Comments by jean-louiscazaux

I strongly disagree with the anonymous reader who rated this page:
'poor'.
Curiously, he is making History going the wrong way, against the time
direction. Murray wrote in 1913 and his book is an impressive work, even
today. If few points are now outdated, he can not be outdated neither by
Forbes writing in 1860 nor Cox writing in 1801. The Cox-Forbes theory has
never been confirmed and nodody gives credit to it in 2005 ! It is against
all evidence, even though several mis-informed authors do continue to copy
each other and repeat the mistake saying this game was the ancestor of
Chess. But you can believe what you want, maybe Martians or Venusians did
invent 4Handed Chaturanga and brought it to India, maybe Cullen was a
Venusian too as I do not know any Cullen. I know a Stewart Culin, who was
a great ethnologist in the begining of the XX c., who wrote a lot about
games, but Chess was not his speciality at all. 
This page is Good.
Jean-Louis Cazaux
http://history.chess.free.fr/chaturanga.htm

What a sad news ! Having myself published CV books in French, I want to say
here how much I owe to his monumental work and all his books. All my
warmest sympathy goes to his family.
Jean-Louis Cazaux

May we have more precise information about History:
1) 'Chess arrived in Burma in the 8th century via the kingdoms of Arakan
and Mon which had the closest links with the motherland of chess,
India.'
Is there any elements, sources, to prove that fact ?
2) 'In the 9th century specific rules - different from Chaturanga[1]-
were established and, as Pali texts confirm, Burmese chess became quite
fashionable as a court game during the Pagan period (1044-1287)'
What are those texts ? Any title, name of author, estimated writing date
?
3) 'In the 17th century, a Dutch traveler reported about a unique variety
of chess widely played in Burma.' 
Who was this man? Which year that happened?

If all this information is not available, what was the source used to
write these very interesting lines about Sittuyin History ?
Thanks very much by advance.

Hans, you made two mistakes in drawing those diagrams. According to Murray
(your source I guess, p 340), we should have:
Diagram 2: Black K on b16 (not c16)
Diagram 3: White and Black K on column b (not c)
I know this page is not new, but I just noticed that.
Best regards, Jean-Louis

The regretted Gollon has made me discover CV long time ago, so I owe his
soul a lot of respect. Unfortunately, I discovered his source, Murray,
years later and I hate to say that Gollon made a lot of mistakes, and me
too on my first book (Guide des échecs exotiques et insolites) because I
followed Gollon. Apologies to my French readers.
1) These 2 variants are nowhere called 'Kamil'.
2) Setup 2 is done by al-Masudi who said that it was invented by al-Khalil
ibn Ahmad (718-71). The Camels are at the sides of the board but their move
was not recorded. So our rule here is a pure speculation.
3) Setup 1 is found in Firdawsi's Shâhnâma. Gollon made a mistake: the
Camels are between Faras (Knights) and Fils (Elephants), check Murray,
p341.
The move that Murray gives p341 is cleary a speculation too as pointed out
by Sanvito and Panaino. Firdawsi's text is given on Murray p214. There we
learn that the Shutur (Persian for Camel) 'ran through 3 squares',
which, yes, means that they moved 2 square (ancient were counting the
starting square in), probably jumping (same thing is said of the
Elephant), but nowhere it is said that it was horizontally or vertically.
I agree that this speculation is believable, but it is good to know that
it remains a speculation.

If you have more elements in contradiction, please post them.

As I posted for the other so-called 'Kamil', Gollon made a lot of
regretful mistakes.
This variant here was not called Kamil either. It was called Shatranj
at-tâmma, meaning complete chess.
It was not inspired by the other one, there no proof of that, it is more
likely an independant invention. It is first recorded in a manuscript from
the 12th c., and could be, as the rest of the manuscript, as old as the 9th
c.
But the most important mistake is the Pawns which should be arranged on
the 3rd line ! (Murray, p341).

Dear all friends
I'm really happy that my mere icons draw so many comments. You are very
nice.
Let me say that I also agree with the critics from James. 
I'm not satisfied myself with all the icons and for my own use, I've
been re-drawing many of them. I plan to use them in a project I've
on-going, but one day I'll release them publically.
Also, you might now that I have acclaimed David Howe's Alfaerie design
(look my message on 2005-03-29) as nicer than mine.
An important parameter to take into account is the final size of the icon.
Mine are 32x32 where David's are 50x50. A larger size opens much more
possibility such as softening or more details. 
However, I can not come back easily on my 32x32 because all my zillions
are made accordingly as well as many graphics I use for my writtings. I
find more reasonable now to stick with that, even though it is less
practical. So, when you judge a set you have to think to this very
important, fundamental, constraint.
Saying this, I've just looked at James' designs. Very nice indeed, I
understand better what he meant. Beautifully realistic, it is like cartoon
artwork. I love them, but it is not the kind of pieces I wanted for my
books: I wanted something very sober and very simple. Alfaerie is more in
the category I am looking for.

As pointed out on the Shako page, there is a mistake in this preset.
A black Bishop is exchanged with a black Knight. Can anyone correct this
?

It is very important that Shako contains the exact orthodox arrangement in
its internal structure.
Thanks

I put 'poor' only because this old page would deserve a serious remake. Murray, as usual, as given many details not reported here. Such as:
* the diagram is wrong, king's aile of one player should face firzan's aisle of the other
* the game is only known from Muslim sources and is not attested in the Byzantium Empire. Its name of Byzantine round was given by Arabic authors who liked to say that the 'square' Shatranj was coming from East, India, and the round Shatranj was coming from West, Constantinople.
At that time Baghdad was the cultural center of the World!
This chess variant has been first mentioned by the great historian al-Mas'udî (947) and then by al-Âmulî (dead 1352). Which makes, at least, 400 years of longevity. Not so bad.

I regret the chosen options to represent the pieces:
The Gazelle (that's the original name) moves like what we call a Camel. Why chosing a Giraffe to represent it?
The Great Ferz moves like the Giraffe in Tamerlane Chess. Why chosing a Chancellor, represented by Rook+Knight, to represent it?
These are unfortunate choices, adding confusion. I'd like to see them changed  one day.

By the way, this is the only variation which can be considered as Turkish. It appeared in 1805-06 in a Turkish Encyclopedia authored by Muhammad Hafid.
All other variants are not Turkish but Indians. See Murray for details.
(Gollon copied Murray but did a big mistake here. Pritchard pointed Gollon's mistake as well.). Too bad that those mistakes are continued here.

Poor just for the name because 'Cavalier' just means Knight in French.
Using foreign language (from English) words should be avoided I think.
It shows either ignorance or, worst, contempt for players whose English is not their mother tongue and can get confused.

(Well, it is true that Alfil is the Bishop in Spanish... This should remain an exception)

Answers to previous comments:
1)'The Paratrooper is unclear: can it jump over pieces with its flying move?'
'Fly' is 'Fly'. The Paratrooper flies overs everything, so including over pieces. Otherwise, it wouldn't fly, it would slide.
2)'Where does the Trooper promote: anywhere the opponent's pieces start, or just the grey box?' 
The Grey box. That's the reason the box is greyed. 
However, the difference of interpretation wouldn't change the game a lot
3)'Why can't it shoot, like the Commando or Paratrooper? '
Because I decided so! I'm the inventor, yes or no? :=)
Beyond this, it is better to have a low range common piece. Imagine someone asking why the Pawn in orthochess is not sliding like the Rook, the Bishop or the Queen. Same here.
4)'Not being able to destroy an HQ with a Bomb doesn't make sense, other than to make it a longer game'
'Sense' is not the same for all on this planet. In all CV I know with 'Bombs', the Bomb never take the Royal piece. I think it is better, so the bomb is used tactically to wound the opposite camp. If the Bomb would seize the HQ, it would mean that bringing a Flag on the red corner is a mate. Not at all what I designed. 
A last word about sense: in a war, I'm find a lot of sense if HQ manage to be protected from any kind of bomb.

Yes, pat => stalemate. Sorry, this is French, but it comes from Italian, 'patta', with the meaning of having an agreement. I thought it was English too, sorry again.

How to procure the nice pieces shown on Jose Carillo's photograph on this comment page?
Thanks.

There is a double confusion here. The Game of 3 Friends, Sanyou Qi, is not the one shown here, it is the one shown on The Game of 3 Kingdoms page.
Yu Ren Don's comments applies for Sanyou Qi, so it does not apply to this diagram.
A good source is Andrew LO, « An Introduction to Board Games in Late Imperial China », in Ancient Board Games in Perspective, edited by Irving FINKEL, British Museum Press, 2007.
Looking at Yu Ren Don's Zillions file, it seems to me that he took some liberty on some moves. I understood from Lo that:
* the Flags go 2 steps (never 1) forward (never otherwise) until they go out of their territory where they move as Chariots.
* the Fires moves 1 step diagonally forward and cannot retreat. I was not aware of any promotion after outing their territory.

There is a big mistake, coming from Stephen Leary's Xiangqi FAQ which was confused on that point: this game is not The Game of Three Kingdoms.
It is the Game of Three Friends, Sanyou Qi.

I wonder why the name of the game in this page is not corrected as stated by many comments. It can be verified. Correct name is Doushouqi.
Shou dou qi is incorrect!

Many many thanks for that image, and all your comments.
I've sent a private mail to you to pursue this conversation further.
Thanks too to chessvariants.org for permitting such encounters!