HISTORY OF CHESS The origin of chess is lost in obscurity. Its invention has been variously ascribed to the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, Scythians, Egyptians, Jews, Persians, Chinese, Hindus, Arabians, Arauca nians, Castilians, Irish and Welsh. Some have endeavoured to fix upon particular individuals as the originators of the game; amongst others upon Japheth, Shem, King Solomon, the wife of Ravan, king of Ceylon, the philosopher Xerxes, the Greek chief tain Palamedes, Hermes, Aristotle, the brothers Lydo and Ty rrhene, Semiramis, Zenobia, Attalus (d. c. 200 B.C.), the man darin Hansing, the Brahman Sissa and Shatrenscha, stated to be a celebrated Persian astronomer. Many of these ascriptions are fabulous, others rest upon little authority, and some of them pro ceed from easily traceable errors, as where the Roman games of Ludus Latrunculorum and Ludus lorum, the Welsh recrea tion of Tawlbwrdd (throw-board) and the ancient Irish pastime of Fithcheall are assumed to be identical with chess ; so far as the Romans and Welsh are concerned, the contrary can be proved, while from what little is known of the Irish game it appears not to have been a sedentary game at all. Mr. N. Bland, M.R.A.S., in his Persian Chess (London, 185o), endeavoured to prove that the Persians were the inventors of chess, and maintained that the game, born in Persia, found a home in India, whence after a series of ages it was brought back to its birthplace. The view, how ever, which has obtained the most credence, is that which at tributes the origin of chess to the Hindus. Dr. Thomas Hyde of Oxford, writing in 1694 (De Ludis Orientalibus), seems to have been the first to propound this theory, but he appears to have been ignorant of the game itself, and the Sanskrit records were not accessible in his time. About 1783-89 Sir William Jones, in an essay published in the znd vol. of Asiatic Researches, argued that Hindustan was the cradle of chess, the game having been known there from time immemorial by the name of chaturanga, that is, the four angas, or members of an army, which are said in the Amarakosha to be elephants, horses, chariots and foot soldiers. As applicable to real armies, the term chaturanga is frequently used by the epic poets of India. Sir William Jones's essay is substantially a translation of the Bhawishya Purana, in which is given a description of a four-handed game of chess played with dice. A pundit named Rhadhakant informed him that this was mentioned in the oldest law books, and also that it was invented by the wife of Ravan, king of Lanka (Ceylon), in the second age of the world in order to amuse that monarch while Rama was besieging his metropolis. This account claims for chess an existence of 4,000 or 5,000 years. Sir William, however, grounds his opinions as to the Hindu origin of chess upon the testi mony of the Persians and not upon the above manuscript, while he considers the game described therein to be more modern than the Persian game. Though sure that the latter came from India and was invented there, he admits that he could not find any account of it in the classical writings of the Brahmans. He lays it down that chess, under the Sanskrit name chaturanga, was ex ported from India into Persia in the 6th century of our era; that by a natural corruption the old Persians changed the name into chatrang, but when their country was soon afterwards taken pos session of by the Arabs, who had neither the initial nor final let ter of the word in their alphabet, they altered it further into shatranj, which name found its way presently into modern Per sian and ultimately into the dialects of India.
Van der Linde, in his exhaustive work, Geschichte and Litter atur des Schachspiels (1874), has much to say of the origin theories, nearly all of which he treats as so many myths. He agrees with those who consider that the Persians received the game from the Hindus. The outcome of his studies appears to be that chess certainly existed in Hindustan in the 8th century, and that probably that country is the land of its birth. He in clines to the idea that the game originated among the Buddhists, whose religion was prevalent in India from the 3rd to the 9th century. According to their ideas, war and the slaying of one's fellow-men, for any purposes whatever, is criminal, and the pun ishment of the warrior in the next world will be much worse than that of the simple murderer; hence chess was invented as a sub stitute for war. Van der Linde is in agreement with Sir William Jones in taking the view that the four-handed game of the orig inal manuscript is a comparatively modern adaptation of the Hindu chess, and he altogether denies that there is any proof that any form of the game has the antiquity attributed to it.
H. J. R. Murray, in his monumental work A History of Chess (see bibliography), comes to the conclusion that chess is a descendant of an Indian game played in the 7th century.
Altogether, therefore, we find the best authorities agreeing that chess existed in India before it is known to have been played any where else. In this supposition they are strengthened by the names of the game and of some of the pieces. Shatranj, as Forbes has pointed out, is a foreign word among the Persians and Arabians, whereas its natural derivation from the term chaturanga is ob vious. Again al- fil, the Arabic name of the bishop, means the elephant, otherwise alephhind, the Indian ox. Our earliest au thority on chess is Masudi, an Arabic author who wrote about A.D. 95o. According to him, shatranj had existed long before his time ; and though he may speak not only for his own generation but for a couple of centuries before, that will give to chess an existence of over i,000 years.
Other Persian and Arabian writers state that shatranj came into Persia from India and there appears to be a consensus of opinion that may be considered to settle the question. Thus we have the game passing from the Hindus to the Persians and thence to the Arabians, after the capture of Persia by the caliphs in the 7th century, and from them, directly or indirectly, to various parts of Europe, at a time which cannot be definitely fixed, but either in or before the loth century. That the source of the European game is Arabic is clear enough, not merely from the words "check" and "mate," which are evidently from Shah mat ("the king is dead"), but also from the names of some of the pieces. There are various chess legends having reference to the 7th and 8th centuries, but these may be neglected as historically useless ; and equally useless appear the many oriental and occidental romances which revolve around those two great central figures, Harun al Rashid and Charlemagne. There is no proof that either of them knew anything of chess or, so far as the latter is concerned, that it had been introduced into Europe in his time. True, there is an account given in Gustavus Selenus, taken from various old chron icles, as to the son of Prince Okar or Otkar of Bavaria having been killed by a blow on the temple, struck by a son of Pippin after a game of chess ; and there is another well-known tradition as to the magnificent chess-board and set of men said to have been sent over as a present by the empress Irene to Charlemagne. But both tales are not less mythical than the romance which re lates how the great Frankish monarch lost his kingdom over a game of chess to Guerin de Montglave ; for van der Linde shows that there was no Bavarian prince of the name of Okar or Otkar at the period alluded to, and as ruthlessly shatters the tradition about Irene's chess-men. With respect to Harun al-Rashid, among the various stories told which connect him with chess there is one that at first sight may seem entitled to some degree of credit. In the annals of the Moslems by Abulfeda (Abu'l Fida) there is given a copy of a letter stated to be "From Nicephorus, emperor of the Romans, to Harun, sovereign of the Arabs," which (using Professor Forbes's translation) , after the usual compliments, runs thus: "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." Harun's reply, written on the back of the Byzantine emperor's letter, was terse and to the point. "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 hear." Harun was as good as his word, for he marched immediately as far as Heraclea, devastating the Ro man territories with fire and sword, and soon compelled Niceph orus to sue for peace. Now the points which give authority to this narrative and the alleged correspondence are that the rela tions which they assume between Irene and Nicephorus on the one hand and the warlike caliph on the other are confirmed by the history of those times, while, also, the straightforward brevity of Harun's reply commends itself as what one might expect from his soldier-like character. Still, the fact must be remembered that Abulfeda lived about five centuries after the time to which he refers. Perhaps we may assume that it is not improbable that the correspondence is genuine ; but that the words rukh and pawn may have been substituted for other terms of comparison orig inally used.
As to how chess was introduced into western and central Eu rope nothing is really known. The Spaniards very likely received it from their Moslem conquerors, the Italians not improbably from the Byzantines, and in either case it would pass northwards to France, going on thence to Scandinavia and England. Some say that chess was introduced into Europe at the time of the Crusades, the theory being that the Christian warriors learned to play it at Constantinople. This is negatived by a curious epistle of St. Peter Damian, cardinal bishop of Ostia, to Pope Alexander II. written about A.D. 1061, which, assuming its authenticity, shows that chess was known in Italy before the date of the first crusade. The cardinal, as it seems, had imposed a penance upon a bishop whom he had found diverting himself at chess; and in his letter to the pope he repeats the language he had held to the erring prelate, viz., "Was it right, I say, and consistent with thy duty, to sport away thy evenings amidst the vanity of chess, and defile the hand which offers up the body of the Lord, and the tongue that mediates between God and man, with the pollution of a sacrilegious game?" Among those who took an unfavour able view of the game may be mentioned John Huss, who, when in prison, deplored his having played at chess, whereby he had lost time and run the risk of being subject to violent passions. Among authentic records of the game may be quoted the Alexiad of the princess Anna Comnena, in which she relates how her father, the emperor Alexius, used to divert his mind from the cares of State by playing at chess with his relatives. This emperor died in I118.
Concerning chess in England there is the usual confusion be tween legend and truth. Snorre Sturleson relates that as Canute was playing at chess with Earl Ulf, a quarrel arose, which re sulted in the upsetting of the board by the latter, with the further consequence of his being murdered in church a few days after wards by Canute's orders. Carlyle, in The Early Kings of Nor way, repeats this tale, but van der Linde treats it as a myth. The Ramsey Chronicle relates how Bishop Utheric, coming to Canute at night upon urgent business, found the monarch and his cour tiers amusing themselves at dice and chess. There is nothing in trinsically improbable in this last narrative ; but Canute died about 1035, and the date, therefore, is suspiciously early. Moreover, allowance must be made for the ease with which chroniclers described other games as chess.
As regards the individual pieces, the king seems to have had the same move as at present ; but it is said he could formerly be cap tured. His "castling" privilege is a European invention; but he formerly leaped two and even three squares, and also to his Kt2. Castling dates no farther back than the first half of the i 6th century. The queen has suffered curious changes in name, sex and power. In shatranj the piece was called fart or firz (also farzan, farzin and farzi), signifying a "counsellor," "minister" or "general." This was latinized into farzia or fercia. The French slightly altered the latter form into fierce, fierce, and, as some say, vierge, which, if true, might explain its becoming a female. Another and much more probable account has it that whereas formerly a pawn on reaching an eighth square became a farzin, and not any other piece, which promotion was of the same kind as at draughts (in French, dames), so she became a dame or queen as in the latter game, and thence damn, donna, etc. There are old Latin manuscripts in which the terms ferzia and regina are used indifferently. The queen formerly moved only one square diagonally and was consequently the weakest piece on the board. The immense power she now possesses seems to have been conferred upon her so late as about the middle of the 15th century. It will be noticed that under the old system the queens could never meet each other, for they operated on diagonals of different colours. The bishop's scope of action was also very limited formerly ; he could only move two squares diagonally, and had no power over the intermediate square, which he could leap over whether it was occupied or not. This limitation of their powers prevailed in Europe until the 15th century. This piece, according to Forbes, was called among the Persians pil, an ele phant, but the Arabs, not having the letter p in their alphabet, wrote it fil, or with their definite article al-fil, whence alphilus, alfinus, alifiere, the latter being the word used by the Italians; while the French perhaps get their fol and fou from the same source. The pawns formerly could move only one square at start ing; their powers in this respect were increased about the early part of the i 6th century. It was customary for them on arriving at an eighth square to be exchanged only for a farzin (queen), and not any other piece; the rooks (so called from the Indian rukh and Persian rokh, meaning "a soldier") and the knights appear to have always had the same powers as at present. As to the chess boards, they were formerly uncoloured, and it is not until the 13th century that we hear of chequered boards being used in Europe.
The English school of chess began about the beginning of the 19th century, and Sarratt was its first leader. He flourished until 182o, and was followed by his great pupil, W. Lewis, who will be remembered for his writings. His literary career belongs to the period from 1817 to 1848 and he died in 187o. A. Macdonnell (1798-1835) has been already mentioned. To the same period belong also Captain Evans, the inventor of the celebrated "Evans Gambit" (1824), who died at an advanced age in 1872; George Perigal (d. 1854) who played in the correspondence matches against Edinburgh and Paris; George Walker (1803-1879), chess editor of Bell's Life from 1835 to 1873; and John Cochrane (1798 1878) who met every strong player from Deschapelles down. In the same period Germany possessed but one good player, J. Mend heim of Berlin. The fifth decade of the 19th century is marked by the fact that the leadership passed from the French school to the English. After the death of la Bourdonnais, Fournie de Saint-Amant became the leading player in France ; he visited England in the early part of 1843, and successfully met the best English players, including Howard Staunton (q.v.) ; but the lat ter soon took his revenge, for in Nov. and Dec. 1843 a great match between Staunton and Saint-Amant took place in Paris, the English champion winning by 11 games to six with four draws. During the succeeding eight years Staunton maintained his rep utation by defeating Popert, Horwitz and Harrwitz. Staunton was defeated by Anderssen at the London tournament in 1851, and this concluded his match-playing career.
In the ten years 183o-4o a new school arose in Berlin, the seven leaders of which have been called "The Pleiades." These were Bledow (1795-1846), Bilguer (1815-184o), Hanstein (1810 1850), Mayet (1810-1868), Schorn (1802-185o), B. Horwitz (1809-1885) and von Heydebrand and der Lasa, once German ambassador at Copenhagen. As belonging to the same period must be mentioned the three Hungarian players, Grimm, Szen and J. Lowenthal.
Among the great masters since the middle of the 19th century Paul Morphy (1837-1884), an American, has seldom been sur passed as a chess player. His career was short but brilliant. Born in New Orleans in 1837, he was taught chess by his father when only ten years of age, and in two years' time became a strong player. When not quite 13 he played three games with Lowenthal and won two of them, the other being drawn. He was 20 years of age when he competed in the New York congress of where he won the first prize. In 1858 he visited England, and there defeated Boden, Medley, Mongredien, Owen, Bird and others. He also beat Lowenthal by nine games to three and two draws. In the same year he played a match at Paris with Harr witz, winning by five to two and one drawn ; and later on he ob tained a victory over Anderssen. On two or three occasions he played blindfold against eight strong players simultaneously, each time with great success. He returned to America in 18S9 and con tinued to play, but with decreasing interest in the game, until 1866. He died in 1884.
Wilhelm Steinitz (1836-1 qoo) took the sixth prize at the London congress of 1862. He defeated Blackburne in a match by seven to one and two draws. In 1866 he beat Anderssen in a match by eight games to six. In 1868 he carried off the first prize in the British Chess Association handicap, and in 1872 in the Lon don grand tourney, also defeating Zukertort in a match by seven games to one and four draws. In 1873 he carried off the first prize at the Vienna congress; and in 1876 he defeated Black burne, winning seven games right off. In 1872-74, in conjunction with W. N. Potter, he conducted and won a telegraphic cor respondence match for London against Vienna. In Philidor's age it was considered almost incredible that he should be able to play three simultaneous games without seeing board or men, but Paul sen, Blackburne and Zukertort often played ten or 12 such games, while as many as 28 and 29 were so played by Alekhin and Red, respectively, in 1925.
In 1876 England was in the van of the world's chess army. English-born players then were Boden, Burn, Macdonnell, Bird, Blackburne and Potter; while among naturalized English players were Lowenthal, Steinitz, Zukertort, who died in 1888, and Hor witz. This illustrious contingent was reinforced in 1878 by Mason, an Irish-American, who came over for the Paris tournament ; by Gunsberg, a Hungarian; and later by Teichmann, who also made England his home. English chess flourished under the leadership of these masters, the chief prizes in tournaments being consis tently carried off by the English representatives.
To gauge the progress made by the game since between and the end of the century it will suffice to give the following sta tistics. In London Simpson's Divan was formerly the chief resort of chess players ; the St. George's Chess club was the principal chess club in the West End, and the City of London Chess club was the principal chess club in the east. Formerly only the British Chess Association existed; after its dissolution the now defunct Counties' Chess Association took its place, and this was superseded by the re-establishment by Mr. Hoffer of the British Chess Association, which again fell into abeyance after having organized three international tournaments—London, 1886; Brad ford, 1888; and Manchester, 189o—and four national tourna ments. There were various reasons why the British Chess Asso ciation ceased to exercise its functions, one being that minor as sociations did not feel inclined to merge their identity in a central association. The London League was established, besides the Northern Counties' Chess Union, the Southern Counties' Chess Union, the Midland Counties' Union, and associations in most of the counties. All these associations are supported by the affil iated chess clubs of the respective counties. Scotland (which has its own association), Wales and Ireland have also numerous clubs. All are affiliated to the British Chess Federation. (See below.)