
          To be check matyed.

Many other poets and writers of that age, drew similes and
figures of speech from the chess board, including Spencer, Cowley,
Denham, Beaumont and Fletcher, quaint Arthur Saul and John
Dryden.

Middleton's Comedy of Chesse, 1624, was acted at the Globe.
It was however a sort of religious controversy, the game being
played by a member of the Church of England, and another of
the Church of Rome, the former in the end gaining the victory.
The play being considered too political, the author was cast into
prison, from which he obtained his release by the following
petition to the King.

          A harmless game, coyned only for delight,
          T'was played betwixt the black house and the white,
          The white house won, yet still the black doth brag,
          They had the power to put me in the bag,
          Use but your hand, tw'll set me free,
          T'is but removing of a man, that's me.

Philidor states in his work that historians have commemorated
the following Sovereigns as chess players: Charlemagne,
Tamerlane, Sebastian, King of Portugal, Philip II King of
Spain, The Emperor Charles V, Catherine of Medecis, Queen of
France, Pope Leo X, Henry IV of France, Queen Elizabeth,
Louis XIII, James I of England (who used to call the game a
philosophical folly,) Louis XIV, William III, Charles XII, and
Frederick of Russia.

Of these, Charlemagne, who reigned 768 to 814 is the earliest
name. Tamerlane or Timur who dominated at the end of the
14th century is the next. The remainder date from the 16th
century.

To this list the renowned and esteemed Philidor might have
made some very material additions. If the first Indian account
of Kings, Kaid and Porus, in Alexander the Great's time, is to
be relied on, the Macedonian conqueror who was in friendly
alliance with Porus in 326 B.C., might have become acquainted
with chess, and Aristotle, some time his tutor, may have played
it as supposed in one of the Arabian manuscripts. Chosroes,
King of Persia, who reigned from 531 to 579, Harun Ar Rashid,
786 to 809, Al Amin, his first son, 809 to 813, the magnificent
Al Mamun, his second son, 813 to 833, Al Mutasem, the most
skilful player among the rulers, 833 to 842, and Al Wathick,
842 to 847, the five successive Caliphs of the powerful Abbasside
dynasty, during the palmy period called the Golden Age of
Arabian Literature, are identified with a very interesting period
of chess practice and progress, and are all recorded to have been
chess players. Al Walid the Sixth, of Umeyyah, 705 to 715,
who through his generals, Tarik Ibn Zeyyad and Musa Ibn
Nosseyr and their armies invaded, conquered and occupied Spain,
is the earliest ruler we read of as a chess player after its first
great friend and patron Chosroes, but it is pretty certain that
Justinian, who died in 565, and was contemporary with Chosroes,
was also an exponent and supporter of the game.

Of the one hundred and sixty monarchs who ruled the East
Africa and Spain from the days of Bekr, Omar, and the Prophet to
the downfall of Moorish ascendancy in the middle of the
Thirteenth century, we read of several who emulated the tastes
of their most famous predecessors, and the Rahmans, Mansur and
An Nassirs vied with Harun and Al Mamum in their patronage
and encouragement of all sorts of learning arts and sciences.
Of the powerful Abbasside dynasty which lasted from 749 to 1258,
there were 37 Caliphs whose chess doings and sayings alone
would, it is said fill a good-sized volume.

NOTE. In addition to the 37 of Abbas and 14 of Umeyyah 664 to 749,
there were 17 of Beni Umeyyah 755 to 1030, there were 14 Fatimites,
893 to 11

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/4902