ON CHESS
XXI - Origin of the Powers of the Pieces
IN our last article we noticed the attempt made to connect chess with two very ancient games. It is probable that a patient investigation of the subject would lead to the conclusion, that from the elements of those two games draughts was invented, and that the game represented on the Egyptian monuments (see Sat. Mag. vol. xviii. p. 20) was the offspring of Merelles and Petreia.
The moves of the pieces and pawns in modern chess appear so complicated, that at first view it would be thought hopeless to look to such a game as draughts for their origin. But an attentive analysis of the moves at chess reduces them to a very simple character, and it is not improbable that the moves of the pieces in a simpler and more ancient game, were similar in effect to the shortest move of the Rook together with the shortest move of the Bishop, and that these may now be taken as the type of the moves of all the pieces in the game of chess.
The Knight's move may be immediately cited as an objection to this supposition. If we bear in mind only the shortest moves of the rook and bishop, and then examine the mode by which the squares of the chess board are attached one to another, we shall see that they are connected either by an angle, which forms a path from square to square, by the contact of the diagonals. - or by a side, which forms a path from square to square between two parallels. The first of these movements belongs to the bishop; the second to the rook. Now the one of these movements seems to have been combined with the other, in order to give a move to the knight, and the combination was of the simplest kind, viz., a compound of the shortest path of the bishop with the shortest path of the rook, or vice versa: hence the path of the knight is always of the same dimensions. Geometrically, the knight's leap is always the hypotenuse of a right-angle triangle, of which the base equals twice the perpendicular, the latter being equal to the side of one square.
From the limited information that we have been able to collect on the origin of the moves at chess, we are led to suppose that, at an early period in the history of the game, the moves of some of the pieces were limited to a single square at a time; that by a subsequent privilege each player was allowed to make several moves at once before his antagonist moved; and that, in the present state of the game, whenever a move is made by certain pieces of more than one square at a time, it is to be deemed as the result of such privilege now lost and forgotten.
But this privilege is to a certain extent preserved in tho Hindostanee game, at the beginning of which four or eight moves, as may be agreed upon, are played upon both sides. In this game also the two royal pawns and those of the two rooks are allowed to move two squares each at first, so long as their pieces remain at their squares. The other pawns move only one square at a time. Some of the peculiarities of the Hindostanee game are still preserved at Ströbeck. Mr. Lewis says, " The pieces being placed as usual, each party is obliged to play his king's rook's pawn, queen's rook's pawn, and queen's pawn, two squares, and the queen to her third square." After this the other pawns can move but one square.
We are not aware of the precise powers of the pieces at the time of the introduction of chess into Europe; but we have abundant evidence to prove that they were very different to those exhibited on the modern chess board. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the powers of the rook, the knight, and the pawn, were the same as at present; but many remarkable peculiarities belonged to the other pieces, which we will state at some length.
1. THE SHAH, REY, or KING. The Eastern name given to this piece was Shah, equivalent to our European word Rey or King, and it is from this piece that the game derives its name. The original movement of the rey appears to have been extremely confined, he being incapacitated from moving, except when absolutely forced to do so by an adverse check: this may in some measure be accounted for by reflecting that, as the value of the king at this game is beyond calculation (since the instant he is mated the contest is decided), they were therefore the less willing to risk his person in the field. About the commencement of the thirteenth century the rey was allowed the shortest move of the rook, and the reason why he was not allowed to move nor to take angularly seems to be found in the taste that predominated in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries of moralizing almost every subject, viz., that the king ought to take everything justly and not in an oblique, i. e. indirect, manner. This restriction, however, was soon removed, and the rey had the power of moving and taking as well angularly as directly; but his range of action never extended beyond one square.
2. THE FERCE or QUEEN. The name of this piece , in Persian is Pherz, which signifies a wise and learned man, capable of giving counsel to the Shah. We have already stated that, on the introduction of chess into Europe, the word Ferce was by an easy mutation corrupted into Vierge, a virgin, and afterwards into Reyne, a queen, though the old term Ferce still continued to be used, and the piece retained its originally limited movements of one square at a time, and that angularly, and never directly. The substitution of a female at this game, instead of the vizier of the Orientals, has been thus ingeniously explained: " Men are soon persuaded that the picture of human life, under which they represented chess, would be very imperfect without a woman; that sex plays too important a part not to have a place in the game; and hence they changed the minister into a queen, the similarity of the words Fierge and Vierge facilitating the change." The gallantry natural to an age of chivalry and politeness, subsequently converted the Ferce from the least considerable of the chess pieces to the most powerful in the game; but this gallantry introduced that strange anomaly into the game which destroyed its military character: a pawn or foot soldier having pierced through the enemy's battalions, was rewarded for his valour by promotion to the rank of vizier, minister of state, or general; but it is absurd to make the pawn change his sex, and from a foot soldier become a queen. This point is quite sufficient to prove that the second piece at chess has been improperly named Virgin, or Queen. The ancient writers on the game, to get rid of his anomaly, endeavour to insinuate that such pawns as are made ferces, were always females; but they explain this so very awkwardly, that the point is left precisely where it is taken up. Thus, in an early MS. quoted by Mr. Lake Allen, the following lines occur in French:
The damaels have requested me,
That their game be not forgotten
And for the esteem that I bear to them
I will here describe their game.
My sords, the pawns which become queens
Them we call Fierces;
And becouse they signifly damaels,
They are not boys as some say,
For if the pawns were males,
They would never become females.
By means of such reasoning as this the author concludes,
And becouse this is a game with PAWNS,
The game of DAMAELS we call it
|
|
3. THE ALFYN or BISHOP. We have already spoken of the mutations to which the phil, or elephant (the Eastern name of this piece), has been subject in Europe. It was evidently as much at variance with the character of the game for us to name this piece the Bishop, as for the French to call it the Fool. In the thirteenth century the alfyn had the diagonal move of our bishop, restricted in its range of action to the third square from which it stood. So that, in order to capture an adverse piece, it was necessary that the alfyn should be distant from it one clear square: thus, suppose a white alfyn to be on the fourth square of his rey, he could then capture any pawn or piece standing, 1, on the adverse rey's chivalier's third square; 2, reyne's alfyn's third square ; 3, his own rey's chivalier's second square; and 4, his reyne's alfyn's second square. But as he was always incapacitated from moving to a greater or less number of squares, no piece could be either captured or considered en prise, if situated close to it, or removed at a greater distance than the third square. As a compensation for so confined an action on the board, the alfyn was allowed the vaulting power of the chivalier. Thus, if a white alfyn be on his rey's fourth square, a black or white rok on the adverse reyne's fourth square, and a black poun on his reyne's alfyn's third square, the white alfyn could capture the black poun, notwithstanding the interposition of the rok. The subsequent extension of the range of action of the alfyn deprived him, in the course of time, of this vaulting motion.
4. The Asp or Horseman, Chivalier or Knight. 5. The Ruch, Ruk, Roc, or Rook, that is, the camel or dromedary. 6. The Beidak Poun, Pawn, or Foot-soldier. The powers of moving and other prerogatives of these pieces have not varied since the introduction of the game into Europe. We need only remark, that to represent the swiftest piece on the board (as the roc was at one time), by a castle, is another strange anomaly in the game.
By referring to Caxton's Treatise on Chess, published in 1474, we find that the powers of some of the pieces had, at that time, become remarkably changed. The king, for his first move, was allowed to leap over the pawns, and pass to any one of the five squares, viz., king's knight's third, king's bishop's third, king's third, queen's third, and queen's bishop's third. Two out of these five moves are peculiar to the knight, and the other three are not recognised in modern chess. These two knight's moves were not permitted to the queen, because "it is not fitting ne convenable thing for a woman to go to battle, for the fragility and feebleness of her." The queen's first move could be made to her third square, to her knight's third, or to the king's bishop's third. After the king and queen had each been moved once, their moves were restricted to one square at a time: the former having the shortest move of the rook, and the latter the shortest move of the bishop.
The bishop had a prescribed move of two diagonal squares at once, as before noticed; one effect of this move being, as Caxton says, " that the alphin goeth in six draughts all the chequer round about, and that he cometh again into his own place."
The limited power of the king is ingeniously explained by reference to the power of the rook: " Forasmuch as the king holdeth the dignity above all other, therefore it appertaineth not that he absent himself long, ne withdraw him far by space of time from the master seat of his kingdom." The restricted power of the queen in this early state of the game is explained on the ground that " the king and queen be conjoined together by marriage, and be one thing, as one flesh and blood." It will be remembered that, at this time, the rooks were the most powerful pieces, but
Forasmuch as they be vicars, lieutenants, or commissioners of the king, their authority is of none effect before they issue out; for as long as they be within the palace of the king, so long may they not use ne execute their commissins. But anon, as they issue they may use their authority. As ye shall understand that their authority is great, for the represent the person of the king, and therefore, when the tablier is wide, they may run all the tablier. In likewise as they go through the kingdom, and they may go as ... white as black, as well on the right side and left, as forwards as backwards, and as far may they run as they find the tablier void, whether it be of his adversarie's as of his own fellowship. And when the rook is in the middle of the tablier, he may go which way he will, into four right lines on every side; and it is to wit that he may in no wise or cornerwise, but alway right forth. Wherefore all the subjects of the king, as well good as evil, ought to know by their moving that the authority of the vicars and commissioners ought to be very true, righteous, and just.
The powers of the knight and pawn seem to have been the same as in modern chess. When a pawn, however, arrived at the adversary's royal line, its promotion was modified by the singular powers of the queen. If the pawn reached the royal line on a black square, it then had the power of a queen placed on a black square, viz, to move on the black squares diagonally and one square at a time. If the pawn became a queen on a white square, then it could move only on the white diagonals one square at a time.
Our information does not allow us to trace the progress of the game from the time of Caxton, so as to shew the gradual steps by which the pieces became invested with their present powers. But we have said enough to show that chess, like all other human inventions, has been subject to progressive change and improvement; for notwithstanding the many anomalies in the modern game, its character is far more scientific and valuable than the game of the 13th, 14th, aad 15th centuries. The powers of the pieces, as they at present exist, may be accounted for on very simple principles, if we are allowed to take the bishop and rook as types of all the rest. The diagonal move of the bishop seems to have been borrowed from the ancient game of merelles (to which draughts may also with great probability be traced), and the move of the rook may similarly owe its origin to the petreia, or game of pebbles. Now, granting this to be the case, we arrive at a very remarkable result by comparing the powers of the king, the queen, the knight, and the pawn with those of the rook and the bishop:
1. The king may make the shortest rook's move, or the shortest bishop's move; but not both at once.
2. The queen may make an optional rook's move, or an optional bishop's move; but not both at once.
3. The knight may make the shortest rook's move, and the shortest bishop's move, both at once.
4. The pawn may make the shortest rook's move forward, when it does not capture; and the shortest bishop's move forward, when it does capture.
We are disposed, therefore, to think it probable that the moves of the bishop and rook were derived from some game or games more ancient than chess, and that by certain simple extensions, modifications, or combinations of the moves of these two pieces, were derived the moves of the other pieces in the game of chess.
|
Chess Archeology 
