Originally posted by RECUVICI bow😵
Certainly with chess as it was played in Portugal in the late 13 th century, there was no King,only a prince two court fools and a princess whos' father had once been a knight. The fools were allowed to leap on top of the princess or simply move round her a couple of squares at a time,but the precise details have now been lost with the passage of time. At t ...[text shortened]... Many countries played their own local and national variations of chess at the same time.-----😀
Originally posted by RECUVICOn the other hand I am free to inform you that according with hard data mentioned by Viasa, a reknown Indian brahmin who is somehow related with some minor Indian tales regarding some historical incidents of his country, the Rook ceased to be reffered as "Arjuna's Chariot" just after the incident of the known battle during the period at which Yudistira and his brothers were incognito at King Virata's palace. Of course you are aware of the fact that the chariots were built in Mesopotamia by the Mesopotamians as early as 3.000 BC and in China during the 2nd millennium BC, and that they were used for warfare purposes too by the Indians.
Certainly with chess as it was played in Portugal in the late 13 th century, there was no King,only a prince two court fools and a princess whos' father had once been a knight. The fools were allowed to leap on top of the princess or simply move round her a couple of squares at a time,but the precise details have now been lost with the passage of time. At t ...[text shortened]... Many countries played their own local and national variations of chess at the same time.-----😀
Well, Arjuna's chariot caused during that fight so many casualties to the opponent army, who was lead by Duriodana, that the frightened to death Arjuna's enemies who hardly survived they claimed that "...it was resembling to a deadly and horrific rolling tower so high that the man could not see its full hight".
Furthermore it is noted that by that time Arjuna's wife, the beautiful and fearless Draupandi, was pushing Arjuna to do her thing anytime, and Arjuna was obeying to her because he wanted to please her in full (full ref. "Coitus and Warfare in ancient India" by Alice Morgan, John James et al, University of Oxford Pres, 1998, 3rd edition).
This is the reason why, at least as it is claimed by famous Indian brahmins and Portugese chess scholars alike according to James, the Rook (aka "Arjuna's Chariot" or simply "Chariot", as the Arabs used to call this piece until at least the 11th century) started to serve the purposes of the development of the Queen too through castling.
Obviously the Portuguese of the 13th century were aware of this rule of Indian origine (mind you, Anand -the Chess World Champion- is Indian too), and somehow they used to develop the Queen via queen castling (Q-Q or Q-Q-Q). So now my intention is to find out why Cesola ignores this fact... To be frank, it seems to me that Cesola wanted just to bring more people to the Churche, but for the time being this is solely an hypothesis of mine. I have to do some research, sure thing, in order to bring up the scientific finds and evidence that they will enable me to prove that my hypothesis regarding Cesola's intentions is accurate.
Namaste.
PS: Should you need further pieces of information, no matter if they are small or big, kindly please feel free to PM me.
It seems to me that your research into this matter is wholely correct detailed and thruthful in the extreme,however I would still like to know why the Indian Queen was not given all the movement abilities of the Portugese King when mounted on the English knight some time in the 13 th century. Did it have something to do with the Tigers and Elephants being retained as pieces in Persia until the 16 th century? Nobody seems capable of providing the answer to this question so far. It is possible that the answers to such questions are simply no longer available through lack of accurate information?😳
Originally posted by RECUVICNeedless to point, my friend, that in my opinion too this is a matter of great importance. Unfortunately during this weekend it will be impossible for me to undertake a proper research, for I have to study about specific issues regarding the reknown ancient chessmen that were recently found (June 2003) nearby the Sinai mountain; therefore, should you need pieces of info regarding this matter you should better contact Greenpawn, since he is aware of many vital aspects on this specific topic.
It seems to me that your research into this matter is wholely correct detailed and thruthful in the extreme,however I would still like to know why the Indian Queen was not given all the movement abilities of the Portugese King when mounted on the English knight some time in the 13 th century. Did it have something to do with the Tigers and Elephants being re ...[text shortened]... answers to such questions are simply no longer available through lack of accurate information?😳
I assure you though that hopefully I will bring up more pieces of information, small and/ or big alike, regarding this matter about February 17th.
However I dare to state that the answers are probably related to the infrastructure of the 16th century's Damiano's and Stama's studies regarding the known postions, as mentioned at the flawless and unfortunaly quite rare monograph "Attack and Defence in Ancient Chess Tactics" by Ernst Rosicrucian, Tallin 1871.
