Poto
Ancient Mariner
I play on lichess.org
Chess
- Thread starter Poto
- Start date
Magnus
Pica Serdica
Some of you might perhaps be interested:
sciendo.com
Figure numbers are wrong but the captions are correct. That's the digital era for you I guess.
And it can be played with a regular chess set.
Maldivian Chess (Raazuvaa)
Traditional Maldivian chess rules are presented and their similarity to pre-19th century Turkish chess is discussed, with musings on the potential role of Ottomans in spreading the “new game” invented in Europe – but played in their own manner – throughout the Muslim world and beyond.
sciendo.com
Figure numbers are wrong but the captions are correct. That's the digital era for you I guess.
After getting some feedback since it was published, I realized that the paper is not as well written as I would have liked, and its main points might not be immediately obvious, so here's an attempt at what other journals would call plain language summary:
Maldivian chess complete* rules are published for the first time in an international academic journal. Contrary to previous authors, this is not an Indian chess variant, the rules are closest to those attested from the Ottoman Empire before the 19th century. It seems plausible that the major shift in Asia and probably Africa from the "old game" rules (with what is now bishop leaping two squares diagonally and what is now queen moving one square diagonally), to those of the "new game" invented in Europe (in the late 15th century, with modern B and Q moves) involved Ottoman intermediation rather than direct contacts with Europeans. Traditional forms of chess too close to the international game are especially vulnerable and worth of being preserved as an important part of cultural heritage.
* Or nearly complete. I forgot to ask about perpetual check.
Maldivian chess complete* rules are published for the first time in an international academic journal. Contrary to previous authors, this is not an Indian chess variant, the rules are closest to those attested from the Ottoman Empire before the 19th century. It seems plausible that the major shift in Asia and probably Africa from the "old game" rules (with what is now bishop leaping two squares diagonally and what is now queen moving one square diagonally), to those of the "new game" invented in Europe (in the late 15th century, with modern B and Q moves) involved Ottoman intermediation rather than direct contacts with Europeans. Traditional forms of chess too close to the international game are especially vulnerable and worth of being preserved as an important part of cultural heritage.
* Or nearly complete. I forgot to ask about perpetual check.
And it can be played with a regular chess set.
Magnus
Pica Serdica
If Black doesn't do that, it's Qxh5+ and mate after both Bs trying to cover.
Apparently, the brilliant move here is white Qg6. If black took the bait PxQg6, that's an obvious checkmate (KxPg6), but if black didn't do that, it looks like it's pretty easy to weasel out of the mate. Or am I missing something?
But what matters is in how many moves is the mate supposed to happen. I mean, if it is "White moves and wins", ok but if it's White wins in 2 for example then this is obviously not the solution.
And I think you mean N not K, K is king.
Last edited:
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
This young lady and her sister pop up on my FB feed often and they're pretty entertaining and I enjoy their matches and how they break down what went right or wrong. Her sister has been posting stuff from the Championship in Iceland and it makes chess casuals like myself feel smart haha:
Magnus
Pica Serdica
Not really, no.
I mean, I was obviously taking the opportunity of taking the Mickey, but, historically, in fact it moves one square orthogonally and then one diagonally, or vice versa.
Of course, in modern international chess it's the same, but it makes a difference in Russian Fortress Chess when going out of or into the fortress
.
It also makes a difference in Indian variants where the king can move as knight once but cannot go through check (for defining "going through check")
, and in Xiangqi a.k.a. Chinese Chess, where the knight always goes one straight first and only then one oblique, and doesn't leap, it makes an even bigger difference. Here,
Red knight can capture Black but not the other way around, because Black knight's move is blocked by the red pawn.
I mean, I was obviously taking the opportunity of taking the Mickey, but, historically, in fact it moves one square orthogonally and then one diagonally, or vice versa.
Of course, in modern international chess it's the same, but it makes a difference in Russian Fortress Chess when going out of or into the fortress
.
It also makes a difference in Indian variants where the king can move as knight once but cannot go through check (for defining "going through check")
Loading…
intapi.sciendo.com
, and in Xiangqi a.k.a. Chinese Chess, where the knight always goes one straight first and only then one oblique, and doesn't leap, it makes an even bigger difference. Here,
Last edited:
So as the exclamation marks indicate, this is supposed to be a brilliant move, but from my view it really only is to those people who are impressed by a player ready to sacrifice a Queen. I suppose the moves white is thinking of is: Qxh5, Nd7 -> Checkmate.
So what if black doesn't take the bait but Pxf5, Qxh4, Re8. Black averts mate, white losing seems inevitable to me. Best move white could make is Pf4 to allow the Queen to move there, but then Re1, Qf2, Rd1. Only way I see out for white is Pg4, but then Rxf1, Qxf1, Rxf1 and after the onslaught white has lost everything but the Bishop at b2, while black will still have a bishop and a rook.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
From the videos I've been watching I've learned that "best move" isn't always the "only" move. And like you said, assumes what the other player will also play their "best move" in response. These Chess problems remind me of equations in math class and later logic problems in philosophy class. It is to train you to think in a very specific manner. the Chess players I've been watching talk about using computer assistance when training along with what their coach tells them, so it's also what a computer has already established as the optimal move.
My gut feeling as a pathetic amateur tells me it's the number one beginner's mistake to devote all your moves to go after the opponent's queen, and to protect your own. That's, essentially, how I was playing it growing up, because everybody I was playing against was the same way. I never actually learned to set traps, sacrifice pieces or avoid baits. This is why the only time I ever played against a truly experienced player, I had pretty much lost by move 3.
Oh, I wouldn't be in. I'm really just starting to learn. I subscribed to some chess problems pages recently on a whim to have a brain teaser every morning, and I'm just sharing some of my thoughts here to see if someone smarter than me would agree or teach me to see what I'm missing. Unfortunately, most of the user comments on those pages are even worse than what I am coming up with.