[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Single Comment Shatranj Kamil I. Large shatranj variant with new piece: camel. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on Sun, May 14, 2006 07:38 AM UTC:Poor ★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.