Chess attraction since antiquity
Antique North Indian Mughul shatranj chess set made from sandalwood
Chess is attractive in many ways, and for many kinds of people. At its simplest it is a hobby, taken up for pleasure or habit. At a higher level it becomes a mental sport, in which practitioners compete face to face in tournaments, competitions, and championships that range from the modest surroundings of a club to the glare of global attention. What was once the most personal form of intellectual combat has now undergone a quiet transformation. Chess is increasingly played online, or against personal computers and mobile phone programs, where the opponent is unseen and the struggle takes place in silence.
There are others who find their pleasure not in play but in composition. For them, the essence of chess lies in studies and problems, carefully constructed and admired for their internal logic. A considerable body of devotees prefers to follow the literature of chess, admiring masterpieces that stretch back hundreds of years and are preserved by chess notation, often enriched with commentary by such expert writers as Richard Reti, Alexander Alekhine, Harry Golombek, Peter Clarke, and Garry Kasparov. There is even enjoyment to be derived from indulging in that heretical abomination, Freestyle chess, in which the initial array of pieces is randomly redistributed and tradition is deliberately unsettled.
Finally, one must not overlook those enthusiasts whose primary interest lies in the collection of chess sets and in cataloguing their provenance and history. Among these we must include Jon Crumiller, Sir Alan Fersht, and Antonio Horta-Osorio. I recently had the honour of being invited to contribute, along with various other experts—including the distinguished academic Prof Jackie Eales, my sister—to the publication of The Horta-Osorio Collection of Chess Sets Volume 1 (India), the 210th book which I have either written, co-written, or to which I have been invited as a contributor. I can say without contradiction that this magnificently illustrated volume is by far the most opulent of my tally of 210.
My own speciality in this case was to focus on sets of Islamic design, doubtless intended for games played under the ancient Muslim rules of the precursor of modern chess, shatranj, rather than the modern game as we know it.
The ancient ancestor of chess was an Arabic game called shatranj. It was popular in Baghdad, a centre of Islamic intellectual culture, by the eighth century, though its origins can be traced back as far as 350 BCE. Shatranj was a slow-moving game in which the queen and bishop possessed far less freedom than their modern counterparts. Nevertheless, it was recognisably chess.
The ancestry of shatranj spanned two continents and, appropriately for a war game, was a by-product of a military campaign. Its blood-line may be traced back more than 2,000 years to Ancient Greece. In his Politics, Aristotle mentions a group of classical board games known as petteia. These were battle games that demanded skill, logic, and reason, rather than reliance on the fortuitous throw of a die. In his Republic, Plato compares the victims of Socrates’ debating skill to “weak petteia players … cornered and rendered unable to move.”
In about 330 BCE Alexander the Great invaded Persia and marched on toward Asia Minor and India. Along the way he founded Hellenic colonies in which the Greeks continued their enthusiasm for petteia. At the same time, India possessed a battle game of its own. It shared its Sanskrit name, chaturanga, meaning “four divisions,” with the Indian army. These divisions—elephants, chariots, cavalry, and infantry—were mobilised in the game by throws of dice.
It did not take long for chaturanga, the Indian war game of chance, to meet and marry petteia, the Greek game of reason. The influence of petteia eliminated the dice, and from this collision of cultures chess was born: Greek thought expressed in Indian language. The Persians adopted the game, translating chaturanga into chatrang, and as it spread through the Muslim world it entered Arabic as shatranj.
“Via the squares on a chessboard, the Indians explain the movement of time and the age, the higher influences which control the world and the ties which link chess with the human soul.”
—The Arabian historian Al-Masudi, writing in 947
This week’s game is alleged to be the oldest game of chess, in its shatranj form, ever recorded. There is assuredly a mythic and apocryphal element attached to this antediluvian product of the human brain. Nevertheless, the moves convey the flavour of a game that was later to produce such champions as Staunton, Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Tal, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Anand and Carlsen.
Before we step through this ludic antiquity, we must revisit the salient differences between shatranj and chess, and then refresh our understanding of the moves we associate with the modern pieces that we shall see in play during the following game.
- There is no castling;
- Pawns move single squares each move, no en passant, must promote to a queen;
- Checkmate, stalemate or baring the king all win;
- In this strange new world, knights and rooks dominate.
- As material is more static, moves that seem ‘slow’, are perfectly normal in shatranj.
The pieces we see in modern form, equate to the following:
- Rook = modern rook;
- Knight = modern knight;
- Elephant (al-fil) = modern bishop: cannot be blocked, moves two squares diagonally;
- Ferz (advisor) = modern queen: moves one square diagonally;
- King = modern king.
To assist your reading of the game, the following game summary may be of some aid and assistance. The game is highly symmetrical, which is typical of shatranj. Following the classical pattern, both players develop with slow pawn advances, early rook activation, activation of elephants (bishops) to their few active squares, and dominate the tactical play through the use of their knights.
Abu-Bakr Muhammed Ben Yahya as-Suli vs. Abu’l- Faraj bin al-Muzaffar bin Sa’-id al-Lajlaj
Arabia, circa 900-1000CE
- f3 f6
Both sides begin the standard shatranj plan to clear the f3/f6 squares for the king’s knight — one of the strongest early outposts.
- f4 f5
The enabling sequence continues. The f-pawn advances to facilitate the knight’s development.
- Nf3 Nf6
The knights take up the outposts prepared by the first two moves, exerting early influence on e5/e4 and g5/g4.
- g3 g6 5. Rg1 Rg8 6. h3 h6 7. e3 e6 8. g4 fxg4
White expands on the kingside; Black replies with a strong structural capture, removing the g-pawn and opening the f-file — a valuable asset in shatranj.
- hxg4 g5
White restores material; Black advances the g-pawn, but this loosens the kingside and leaves a pawn on g5 that may become a target.
- fxg5 hxg5
- d3 d6 12. e4 e5 13. Be3 Be6 14. Nxg5 Ke7
White’s knight captures on g5 and attacks e6, f7, and h7. Black replies with the only strong move: Ke7, defending the bishop on e6 and developing the king toward the centre — a constructive shatranj idea.
- c3 Nxg4
White consolidates the centre; Black captures on g4, but the knight becomes exposed to White’s bishops and central pawns.
- Ke2 c6 17. d4 d5
White challenges e5 at the right moment, preparing to open lines. Black locks the centre, but the resulting tension favours White’s more active pieces.
- b3 b6 19. Nd2 Nd7 20. Qc2 Qc7 21. Qd3 Qd6 22. Ndf3 Ndf6 23. Bh3 Bh6
White’s bishop heads for f5, increasing pressure on e6 and g4. Black mirrors with Bh6, but White’s bishop proves more influential.
- Bf5 Bf4
White tightens control over e6 and d7; Black counters by attacking e3, the base of White’s central chain.
- Rac1 a6 26. c4 Rac8 27. c5 bxc5
White fixes the d-pawn and gains space; Black’s capture opens the c-file and gives White’s bishop access to c5, which becomes tactically decisive.
- Bxc5+ Ke8
White wins a pawn and forces the king backward; Black loses the central activity gained earlier.
- dxe5 Nxe5
White opens the centre at the right moment; Black recaptures, but the knight on e5 becomes overextended.
- Nxe6 Rxg1
The decisive breakthrough. White removes the key defender on e6, opening lines toward the king. Black captures on g1, but the centre is collapsing.
- Rxg1 Nxf3 32. Kxf3 Black resigns 1-0
White is a piece up, but how was this possible? Where was the symmetry disturbed? The salient difference goes back to Black’s superfluous insertion of 25… a6, which ultimately permitted White to continue guarding the c4-square with his b3-pawn, but left Black vulnerable as he could not reciprocate to stop 28. Bxc5+, as his b6-pawn had relocated to c5. Faced with such a disastrous loss of material, Black conceded.
Ray’s 206th book, “ Chess in the Year of the King ”, written in collaboration with Adam Black, and his 207th, “ Napoleon and Goethe: The Touchstone of Genius ” (which discusses their relationship with chess) can be ordered from both Amazon and Blackwell’s. His 208th, the world record for chess books, written jointly with the late chess playing artist, Barry Martin, Chess through the Looking Glass , is now also available from Amazon.
A Message from TheArticle
We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation.
