Originally posted by VarenkaAll chess used to have the limited pawn move - hence the origin of the en passant rule. Not just an early Indian variant.
In both the French and Caro-Kann, Black will advance a pawn two squares on move 2, and the initial e6/c6 is done to directly support a central strike with d5.
"Indian" defences can have many moves before a pawn is advanced two squares. Often the pawns are moved one square to primarily allow the bishops to develop.
So I don't follow your reasoning. Do you agree that an earlier Indian variant of chess had the limited pawn move?
There are Indian defences where a pawn is moved 2 squares on the 2nd move - the Benoni, for example.
Originally posted by RedmikeIndian and China had forms of chess, prior to Europe. But it was Europe that invoked changes to the game, such as the pawn moving 2 square; en passant; etc. So, to compare the "modern" version with the older version, it makes sense to refer to the "Indian" version as the old one.
All chess used to have the limited pawn move - hence the origin of the en passant rule. Not just an early Indian variant.
There are Indian defences where a pawn is moved 2 squares on the 2nd move - the Benoni, for example.
Why do you class the Benoni as an "Indian" defence?
2 edits
Originally posted by TommyCI'd like to see a cite on this explanation. I don't have any info on the term's derivation, but this doesn't have the ring of truth to me. I can't see why they'd choose that particular epithet for strange-looking or hypermodern openings-- some connection to the game's history in India seems more plausible.
I was told that the Indian Defences were named as Indians in the 1920s by the classically-minded players, who thought the defences looked funny - as did Indians.
Originally posted by jgvaccaroMe too! But unfortunately I was told this by a player I know from Portsmouth, where I'm from originally. . . It's very hard to find convincing sources on the history of chess names. I believe the term Indian first popped up in the 1920s though. Tartakower was around then and I did read somewhere or other that he is responsible for many of the current names of chess openings - due to his charisma, creativity and talent as a writer, I believe. I bet Edward Winter knows. Maybe we should ask him.
I'd like to see a cite on this explanation. I don't have any info on the term's derivation, but this doesn't have the ring of truth to me. I can't see why they'd choose that particular epithet for strange-looking or hypermodern opening-- some connection to the game's history in India seems more plausible.
1 edit
Originally posted by TommyCGood idea! Check out the entry for "Indian" under this page:
I bet Edward Winter knows. Maybe we should ask him.
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/earliest.html
Looks like the term pops up in the 1880s, and the earliest source Winter has says this:
‘Indian Defence.’ Chess Player’s Chronicle, 22 October 1884, page 172. Note after 1 e4 d6 2 d4 g6: ‘An example of the rare Indian Defence, so called on account of its introduction by the celebrated Indian Chess Player, the Brahmin Moheschunder Bonnerjee, in his games against Cochrane.’
This derivation seems reasonable to me-- note that it's analogous to the origins of other opening names (e.g. the Scotch game).
3 edits
Originally posted by jgvaccaroGreat find! Something else from Edward's site, not quite as specific as that but still interesting:
Good idea! Check out the entry for "Indian" under this page:
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/earliest.html
Looks like the term pops up in the 1880s, and the earliest source Winter has says this:
‘Indian Defence.’ Chess Player’s Chronicle, 22 October 1884, page 172. Note after 1 e4 d6 2 d4 g6: ‘An example of the ...[text shortened]... an Chess Player, the Brahmin Moheschunder Bonnerjee, in his games against Cochrane.’
"Gerrit Visser (Voorburg, The Netherlands) asks who invented the term 'Nimzo-Indian Defence'. Here we offer some jottings upon which readers are invited to improve.
"On pages 3-5 of the January 1925 Wiener Schachzeitung and pages 17-18 of the following issue (also January) Nimzowitsch annotated two games. Although they began 1 d4 e6 2 c4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Bb4 and 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 b6 respectively, both openings were simply identified as 'Indisch'. By the end of the decade the former opening was being given Nimzowitsch's name. For instance, on pages 579-581 of L'Echiquier, January 1930 Tartakower contributed an analytical article entitled 'Une variante à la mode' which referred to 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 as 'La "Variante de Nimzowitch"'. On page 132 of the May 1931 Wiener Schachzeitung an Alekhine consultation game was given under the heading 'Nimzoindisch'. In a footnote to the word Hans Kmoch wrote: 'Diese Bezeichnung scheint mir für die folgende Variante sehr empfehlenswert.'"
From: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter09.html .
Originally posted by VarenkaI recollect reading that in Indian chess, there was no castling, but that the King was allowed move like a Knight, just once.
Indian and China had forms of chess, prior to Europe. But it was Europe that invoked changes to the game, such as the pawn moving 2 square; en passant; etc. So, to compare the "modern" version with the older version, it makes sense to refer to the "Indian" version as the old one.
Why do you class the Benoni as an "Indian" defence?
So, playing g6 and then ke8-g7 was a common setup in Indian chess too.
I agree that it makes sense to refer to 'Indian' chess as the older, but I'm still not convinced this is the origin of the term in relation to Indian Defences.
The Benoni is just short for the Benoni-Indian.
1 edit
Originally posted by VarenkaA quick google finds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_defences.
I think there may be an "Indian" sub-variation within the Benoni, but I've never seen any references that regard the whole Benoni system as being the "Benoni-Indian". Any references?!
I've always considered the Benoni an Indian Defence, so I'm surprised to see this doubt.
Originally posted by RedmikeSo what is it about the Benoni that caused you to always regard it as an Indian Defence? Do you regard the Benko or Budapest Gambit as Indian Defences?
A quick google finds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_defences.
I've always considered the Benoni an Indian Defence, so I'm surprised to see this doubt.
Originally posted by VarenkaI jad a think about this, and it might be partly due to Pachman's book 'Indian Defences', which includes the Benoni and the Budapest.
So what is it about the Benoni that caused you to always regard it as an Indian Defence? Do you regard the Benko or Budapest Gambit as Indian Defences?
So, yes, i consider the benko, which is just a variation of the Benoni, and the Budapest, as Indian Defences.