I've been trying to teach my nephew to play the game of chess. He's 10 years old. The kid picks up the game quite quickly. After a few months, he has a good grasp of the opening ideas etc. If he keeps this up, he'd probably need someone stronger to continue teaching him soon!
Then just a couple of days ago, I got to talk about some of the openings that I myself am not so good at. On of them was the King's Indian. But of all the questions that he asked me was, how did that term 'indian' come about? And I find that I don't know the answer to this question! I said to him that my guess is due to the formation of the triangular pawn structure, but I will find out if this is indeed the reason for the name. And so I started to check out books for possible answers. I ransacked my store room for old books on King's Indian. None of them actually mention how the name 'Indian' came about.
Can anybody here tell me the answer please?.... Thanks.
- Joined
- 08 Mar 06
- Moves
- 9115
Originally posted by ckoh1965R Fine says in The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings (1989) in the section on the indian defences (page 123):
I've been trying to teach my nephew to play the game of chess. He's 10 years old. The kid picks up the game quite quickly. After a few months, he has a good grasp of the opening ideas etc. If he keeps this up, he'd probably need someone stronger to continue teaching him soon!
Then just a couple of days ago, I got to talk about some of the openings that ...[text shortened]... name 'Indian' came about.
Can anybody here tell me the answer please?.... Thanks.
"The name is derived from the fact that the game played in India does not have the initial double pawn move, so that the slower type of development which is so characteristic of this group is seen there much more often."
Originally posted by joenIs that also the explanation for the Queen's Indian?
R Fine says in The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings (1989) in the section on the indian defences (page 123):
"The name is derived from the fact that the game played in India does not have the initial double pawn move, so that the slower type of development which is so characteristic of this group is seen there much more often."
Originally posted by trekkieOk. But I find it a bit odd. I think that explanation is too general. Just because there's no double pawn move would qualify as the Indian opening? What does that mean actually? If, say, 1. e4 c5 (sicilian), surely that is not the King's Indian? Or say 1. e4 c6 (Caro Kann), surely that is not the Queen's Indian?
Yes
"Legend has it that these openings [the Indian Defenses] were first played in the West by British soldiers returning from India in the late nineteenth century, where they had learned the formations from native Indians, who were playing a slightly modified form of chess."
Bill Robertie
Wining chess Openings
Originally posted by ckoh1965Double pawn move means a pawn moving two squares for its first move, e.g. c7-c5 is a double pawn move, c7-c6 is not.
Ok. But I find it a bit odd. I think that explanation is too general. Just because there's no double pawn move would qualify as the Indian opening? What does that mean actually? If, say, 1. e4 c5 (sicilian), surely that is not the King's Indian? Or say 1. e4 c6 (Caro Kann), surely that is not the Queen's Indian?
As I understand it Indian chess players did not adopt this rule until sometime in the 19th century, maybe even later because I'm sure Sultan Khan had to learn how to play with double pawn moves when he game to Britain in the 1930s.
I've tried playing chess without allowing pawns to move two squares for their first move, and it's much, much slower than the way we play it.
Originally posted by ckoh1965I think you're trying to think about this a little bit too hard. 🙂 The answer (at least, as given by the sources quoted in this thread) is that these openings came from India. The further explanation is that, at the time they were brought back from India, they seemed odd - because they featured a lot of pawns moving just one square, as opposed to the more common two-square pawn moves seen in openings elsewhere in the world.
Ok. But I find it a bit odd. I think that explanation is too general. Just because there's no double pawn move would qualify as the Indian opening? What does that mean actually? If, say, 1. e4 c5 (sicilian), surely that is not the King's Indian? Or say 1. e4 c6 (Caro Kann), surely that is not the Queen's Indian?
It doesn't mean that all openings that don't feature pawns moving two squares are "Indian" openings, just that it is the characteristic of many of the Indian openings.
Also, I think you're misinterpreting "double pawn move." We're not saying "two pawn moves", but rather one pawn moving two squares - a rule that is relatively new by chess standards (and apparently, only picked up in the last couple hundred years in India, if this thread is accurate).
Originally posted by OrangeKingYes, after reading Fat Lady's post, I realised that I misunderstood, and thought it was double king's pawn opening.
I think you're trying to think about this a little bit too hard. 🙂 The answer (at least, as given by the sources quoted in this thread) is that these openings came from India. The further explanation is that, at the time they were brought back from India, they seemed odd - because they featured a lot of pawns moving just one square, as opposed to the mor ...[text shortened]... nly picked up in the last couple hundred years in India, if this thread is accurate).
I thought it was because native americans revolutionized fighting with rifles, they would hide in the trees and shoot out at the british instead of lining up in files like they did back then. When you fianchetto a bishop its like the "indian" hiding in the trees shooting out across the diagonal.
This is a more imaginative explanation I think... but its good to see that people know the real reason behiend the name.
Originally posted by ChessJestersorry man but, you've got the wrong type of Indian in mind.
I thought it was because native americans revolutionized fighting with rifles, they would hide in the trees and shoot out at the british instead of lining up in files like they did back then. When you fianchetto a bishop its like the "indian" hiding in the trees shooting out across the diagonal.
This is a more imaginative explanation I think... but its good to see that people know the real reason behiend the name.
it came from the Indians from India, not Native American Indians
buy you're right in that it's pretty imaginative and funny as heck
Originally posted by ChessJesterThey used bows and arrows from behind trees. The muskets of the day (rifling the barrels was still a long way off) were inaccurate, could not be reloaded from a crouching position, had a slow rate of fire, and would not fire in damp or wet conditions.
I thought it was because native americans revolutionized fighting with rifles, they would hide in the trees and shoot out at the british instead of lining up in files like they did back then. When you fianchetto a bishop its like the "indian" hiding in the trees shooting out across the diagonal.
This is a more imaginative explanation I think... but its good to see that people know the real reason behiend the name.