You are on the backup site for Any posts, moves, or other changes you make here will not be permanent, because the pages and database from the main site will be backed up here every midnight EST. Additionally, things may not be working right, because this site is also a testbed for newer system software. So, if you are not here to test, develop, or merely read this site, you may want to change .org to .com in the navigation bar and go to the main site.

The Chess Variant Pages

[ 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 ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Earlier Reverse Order LaterLatest
Chaturanga. The first known variant of chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anonymous wrote on 2002-04-22 UTCExcellent ★★★★★

Joe wrote on 2002-04-30 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
it helped me with all my chess needs thanks!

Anonymous wrote on 2002-05-07 UTCGood ★★★★
give more history?

Anonymous wrote on 2002-03-20 UTCGood ★★★★

Anonymous wrote on 2002-03-11 UTCGood ★★★★
the page gives good information but when you show the games you sould be aloud to play a mini version of the game and see if it is intresting because from what i read i thought these games look fun and i would like to play a number of them before i download it. thanks for you time.

Anonymous wrote on 2002-02-12 UTCPoor ★
this is completely in error, chataranga is a four player game pre-dating crist, you dopes.

Anonymous wrote on 2001-08-23 UTCGood ★★★★

Anonymous wrote on 2001-03-13 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Great! I have to try Chaturanga with my friends. Very interesting!

Anonymous wrote on 2000-12-06 UTCGood ★★★★
At least pople are agreeing that India had some form of chess from the earliest of times Thanx for the info.

Anonymous wrote on 2000-11-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Holly crap I've never been to a site with so much info on chess....i mean wow this is a really good site and im a huge chess fan

Anonymous wrote on 2000-09-26 UTCGood ★★★★
This site is o.k. but you should let people play chess on it!

gnohmon wrote on 2002-05-11 UTC
If a reader says 'give me more history', then there should be a prominent
paragraph with links to: history, shatranj, xiang qi, shogi.

Skip if you've heard this story. When I was 14 years old or so, I used to
go to the library every week to read some more of HJR Murray's thousand
page history of chess, week after week until I finished. And when I
finished, I knew that Chess was not just this one little game with one
specific set of rules that I strived to master (and since I'm a national
master and an FM, I guess you can say that I did so), no, Chess was not
just one game with one set of rules, but rather Chess was a big thing, with
billions and billious of games with a wide range of rules.

Therefore, according to my own experience, one of the best ways to promote
chess variants is to teach the history of chess.

Chess variant people often like to make new rules more than they like to
play the games; and often also they are less skillful at playing the games
than they are at making the rules. Rarely one finds the Chess Variant
inventor who is superhuman at chess but totally naive at variants (the two
prime examples are Fischer and Capablanca).

During my lifetime, the field of chess variants has advanced to an
incredible degree. To a large extent I have been able to lead because the
average of my chess skill and my variant skill is far higher than anybody
else -- and I am not ashamed to claim that my average of the two skills is
higher than the divine Parton or the superhuman Fischer -- and if you
spread the word about chess history can you imagine what will happen in the

Imagine an era when chessmasters routinely know about Shatranj and Shogi
and Xiang Qi and the Colorbound Clobberers! In such a utopia, the very best
ideas that you or I have had will be seen as mere fumblings in the dark by
ignorant savages -- and the perception will be correct.

Have you met any Grandmasters? Have you played? Do you truly understand how
both their knowledge and their wisdom of Chess is far beyond what a mere
mortal can hope to achieve? I have; as a mere master, I have what's needed
to appreciate the greatness of grandmasters.

Imagine an era when Grandmasters of Chess are also routinely Grandmasters
of Chess Variants. ((Emanuel Lasker imagined it although he never proposed
any variants.)) ... and the one thing you can do to facilitate this vision
is to make it easier for people to learn about the history of Chess!

olivia wrote on 2002-06-04 UTCPoor ★
i dont really like this site sorry!

Anonymous wrote on 2002-06-06 UTCExcellent ★★★★★

Anonymous wrote on 2002-06-06 UTCExcellent ★★★★★

JULZINE wrote on 2002-06-10 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
I think this is a great site. :-) I was interested at the remarkably direct connection across disparate cultures; and remember that chess is a game of intellect and skill...a really deep thought, eh?

Anonymous wrote on 2002-06-12 UTCGood ★★★★
No history.Bad for school kids.doesn't give you inside info.The info on SHogi(or whatever it is is good.Not Bad all up!

Roberto wrote on 2002-06-14 UTCGood ★★★★
Provided the info I wanted, and more. Gracias.

Joshua Roy wrote on 2002-06-14 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
I liked this page because it gave me good imformation on my school project and it was interesting too.

Sam wrote on 2002-06-27 UTCPoor ★
This page doesn't tell you one thing that would help you on any project. And also I have a very old encyclopeida which told me that when ever a pawn got to the end of the board it had to be promoted into a queen, which could only move one spot diagonally. Also you do not tell me how this connects to chiness chess in anyway. For example, how did the chiness come up with a cannon piece if it was based off of this game. Also many historyians have said that all types of chess were based off of chiness chess. In other words, you need more information and resource that would prove what you have just put down on your website.

David Howe wrote on 2002-07-27 UTC
I have added more historical and background information in the form of a sidebar.

Steve Nichols wrote on 2002-08-04 UTCPoor ★
Murray's notion that 2-sided Chatrang predates the 4-sided Chaturanga is totally wrong. Where is some evidence? What about previous chess historian Prof Duncan Forbes proof for the priority of the 4-sided game? No mention of Stuart Cullen either. An appalling summary of Chaturanga that should be removed from the web!

Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-08-05 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Honestly! See Jean-Louis Cazaux's page on the relative ages of 2-handed and 4-handed Chaturanga. It can be found at: <ul> <li><a href=''></a> </ul> Neither Forbes nor Cullen are considered exactly up-to-date sources, you know.

Anonymous wrote on 2002-08-07 UTC
At first glance, I assumed that the 'rating' was of the
person, not of the site.

Glenn Overby II wrote on 2002-08-07 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Well, I had to go view the complainant's cited page, to give him his due,
and it might appear that he, or at least someone, has a modest commercial
interest in this issue.

I might be more inclined to give his views some thought...especially since
I once held them...but for his utter lack of politeness.

The preponderance of the evidence in 2002 argues for the 2-handed game
being first, possibly by centuries, but the question is surely not

25 comments displayed

Earlier Reverse Order LaterLatest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.