Dialogue - Newton & Josten : Historical Orientation

Is Chess the Game of the Goddess?
The "Black Knightess" - Response to her challenger

Jan Newton: Would I dare contradict the opinion of the august Joachim Petzold" Well, yes, darling, I would. But only in the softest, most gentle of terms!

You have set forth your explanation (and a very good one, I might add!) of the evolution (I think - devolution) of The Game; and now I set forth mine.

I believe that there were two original players of The Game, Adam and Eve. I believe that The Game was created for them by the original mother Goddess, Rhea. I believe that The Game was passed on from generation to generation down to the time of Noah - he who boarded the Ark - and when he debarked ("de-arked"), The Game came with him and his family. I believe thence The Game spread outward from the land of Ararat in all directions as the Ark's passengers and their descendants dispersed throughout the Earth.

I believe that The Game was lost and found - and lost and found - innumerable times over the course of the thousands of years since Arkfall! And, inevitably, The Game has undergone numerous metamorphoses as the once common culture spread out and diversified: in its purest form, first, in Mesopotamia in the Court of Nimrod and Semireimis; thence in Khemir; Sumer; China; Egypt; the Indus Valley (incubator of oh so many wondrous inventions!); the steppes of Russia; Greece; across Europe with the Tuatha de Danaan to Denmark, England and Ireland (where, perhaps, the purest "legends" of chess exist today, waiting for an unbiased examination).

Can I definitively "prove" any of this? Nope! However, circumstantial evidence abounds!

You stated "Board games compress and miniaturize reality." I agree! You also stated that over time The Game changed to reflect "present reality". This is also true!

You have proposed that all that remains to be explained is the origin of the principles underlying The Game - perhaps thereby invoking the premise that by understanding the process, one can ultimately understand the origins (and ultimate meaning) of our present reality! By all means, let us examine these principles.

Orderliness. This is, perhaps, the least complicated of principles to address. The very existence of our universe gives evidence - and is evidence - of orderliness! There are overarching laws that govern the motion of quarks, e-units, atoms, anti-matter, matter (Greek root word "Mater" - "Mother"), planets, and galaxies. This overarching principle is miniaturized in The Game. The Board represents the Universe. The pieces move according to prescribed laws. Within these ephemeral confines, each player is free, according to the dictates of his or her own personal reality, to move the pieces in untold myriads of combinations - the ultimate in creativity arising out of, and yet prescribed by the ultimate of laws of universal motion.

Battle. Tradition under the present patriarchal view of reality proposes a "war" mentality (soldiers/officers killing officers/soldiers) in defining "battle". I propose an older and more universal definition - that of the eternal "battle" between man and woman. Yes! A battle - but not in the presently accepted sense of the word! And the intermediate goal of such "battle" is not to kill or be killed - but to conquer through seduction.

Dissemination. Macrocosm and microcosm. These are elements of The Game itself - representing the great overarching reality; and we have each and every game ever played since the beginning of creation - not, perhaps, archived in the "modern" sense of written records of moves and counter-moves - but nonetheless inscribed upon the collective consciousness of our past and present worlds. Move and counter-move; counter-move and move; down through the millennia! Dissemination takes place within the confines of the Board (the Universe) along prescribed lines (laws) of creative freedom. What greater dissemination could there be?

Run Yes! Run, darling, run! I am in hot pursuit! What is the goal of the pawn in chess? To be promoted, of course. But to what? Usually the queen. And why the queen? In our present system of reality, that is easy to answer! It is because the queen is the most powerful piece on the Board we play on today. Pawn promotion - in and of itself - is a topic for a separate dialogue. I will leave the discussion of why a pawn would seek promotion to queen for another part of this dialogue

Examination and (7) Test I combine these principles because they are cousins. Who has not gone through "tests" and "examinations"in school? On a minimum basis, these represent the greater tests and self-examinations that confront one in life as one matures. They are, therefore, most individual and unique! In The Game, They are represented by diverse choices - and sacrific.

Murray was brilliant; but he was a man very much of his own time (as I am a woman of mine); his was a peculiarly Euro-centric view of The Game. I propose, instead, a universal view of The Game. What say you to my multiple premises?

You ask what I have to say to your premises. This is not an easy task. Let me begin as follows.

I think that we are moving inside a triangle whose three corners are built by facts, beliefs and fantasies. Facts are the operating field of scientists who need proof, nothing else. Beliefs seems to be your own part because in your last mail you emphasized your beliefs so distinctly while acknowledging the lack of any direct proof. And me, I stand for fantasies that do not search either for truth or belief, but, to speak in Stefan Zweig's words, for a thinking, that leads to nothing. Ours is not an equilateral triangle and its three angles are contradictory. But through our exchange of ideas, perhaps we can fill in some of the blank wide space defined by our corners! Practice makes perfect.

By the way (and neither last nor least), I respect that you have to think twice. Thank you for refining my English and walking through my mind while doing your fine-tuning of my German to English translations. Otherwise, I would fare badly in our "English" discussion, darling!

Now, to your last mail. Will you be able to stand some hard words? The great chess historian Antonius van der Linde (1833 - 1897 ) in his work Geschichte und Literatur des Schachspiels, made a list of the so called fables on the origin of chess. In van der Linde's opinion these legends prove nothing more than the high rank of chess among the family of board games. With tongue firmly in cheek, he averred that inventors of chess before Adam and Eve could not be discovered. He also said "According to the Arabian Nuzhet not only did Aristotle play chess (a fact that can astonish no one), but according to Ibn Hadschala (1375) Hippocrates and Galenus were cured by chess, along with Yafet ibn Nuh, Sam ibn Nuh (Jafet and Sem), and even Adam, when he was in mourning for his son Abel."

A layman would now ask "Jan, did Adam and Eve play Morris, Go and all the other living or forgotten games of our world as well?" I am the layman asking, and I wish an answer. Or did you perhaps mean in a figurative sense that from its very beginnings the human race played intellectual games like chess? Won't you just open up to me?

In his Liber de Ludo Scacchorum, et de moribus et officiis Nobilium (1462), Jacobus de Cessolis said that chess was invented at Babylon during the reign of Evilmerodach and that the board represented the town, the whole empire and the universe simultaneously. Jan says that the board represents the universe. Does Jan know that the Byzantine version of chess is played on a circular board which is very similar to an astrolab and reminds one of heaven? You see, the game is susceptible to many possible interpretations. The question arises: What is truth, what is belief, and what is fantasy?

The quotation marks (we say "geese feet", isn't that funny? ) around your word "war" along with your words "I propose...." make me prick up my ears. Jan, here you no longer believe! Your bending the game's character is and stays sheer fantasy. In this point you are mine. 1:0 oui! Chess has ever been a hunt game. If you desire, you might transform our game into a love game in future, but you are not allowed to turn history upside down. Pardon, madame, excusez, s.v.p. While I confess that a chess match against a woman sends a tingle down my spine, the same effect is achieved by looking, dreaming, speaking, cycling or what have you! Chess is not the special medium of love.

So, can you admit that chess has been a hunt game or do you stick to your wish to develop it into a love game? Ah, perhaps I shouldn't ask you such a suggestive question. You will accuse me and acquit me!

Thus ends my response to your premises. (Well, I DID ask you to engage in this Dialogue, didn't I. Only joking!) I think we now have an overview of our triangle. Is it as blank as it was before, Jan? Perhaps our minds cannot be quickly brought together or united. You say chess was given to us by the Goddess Rhea and that it has ever been a game of love. I say chess was created over thousands of years by unifying different games without any divine influence. If you like, and if you have need to interpret chess as the entire universe, I say c'est la vie! But I will send you to the moon if you try to sell your interpretation as history, Jan!

For a better understanding of your starting point I wish to procure private lessons. Will you be my private tutor and coach me in Rhea?

Is Chess the Game of the Goddess?
The Black Knightess - Response to Dialogue: June 27, 1999

Dear Gerd: I believe you will find the following post from the Art Bell Chess History Site of interest:

JAN NEWTON June 27, 1999 1:07 p.m. Mark, I ALWAYS trust my intuitions - they are invariably correct! However, in the patriarchal-slanted realm of chess "his"tory, "feelings" don't count for a hill of beans! That is one of the issues Gerhard and I are discussing right now in our dialogue.

Of course, it is conveniently ignored that "feelings"- that both lead to and represent beliefs - are just another word for "hypotheses" - the working questions around which research is performed! It is unfortunate that until the greater number of "man"kind get it, most of chess as it is played today will remain a male-angst, anal-retentive excuse for warfare!

"Will you be able to stand some hard words?" Oh Gerd, you do make me laugh! You asked, "What is truth, what is belief, and what is fantasy?" Now that is a very good question, darling! "Truth" is often conveniently defined by the questions we seek to answer. Ultimately, it is the "victor" who defines what is "truth" - remember Pilate's words in response to Christ's statement "I am the truth and the light." Do you hear an echo, Gerhard? In the end, the Roman system collapsed under the hubris of its own pretensions, and nascent Christianity ascended triumphant; thus also the present patriarchal-slanted views of The Game will fall to the persistent onslaught of questioning, wondering voices that will not go away - voices inspired by the Goddess herself. Your evoking of the image of a triangle is most appropriate! And what a wonderful Eternal Triangle you have proposed - facts, beliefs, and fantasies!

According to Michael Schneider, in his book "A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe - The Mathematical Archetypes of Nature, Art, and Science" (HarperCollins Publishers 1994), the "triangle encloses the smallest area for the greatest perimeter" (p. 44); "unlike any other shape, the three sides of a triangle resolve opposite tensions into one solid, stable whole needing no support from without. A triangle is self-sufficient" (p. 46). The archetype of the Triad teaches us that "a properly chosen third factor induces a relationship between opposites that unifies them and brings them to a new level" (p. 50). Schneider asserts "We're constantly exposed to threeness. Every whole event is inherently comprised of a trinity of two opposites and an outside third element that brings about a new whole. Physicists call this trinity an "action, reaction, and resultant"; philosophers call it a "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." The three elements together form a greater new thesis, which, in turn, induces its opposite and is ready for a greater synthesis" (p. 52).

What are the "warring" opposites in our Eternal Triangle, Gerd, but "Facts" and "Fantasies"? By definition (courtesy of the 1977 Edition of "Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary": "Fact: - 1 a thing done É 2 archaic: performance, doing 3 the quality of being actual: actuality 4 something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence: event 5 a piece of information presented as having objective reality. "Fantasy: - 1 hallucination 2 fancy, esp: the free play of creative imagination 3 a creation of the imaginative faculty whether expressed or merely conceived... 4 caprice 5 the power or process of creating esp. unrealistic or improbable mental images in response to psychological need..." and it is for fantasies that you assert you stand - "a thinking that leads to nothing."

Methinks Gerd has been hoisted on his own petard! On the other hand, I freely and blatantly assert that I am a woman of "beliefs". Ah, and there we have it - the key to bridge the gulf between "Fact" and "Fantasy"! After all, the ability to frame a belief is no more than the ability to frame a coherent question! And one cannot hope to find the correct answers to the ultimate origins and meaning of The Game unless one first frames and asks the proper questions! So, while I am most impressed with your ability to cite and quote esoteric 19th century German chess "his"torians, and while I went positively delirious over your quote from the immortal Jacobus de Cessolis (she writes, tongue firmly planted in cheek), it is your evocative image of the Eternal Triangle that has seduced me!

In answer to your question "Is [our triangle] as blank as it was before, Jan?", I respond "no, most definitely not!" Somewhere between the Goddess Rhea and the diverse travelers along the Silk Road lies the true foundations of The Game. As "Ms. Belief" (is it a pun, or is it not?), I propose myself as a bridge between "Facts" and "Fantasy". In closing this response to Dialogue Part II, Gerd, it will be my pleasure to oversee your education in the realms and realities of the Goddess Rhea - though perhaps not in the way you quite envisioned. Hold on to your hat, my dear homme; I may not be going to the Moon, but you most certainly shall! --

As I had expected, enormous distances lie among the three corners of our triangle. Let us try to shorten these distances and build bridges in order to bring our dialogue into the smallest possible area. I´m convinced ( and hope you are as well ) that we are headed in the right direction.

First: Our third partner in the triangle representing facts is, strictly speaking, absent, because at present we constitute only "belief" and "fantasy". I had hoped you might assent to my silently conveyed wish that together we would comprise the factual part of our dialogue. It was my aim to prevent us from veering off too precipitously into the realms of pure speculation. But is it your desire we do so? If so, then you must understand that I didn´t hear the echo of "I am the truth and the light". These words are creatures of the third part of our triangle. However, it was you who invoked them, Jan, thus introducing the power of rationality into our discussion. I won't now willingly turn my back on them.

How should I, how could I, counter your Credo? Belief is insurmountable! Yes, Jan, you're right and I affirm: trust intuitions, they are invariably correct! Nowhere in the world is a remedy grown against the power of belief. I say this in a positive sense, for I cannot imagine a world without belief. Neither of us can deny that everything casts shadow on earth. In the field of religious belief we perceive, e.g., intolerance which can lead to the burning of "heretics" and "witches". Your fighting nature, Jan, and your very warlike nickname (which I have not yet used and will; I hope; refrain from using in future) and behaviour suggest that total tolerance is not your thing. Nonetheless, I look forward to getting better acquainted with this aspect of your nature. One of your male compatriots recently posted the following words:

"I note with some chagrin an immediate closing of ranks around this alleged traitor. You but have to say the word and I will, politely withdraw. There is enough warfare in the world. Perhaps this will be my parting shot..."

This one sentence was underlined by myself. Ceterum censeo "Blatantism" esse delendam.

Second: The mid-part of your letter deals with definitions. For this I have to thank you, as they can be used as an overview. I note especially the following: "the three sides of a triangle resolve opposite tensions into one solid, stable whole needing no support from without". This phrase reminds me of a tripod garden table which conquers all but the most stubborn bumps in a lawn.

Regarding belief I´d like to complete your definitions by citing the Bible here

Heb 11:1: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Third: I'm terribly sorry, but in one particular I must contradict the third part of your letter. I cannot make friends with your idea that you (as "belief") are "...the key to bridge the gulf between fact and fantasy". You are my dear, nothing but a single corner of a triangle! You are neither the center of world chess "her" story, nor Aladdin with his (yes: his!) magic lamp. Come down from your clouds and re-enter the evocative image of our triangle. Ah, I see, from your final phrase you've done that.

Now, let's return to the "real world" of chess. It seems obvious that you judged my first question as to whether Adam and Eve also played Morris and Go as impertinent! Therefore, I was delighted to hear you say"...that somewhere "between the corners of our triangle [I broadened your words, do you see?] lies the true foundation of chess". Up to now I had dared not hope that you would approach me this way! Thank you, my darling! I'm in your debt forever. So, we now slightly redefine our coexistence within our eternal triangle:

The first corner

(Fact =

= Selfishness) represents the visible and reproducible parts of the history of chess. This corner knows next to nothing about the genesis of chess and is not able to answer the questions of when, where, how, why and by whom chess was born. However the history of chess since about 500 AD is well known and much has been written thereon.

represents the invisible part of the history of chess before 500 AD. The various beliefs or hypotheses differ, but commonly agree that chess originated long before that date. The different beliefs are personal and restricted by the force of assertion of each belief’s proponents.

Represents dealing with chess facts and chess beliefs without any intention except playing, similar to the game itself. Fantasy claims no validity.

Is Chess the Game of the Goddess?
The Black Knightess Presents Her Third Response [August 1, 1999]

Dear Gerd, Yes, I agree that we are headed in the right direction, although it may not seem so at the moment. What we both bring to the table, so to speak, is a sincere love of The Game and inquiring, questing minds. So what if we are starting out on opposite ends of the theoretical spectrum? I confidently prophesy (with my goddess powers) that we will meet somewhere due northwest of the most favored Silk Road caravan route, and you will come to the conclusion that my "take" on the origins of The Game are the more correct.

I noted with interest your quote from Don McLean's June 28, 1999 post. We are a family at Chess History, and like any family, we have occasional fights. Certainly we do not all agree on everything all the time, and when you are dealing with the perceptions of men and the perceptions of women, there is all sorts of room for potentially explosive situations to arise. I am proud to say that such situations have been minimal at Chess History. And you will have no doubt noted by now that the issues which led to Don's withdrawal from Chess History were resolved over the subsequent series of posts to such an extent that he has rejoined our merry little band of intrepid chess explorers.

By the way, what on earth does that Latin (at least, I think it's Latin) quote mean? I could not satisfactorily translate it! As for facts - what are they? If I were to write "I love you, Gerd", would we be dealing with a fact? A belief? A fantasy? A lie? It would be a "fact" that I wrote the words, but that is all one could deduce. If five people witness a traffic accident what are the odds that any two of their accounts would agree? Would they be lying merely because their accounts do not perfectly jibe? Of course not! What then, would be the "facts" is such a case, where perception shapes reality? Often times, what is fact, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Sigh. I know you will not agree with this assessment, but I'm not going to worry too much about facts at this point. There will probably be some - maybe even many - upon which we will agree as we move along in this Dialogue, and we'll probably fight about many more! So, I will stay with my "beliefs", thank you very much, and continue to stake out that corner of our Eternal Triangle.

I believe, Gerd, that we can have a perfectly rational discussion without undo emphasis on "fact", by more realistically relying upon suppositions, assumptions, speculation, and various hypotheses about the origins of The Game. Facts will shake themselves out of our Dialogue without our having to think about them! Remember, you are the man who staked out the "Fantasy" corner of our Triangle, and I find this undue and sudden insistence on "fact" just a wee bit suspicious. Do you sense your position might, just perhaps, be indefensible after all, Gerd? LOL!

I move to the second part of your letter - again, dealing with belief and faith. On the venerable scripture you quoted, the definition of faith, I will not add a jot, except to give you this rendering of Hebrews 11:1 from The New World Translation: "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." And this translation from The Living Bible: "What is faith? It is the confident assurance that something we want is going to happen. It is the certainty that what we hope for is waiting for us, even though we cannot see it up ahead." I ask you Gerd, is there any difference between faith and belief? It is, perhaps, a leap of faith to assert with the utmost confidence that The Game was given to mankind as a gift from the Goddess/God - however one wishes to constitute the Grand Creator of All Things Seen and Unseen; but I am comfortable with it.

I did not think your question regarding Adam and Eve impertinent - merely diversionary! Ha! I think they very likely did play chess - not Morris (oh ick), but possibly Go. Doubt weÕd ever be able to dig out the first chessboard, however, it's most likely buried under 20,000 feet of mud and rock.

Now, to the last section of your letter. I very much like how you have constituted our Triangle with respect to the colors and by-words of "Selfishness", "Acceptance" and "Love", but I totally disagree with just about everything else you stated about it! Ah ha, see, JanXena has reared her head once again. Darling, fantasy may be the beginning in the classical scientific method, as the birth place for ideas one wishes to examine and test out, but it is certainly not the end! Fantasy proposes, science disposes; indeed, fantasy and belief are closely entwined. One makes a hypothesis and then proceeds to poke, prod and otherwise examine all available evidence; and then one arrives at one or more conclusions - which may or may not be "facts".

It is out of fantasy and belief that many (though not all) facts arise (facts do not, after all, exist in a vacuum all by themselves), but such is not always the case! Now, you have purposely switched the definitions of Belief/Acceptance and Fantasy/Love to try and give yourself superior position, Herr Josten, and I will not - I repeat - will NOT - accept that. You propose coexistence, but try to take unfair advantage! Queen's Gambit is declined, sir. Now, let us move on and examine your hypothesis that chess was hyper-bred out of interaction of travelling merchants along the Silk Road. I will play fair and not ask you to delineate your "facts" in support of this idea. Ha! JanXena -

First of all, I cannot confess to like this woman calling herself a Black Knightess, a Xena, a witch, a prophet or what else comical. I simply love this person, who is fascinated by chess and by searching for the origin of this game, though pretending to have already got the solution of all questions.

I got to know a little bit of her own origin and history. I could hear her laughing and crying. I have been enriched by her. Occasionally I tried the "taming of the shrew", but so far without any visible success. If I knew why I love her, I probably wouldn't! Jan Laurel Kathleen, I love you just the way you are.

Latin isn´t your thing, ok. A Roman emperor once finished an intense and endless debate in the Roman Senate by these few words: "Ceterum censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam". These words meant: "By the way, in my opinion Carthage must be destroyed". I used this comparison to tame you, darling. So, my shrew and shrieking Jan, if you want to assert something, why do you assert it blatantly? So much to explain my Latin trip.

Now I modestly that science knows three steps of knowledge: Suspicion, hypothesis and truth. And here, you see, our triangle appears once more, if you set

Your example of a traffic accident seems to be not very suitable in my mind. Nowhere in our world are realized more lies, suspicions, theses and truth than in a courthouse. The task of a judge therefore isn´t finally to find the truth, but only to make peace in rights. If he is fortunate, he might even find the truth. And, my dear, our intention is not to meet one day in a courthouse to be spoken right.

I think, that my explanations of belief, fantasy and truth do not violate someone or put someone at a disadvantage. Let me give another example, please. It doesn´t make any sense to believe that the entire universe is turning around our earth, unless one needs this imagination for one´s own health and would not be intent on convincing others this is truth. If you are comfortable with any peaceful belief or faith, then there is no place for critics or rejection. Moreover, I´m sure that everyone needs some sort of belief, except the nihilists. So, in future like in the past I will respect your belief as well. But we shouldn´t mistake a personal belief for a common truth. Okay?

Let me try to build a bridge by first citing Stefan Zweig with his chess novel, so wonderfully translated by yourself, Jan:

Isn´t it a science as well - an art - hovering between antitheticals like the coffin of Mohammed between Heaven and Earth; a collection of opposites forever bound together within the perimeter of the chessboard; ancient and yet eternally new; one part mechanical but given life through fantasy; limited in rigid geometric space and yet unlimited in its permutations; permanently evolving, fertile - and yet childless; a thinking that leads to oblivion; an arithimetic that calculates nothing; an art without any works; an architecture without any substance; but, nonetheless, more durable in its being and living than all books and works - the one, the only - Game, that belongs to all peoples and all periods! We shall never know through what divine auspices it was brought to Earth - to do away with all that is mundane; to stir the senses; to envelope the soul. Where is its beginning, and where its quietus?

I don't wish for a war of "superior position" between us. By no means do you have to accept any position. But I cannot understand why or where you could claim an "unfair advantage" for me. You see things which do not exist! War makes blind! Make love, not war, my dear! I propose the following definitions and hope that you agree:

All of them give different answers on different questions related to the origin of chess. Here I try to state a first overview to be possibly corrected by you.

Thank you for your offer to examine my fantasy. Here follow two representative articles which give my opinion on the origin of chess. The second article is a summary of a just published work in German entitled: "Ist Schach wirklich ein königliches Spiel?" which means: "Is chess really a royal game?" My clear and unmistakable answer is: NO! Chess was not born by Gods /Goddesses or kings, but created by simple people of the street, of the Silk Road.

Was chess created through evolution or revolution? Nowadays among chess historians there are not many followers of Murray's theory left, which states that chess was created in a one-person-one-moment event. The majority assumes that chess was developed in an evolutionary process. However there is no agreement on the timespan which this process covered. The following suggestion is also based on the assumption that chess was invented in an evolutionary process.

The question concerning the origin of chess is still for many reasons an unsolved puzzle. We do not yet know of any protocol for the reasons or the time of its conception. However, even if we happened to find such a report one day, some doubts would still remain. When discussing written sources only one fact can be taken for granted: If a text undoubtedly refers to chess, the game must have been known at the time that the text was written. In a book published in 1998 David H. Li(1) for example, claims to have found a Chinese inventor of chess called Han Xin, who is said to have invented the game in the winter of 204/203 B.C. Li only gives recent sources as literary evidence. For this reason I agree with Joachim Petzoid (2) who does not concede too much credibility to written sources which refer back in time.

[Note 1: THE GENEALOGY OF CHESS, Bethesda, MD: Premier Pub., 1998, page 142: " Chess is invented by Han Xin, the commander-in chief of the Han army, in 204-203 BCE, for the purpose of occupying his troops´time during a winter-long reciprocal surveillance of Chao and Han armies on the banks of the Mian-Man River. Before introducing any new game, Han Xin evaluates Weiqi and Liu-bo for features suitable for inclusion in games for his troops."]

[Note 2: DAS KÖNIGLICHE SPIEL, 1987 Edition Leipzig, ISBN 3-17-009405-x, page 11: "Man wird sich also nicht nur auf das verlassen dürfen, was schwarz auf weiß zu lesen oder materiell greifbar ist. Die moderne Wissenschaft setzt die vielfältigsten Mittel, wie z.B. den Sprachvergleich, ein; sie verschmäht auch die Analyse mündlicher Überlieferungen nicht."]

Similar caution must be exercised when examing gaming accessories, especially if they cannot readily be assigned to chess. Hans Holländer(3) has pointed out repeatedly that playing pieces cannot explain the nature of a game since they are freely interpretable, i.e. that pieces as such do not deserve too much attention. The same is true for possible forerunners of chess. Gianfelice Ferlito and Alessandro Sanvito(4) state that reliable conclusions on gaming implements require a complete set of pieces with at least four different types of pieces from a completely undisturbed burial site. However, the problem remains that the implements themselves provide no information about their use.

[Note 3: In: Positionspapiere zur 2. Konferenz der Schachhistoriker in der "Initiativgruppe Königstein" vom 26.11.1993 bis 28.11.1993 in Amsterdam: Thesen zur Früh- und Vorgeschichte des Schachspiels, page 9: "Mit der Suche nach abbildlichen Figuren, die vielleicht auch Schachfiguren gewesen sein können, verfolgt man nur eine Nebenspur. Viele sogenannte Idole können natürlich einst Spielfiguren gewesen sein. Aber es wäre vielleicht ganz gut, auf die Abbilder keine so übertriebene Aufmerksamkeit zu verwenden. Wenn irgendwo in Samarkand oder Delhi kleine Plättchen zum Vorschein kämen, von denen zwei durch ein Zeichen besonders gekennzeichnet und durch Farbspuren unterschieden wären, dann könnte dieses Spiel ein aus einem strategischen Jagdspiel entwickeltes Urschach gewesen sein."]

[Note 4: In: THE CHESS COLLECTOR; SUPPLEMENT, Vol. V. Number 2. July 1996, Editor Mike Pennell, London: Protochess, 400 B.C. to 400 A.D., page 7/8: "We think that the protochess pieces were at least of four different figures which may have justified four distinct types of movements, typical of a chess game played either with or without dice........It is comforting to note, that if around 600/700 A.D. a game, chess, arrives to inspire the creation of fanciful poems and the birth of numerous legends, this signifies that the game was already popular and so widespread that it leads one to believe that the game of chess could have been played a long time before. If this is so, then in some unknown place, maybe even in a sunken ship on the bottom of a sea, ancient pieces, used for playing a protochess game, are probably still to be discovered. We hope that one day an archaeologist will find them and give us all great joy."]

It is a simple act to modify a game like Chess in its nomenclature and morphology. On the other hand there is the danger that nomenclature and morphology conceal the true home of a game. Examples abound so I will give no further reference. Thus, leaving aside nomenclature and morphology for a moment, and just inspecting the structure of the game, there is an additional aspect which I will look at in detail.

The great chess historian Pavle Bidev(5) once said that everyone uses chess as his whore without once asking for her name - that is, without inquiring about her true nature. He was the only chess historian who ever inquired deeply into the actual moves of the pieces of international and Chinese chess. By judging the moves he proclaimed the priority of Chinese chess. This debate illustrates that apart from texts and pieces the game itself can contribute to solving unanswered questions. This third way - the structural approach - has been neglected up to now and will be put forward again here.

[Note 5: Stammt Schach aus Altindien oder China?, Yu Igalo 1986, Selbstverlag, page 6: "Denn es läßt sich in der Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit kein anderes Geistgut auffinden, das einer uneingeschränkten Ausbeutung seiner Schätze dergestalt ausgesetzt ist, wie das der Fall mit dem Tschaturanga ist. Einmal schrieb ich Herrn Egbert Meissenburg, dass meiner Meinung nach die Schachmuse Caissa als die größte Hure in der Geschichte der Weltprostitution zu bezeichnen ist."]

What are the elements which make up a game of chess? They can in no way be said to be homogeneous. In order to answer the question one need only look at presentday variants like Chinese chess and International chess, as I will call it. Both games have undergone only slight modifications. Let us start with the international version. First there is the board. It is divided into 8 by 8 squares and, in contrast to the Chinese variant, it is indifferent to what game it is used for. The pieces can be divided into three different groups, the first of which represented by a single central piece. The second group consists of a variety of pieces displaying different kinds of movement and value. Let us call them "officers". The third group consists of pieces which may not move backward and which are of smaller value than those of the second group. Let us call them "pawns" . If they reach the opposite end of the board, they are exchanged for any of the higher ranked officers. The aim of the game is to obtain the opponent´s central piece.

The Chinese game differs in the following aspects: The markings on the board have an enormous influence on nearly all the pieces. The pieces differ only marginally from those of the international game. Having once reached the middle of the board the pawns may move laterally and can therefore take part in the encirclement of the central castle which includes the central piece. After having reached the opposite end of the board, the simple pieces may only move laterally. The fact that the board´s squares are constructed by the lines on the board, and that the pieces are placed on the intersections, does not play any role in the game's structure.

Judging both chess games only with respect to their structure and the different groups of pieces, one comes to the conclusion that chess might have been come into being through the merging of several older games. Is it possible that a variety of gaming ideas have been combined into chess? This question has not yet been discussed widely, and there are no definite answers either. I will show that one of the possible answers allows a unification of the different camps of chess historians who say that Persia, India and China should be the homeland of chess.

First of all the structure of the game renders possible the following chess-definition, which is free from interpretation: Chess is a game played by two players on a board with rectanglar line-markings; these markings may or may not influence the piece's special movements. There are three groups of pieces: the central piece, the officers displaying different manners of movement, and the pawns which cannot move backwards. The aim of the game is to at least immobilize the opponent´s central piece. Every piece with the exception of the central piece may be captured.

This leads to the question of earlier, simpler games which may have been merged into chess. Let us start with the central piece. This can only have been derived from a sort of hunt game. The main aim of hunt games is to catch or block one or more hostile pieces. Pronounced hunt games are e.g. the old Chinese games of Liubo and Weiqi. Weiqi is about 4000 years old and still alive. The point of the game is to encircle hostile pieces by setting your pieces on a board of 361 intersections without moving them. On the other hand the pieces in Liubo, which died out long ago, were able to move and were aimed at the capturing of your opponent's central piece. Rainer Schmidt(6) thinks that Liubo was exported to the west and returned as Chinese chess Xiangqi, enriched by foreign elements. I see China as the country of origin of the hunt games, that is, as long as no Indian or Persian hunt games are found.

[Note 6: In: Schach-Journal 1/1993, Urschach und die Vorgeschichte des Xiangqi, page 85: " Die Chinesen der Shang- und Zhou- Dynastie kannten Weiqi ab ca. 2000 v.Chr. Es ist das einzige nachweisbar würfellose Spiel aus jenen Zeiten und wurde vor seiner Reglementierung durch die Japaner auf einer beliebigen Feldbreite, folglich egal (=unbegrenzt) vielen Steinen gespielt und ist peripedal ausgerichtet (die Entscheidung fällt in den Ecken). Erst dazu ist der Gegensatz ( =begrenzt in Feld und Steineanzahl und zentriert ) überhaupt denkbar! Diese Vorstellung nun verwirklichte sich schließlich als Zweiparteienspiel mit Würfeln im Bo und würfellos im Sai, wanderte - meiner Meinung nach - aber schon früh nach Indien und in den persischen Raum, wo sie auf dem ashtapada und dem vorgefundenen Pferderennset mit 4x4 Figuren eine ausbaufähigere und flexiblere Verwirklichung fand.[ ......] . Beim neuerlichen Ideenaustausch während ihrer buddhistischen Epoche nahmen die Chinesen nur die augenscheinlichste Verbesserung an: das ashtapada als Grundlage ( die Liubo-Bretter verschwanden ), rangen sich aber zu allem anderen ( Zentrierung des Königs, Aufstockung des Figurensatzes ) nur schwer und zögerlich durch - und auch dies nur zusammen mit traditionellen Kompensationen ( Fluß, Kanone u.ä. )."]

The origin of the group of officers seems to be more tricky, as they are not found in any board games other than chess. However, taking the main criterion, that is the differentiated moves, as a clue, these different moves could have derived from old magic squares. As shown by Ricardo Calvo(7), who refers to authors such as Johannes Kohtz and Pavle Bidev, the oldest moves of the officers correspond to the magic square of Safadi. Thus mathematical ideas from Persia may have contributed to chess, if, that is, there are no older magic squares from India or China. However, magic squares cannot explain the aim of chess games or the forward-only movement of pawns. And there remain Joachim Petzolds(8) remarks that the movement of the officers may have been developed as a result of the geometrical properties of the board. It appears that we owe the origin of the differentiated moves to mathematical patterns.

[Note 7: In: HOMO LUDENS IV, Verlag Emil Katzbichler, München-Salzburg, 1994, Die Hypothese von Johannes Kohtz, page 45: "The jumping Rook, together with the movements of all pieces of Chatrang, can be seen in the numerical arrangement of a Magic Square of 8x8, the so-called Safadi Board. This arrangement is obviously older than chess itself, and shows that the chess movements were historically deduced from this genetic code of arithmetical operations."]

[Note 8: DAS KÖNIGLICHE SPIEL, Edition Leipzig, 1987, ISBN 3-17-009405-x, page 36: " Die geometrischen Zusammenhänge in der Figurenbewegung werden sichtbar, wenn man die vier Schachsteine auf einer Mittelreihe im Vierschach von einem Punkt aus agieren läßt. Der König beherrscht vom Felde A alle unmittelbar angrenzenden Felder B. Die Felder C werden nachweisbar vom Elefanten kontrolliert, die Felder D vom Springer, und die Felder E liegen zumindest auf den Zuglinien des Turms. Bei einem angenommenen Turmsprung würde ein Konstruktionsprinzip sichtbar, das der Hauptfigur den Nahraum, den drei übrigen höheren Figuren nach einem bestimmten System den angrenzenden Fernraum, gewissermaßen die zweite Reihe, zuweist."]

What idea do the pawns represent? This is most easily explained through the two chess games themselves. In international chess the race game idea is hidden in them, for their aim is to reach the rear end of the board where they are promoted to higher ranking officers. My first thought is that this is an Indian idea, as Xiangqi does not have this promotion element. As the pawns are able to move laterally, from the middle of the board on, they can take part in the siege of the central castle with the central piece. Thus, pawns have to have derived from a (Chinese) hunt game, indirectly underlining Rainer Schmidt's theory.

In hunt games, as a rule, hostile pieces are not captured. A well-known example of this type is the game "Fox and Geese". In chess as a hunt game, however, pieces are captured. This idea is found mainly in rob games like draughts. Indian race- and rob games, like Pachisi, therefore may have been the model for capturing in chess.

According to the above, chess is mainly a hunt game which has incorporated mathematical ideas and ideas from race and rob games. But that is not the end. In hunt games like "Fox and Geese", one party is the hunter, the other the hunted. Both parties have different sets of pieces. This is not the case with chess. Here we have an idea of symmetry, which can be clearly seen in the initial arrangement of both parties pieces. The origin of this idea is probably lost to us.

The different boards give hints to different influences. Eventually India made its contribution with the 8 by 8 astapada, while magic squares of the same size were in use and contributed from Persia. Both were square boards with no special markings on them. China introduced the highly differentiated (marked) Liubo board and from there developed perhaps the differentiated (marked) Xiangqi board. In this context I agree with Yuri Averbakh(9) who claims that the basic ideas of games have to be studied before trying to give definite opinions on the origins of chess.

[Note 9: In: APPROACHING THE ROOTS OF CHESS, edited by Egbert Meissenburg, 1996: To the Question of the Origin of Chess, page 5: "Starting this study the author proceeded from the following thesis: The history of chess cannot be studied without a proper knowledge of the history of other board games. First is it necessary to observe the games which had come into existence before chess appeared. Only after that we are able to understand the sources and reasons which guided to the origin of chess."]

In which location or region, in which melting pot of games, might these game ideas have been merged, mingled, and modified? If neither India, nor Persia or China had - contrary to traditional theories - brought forth chess, but if each had contributed only a small part, we would now have to look for a region where the cooperation of all three claimants was possible. One look at an atlas showing the routes of the Silk Road makes it clear: The area around Kashgar (Turkestan) is a prime candidate. All major routes of the Silk Road meet there, a southern branch of the road reaching India. The region round Peshawar was a candidate as well, but here we only have the southern route of the Silk Road, that area, therefore, being less central than Kashgar. I regard Kashgar as the market place, where different game ideas were exchanged. Even today Kashgar, once capital of the Uighur kingdom, views itself as an agent of ideas and merchandise. Today it is a Chinese city, but its character is more like that of a Persian or Afghan town.

Via Kashgar, Indian Buddhism reached China in times before Christ. Via Kashgar, Chinese silk reached Rome whilst Jesus was alive. Via Kashgar, Babylonian Manichaism reached China. Kashgar was the pivot of the Silk Road, whose beginnings go back about 4.000 years. Kashgar is not that far from North-West India, where many chess historians believe chess originated. Kashgar (or Turkestan, in a wider sense) seems to be the ideal location where both of the major chess games may have originated more or less at the same time, as Joachim Petzold(10) proposes.

[Note 10: DAS KÖNIGLICHE SPIEL, Edition Leipzig, 1987, page 19: "Obwohl der Verfasser sich kein Urteil über die Entstehung des Schachspiels der Chinesen anmaßt und schon angesichts der Springerbewegung keine völlig unabhängige Entwicklung für möglich hält, muß er jedoch auf die Tatsache verweisen, daß ähnliche und sogar gleichartige Dinge getrennt voneinander erfunden oder wie das Porzellan und das Pulver nacherfunden wurden. Man kann nicht von vornherein ausschließen, es habe eine eigenständige Ausformung des chinesischen Schachs gegeben."]

What finally would be the answers to Egbert Meissenburg's five questions which he quoted in "Some General Notes on the State of Chess Research Especially in Connection with Protoches", published in the brochure for the 1996 symposium "Approaching the Roots of Chess" in Pondicherry, India?

Who? Not a king and not a lonely wise man, but Persian, Indian, and Chinese travellers in combined effort with local inhabitants created chess as a game of the roads.

Where? We pondered this question above. Our conclusion was: At a central market place somewhere along the Silk Road in commutation with the neighbouring regions.

When? At some time when all structural elements were in existence (game boards, hunt games, race games, rob games, and magic squares), and with some further evolution.

How? Through joy of experimentation. Through the merging of several games, a lot of variants arose, of which only those which were fun to play and were favoured by influental people survived.

Why? Not to console a king or a queen somewhere, but to pass the traveller's and trader's time, when the climate along the Silk Road did not allow them to continue travelling. These people played just for fun and did not take into account the future chess historians. This is the actual reason why we can never penetrate the "impenetrable darkness" mentioned by Fiske.

Anyway, our research into the origin of chess remains exciting as we can approach this darkness step by step and take into consideration the opinion of all participants. Do you have any further comments? Feel free!

Dissenting Votes by Pavle Bidev, Ricardo Calvo, Gerhard Josten, Victor Keats, Egbert Meissenburg, Joseph Needham", edited by Gerhard Josten and Egbert Meissenburg, Seevetal 1998, and thereby slightly ammended.

A number of legends, though also many renowned chess historians, have seen the origins of the game of chess in elite circles, namely, gods, kings, priests, philosophers or commanders. There is an obvious, plausible reason for this assumption: Unlike the common people, these elite circles left written documents on the wonderful game of chess.

However, the author has considerable doubts about the assumption that these classical, elitist search fields are adequate for a comprehensive settlement of the question as to the origins of chess. This is why this article is provocatively entitled: "Is chess really a royal game?" In the course of history a number of elitist circles have been connected with chess, particularly in written documents - either at their own or another's initiative.

Starting from this basis it is very tempting to look for the beginnings of the game of chess within these elite circles. With reference to the general survival behaviour of old board games, of which chess is a good example, the author very much doubts that the origins of chess can be found in any elitist circles. In his opinion, the games of the elite generally share the same fate as the elite themselves: they arise in these circles and are cultured there, often becoming a taboo for the common people, before declining together with the elite.

The people's games are different, games which arise and develop outside elitist circles. Their genesis and growth depend largely on two necessary components. Firstly, an adequate acceptance and distribution amongst the "gaming" people, i.e. the principle of quantity. This is controlled solely by the people's fun of playing, nothing else, and is decisive for a game's survival. The second component is either the ingenious simplicity of the rules or a marked flexibility of the game, i.e. the principle of quality.

The author believes that the game of chess cannot be an invention of elitist circles on account of its very early and widespread distribution and because of its proven flexibility. He is convinced that chess gradually grew in a long, drawn out process, inasmuch as the people who played chess combined various playing principles in a single, unique experiment along the Silk Road, the upshot of which was chess in its many variants. In his opinion, chess like all other games was subject to the law that Darwin had formulated of the world of living creature: Survival of the fittest.

Accordingly, this leaves no room for an elitist creation of the game of chess. Nameless players from amongst the people created chess and developed its many variants.

These players were not only nameless, they could not write either, unlike the elite circles. This thesis includes the presumption that the inventor of chess will not be found in the long run, and the consolation that an allegedly elitist invention posthumously honours the nameless. Not even the chess revolution of 500 years ago left us the names of those persons who created the new chess pieces of the "Queen" and "Bishop", even though numerous written documents were published on the revolutionised chess. This should be proof enough of the author's assumption.

Jan, this is a great lot of material. Please excuse me! And now I'm very interested if we can come together at all. Will you try the first step for this task?