I read a piece on this once. In India around the 5th century the knights were elephants, and the rooks were temples. This was the way the pieces looked across the middle and far east until the time of the crusades. European knights brought the game to western courts, and changed the pieces to more reflect their own culture. In time the "new" figures became a world standard.
There is mention of a game which sounds very similar to chess in the early writings of Confuscias in China. So for certain the game is at least 1500 years old, probably a lot older, but the exact origins are a bit of a mystery still.
I don't beleve so, there is no resemblance between the dynamics of the two games, apart from the board they are both played on.
Chess even today resembles the power of a nation, with an army of footsoldiers controlled and supported from behind by a more elite class of warriors, church officials and heads of state.
I just watched something about that an hour ago on tv . It said it was invented in te 5th century by Salias or something...(not quit sure of the name do) in india to provide a game for his king , allowing him to see what happens when the king is not well protected. they were no queen at the beginning. She appeared later with small possibilities. Then she became slowly more and more powerful. Most of actual rules are from the end of middle age. Also, the expression check mate wud come from an arabic slang, i dont remember exactly but it sounded like ashila sla mat. which means the king is dead.
Originally posted by Nietzsche1844Probably the best answer to your question can be found in the book "A
How old is chess/ where did we track the first game of chess, and who invented this wonderful game?
History of Chess" by H.J.R.Murray, originally published by Oxford University Press in 1913, and reprinted I think about twenty or thirty years ago.
Briefly, his conclusion was that the game originated in the north of the Indian sub-continent in the second half of the sixth century of the Christian era. The knight had exactly the move it still has; the Rook and King could not castle but their normal moves were as now; Pawns did not have the two square option on the first move so of course en passant capture did not exist. The Queen's place was taken by a man moving only one square diagonally; the Bishop's by a man which was a leaper, jumping to the second square on any diagonal.
The game spread to Persia and via the Moslem conquests to western
Asia and to Europe.
It also spread to China where a number of changes were made. Chinese Chess (The River Game) is played on the intersections of a 9 x 10 board, and there are a number of different men.
It went to Japan, their version, "Shogi" is played on a 9 x 9 board, also with many differences in moves from the international game; the greatest change is that any man you capture can be reintrodced to the board as an addition to your own side instead of making a normal move.
In Europe, the main changes came in the second half of the 15th century, I think the modern Bishop and Queen, the pawn's two square option on it's first move, and an early form of castling all date from about this period. Later changes have been smaller, for example I think it was only sometime in the middle of the 19th century that Stalemate was accepted by every country as a draw.
This answer came out longer than I intended, but there is a lot more in Murray's book: I found it fascinating.
Originally posted by Essex 3Yeah, the French were the ones that made the queen what she is... first of all female(wasn't originally) and they made her more powerful... whereas before, she was the weakest... europe also made the pawn able to move two ranks in it first move, which also came with the En Passant...
Probably the best answer to your question can be found in the book "A
History of Chess" by H.J.R.Murray, originally published by Oxford University Press in 1913, and reprinted I think about twenty or thirty years ago.
Briefly, his conclusion was that the game originated in the north of the Indian sub-continent in the second half of the sixth century ...[text shortened]... e out longer than I intended, but there is a lot more in Murray's book: I found it fascinating.
Originally posted by Essex 3I have an interesting little book about board games in the Middle Ages ("Globusspiel und Himmelsschach - Brett- und Würfelspiele im Mittelalter" by Ulrich Schädler), and according to Schädler there is no historical evidence that chess originated in India. Quite likely it originated in Persia. The belief that it originated in India seems to be mostly based on a Persian legend. According to that legend, an Indian king invented chess and sent a chessboard and pieces to the Persian king Khosrau Anushirwan (531-578/9), who got the task to find the rules and interpretation of the game. To the Indians' surprise, his adviser Buzurghmihr managed to do that, and he then invented Nard, a complex game which the Indians didn't manage to figure out. This story was clearly constructed to show the Persians' superiority. And a game very similar to Nard was known to the Romans several hundred years earlier, so that part of the legend is definitely not true.
Probably the best answer to your question can be found in the book "A
History of Chess" by H.J.R.Murray, originally published by Oxford University Press in 1913, and reprinted I think about twenty or thirty years ago.
Briefly, his conclusion was that the game originated in the north of the Indian sub-continent in the second half of the sixth century ...[text shortened]... e out longer than I intended, but there is a lot more in Murray's book: I found it fascinating.
Originally posted by NordlysAh... but even the persian legend acknowledges India as the creater of the game...
I have an interesting little book about board games in the Middle Ages ("Globusspiel und Himmelsschach - Brett- und Würfelspiele im Mittelalter" by Ulrich Schädler), and according to Schädler there is no historical evidence that chess originated in India. Quite likely it originated in Persia. The belief that it originated in India seems to be mostly based ...[text shortened]... to the Romans several hundred years earlier, so that part of the legend is definitely not true.