4인 차투랑가와 체스의 기원
조영필
4 handed chaturanga and the origin of chess :
Tracing the evolution from 4 handed to 2 handed game play
Y. P. Zho
15th, Mar, 2013
The game of chess has long been considered one of the most intellectual games. It has a lot of variations both historical and regional. Historical variations are mainly those which were played in the past in the regions where chess is still being played such as shatranj, timur chess and courier chess. While regional variations have different rules from modern western chess and are played mainly in eastern Asia such as Xiangqi, Shogi and Janggi.
Faced with these various forms of chess, some questions naturally arise. The first is the question of the geographical origin of chess, a topic both very interesting and disputable. At present three candidates are being proposed: India, Persia and China (Josten, 2001). But no scholar can answer it definitively. The main obstacle is attributed to the fact that no archeological or documentary evidence before the seventh century A.D. has been found (Remus, N.D).
Apart from the regional argument, there is another hot dispute surrounding the earliest form of chess. This concerns chaturanga, widely accepted by many historians as the precursor of chess. This is based on the supposition that chess has its origin in India. Chaturanga appears to have been played in two main versions: one is played by two players and the other, four. Chaturanga, in Sanskrit means “the four branches of the army” and reflects the real Indian armies in the past: the pieces were called elephants, chariots, horses, and foot soldiers.
A number of historians have argued that in India four-handed chess came first. While other scholars argue that these arguments seem to be based on several misapprehensions: relating to the meaning of its name, the relief depicting a game on the stupa of Bharhut, and historical documents (Mark, 2007). They also point out that armies normally operate with two sides fighting each other, not with four sides and propose that a 2-handed version probably existed before the 4-handed one and that it possibly then evolved into many other versions, including the 4-handed one and the versions with dice (Ibid). Current scholarship stating that the 2-handed version is precedent is the accepted theory, supported strongly by H. R. Murray in his book, ‘A History of Chess’(1913). However what is certain is that none of the other references to chaturanga in Indian literature before the 7C A.D. enables us to discern the numbers of players (Ibid).
This essay will introduce the 4-handed precedent hypothesis and describe reasons supporting this. To begin with, the relationship between the historical development of armaments and chess shall be investigated. In addition, a thorough explanation of the peculiar features surrounding chess rules will be given.
The reasons why 4-handed chaturanga may be the precedent form of 2-handed chaturanga is as follows:
1. Historically the advent of chess has been thought to be 7C A.D. but the invention of chess dramatically precedes the documentary evidence. However, 2-handed theory criticized 4-handed by the fact that there is more evidence of the former in the period between 7C and 10C A.D. The evidence after 7C A.D. may not be adequate enough to explain how prototype of chess was invented and developed as the historical appearances of chess.
2. The meaning of chaturanga is four armies but 2-handed chaturanga has five armies because it has an extra army including the counselor (queen). 2-handed chaturanga cannot explain this aspect. However, the 4-handed chaturanga theory can explain the birth of the queen clearly. Additionally, the question of why pieces such as bishops, knights and rooks are in pairs is relevant. Considering that pawns consist of 8 pieces and the king and queen are just 1 piece each, this kind of numbering is more logical in view of the 4-handed theory.
3. The most mysterious feature in chess is the movement of pawns. Other pieces move and capture others in the same way while only the pawn is different between regular movement and capturing. Its movement is forward while it captures diagonally. The advantage of the 4-handed theory is that it can solve this difficult problem.
First, it is widely accepted that chess was invented during the period between 4C B.C. and 4C A.D. The chess pieces represent the image of historical armies of that time. In chess there are 4 different armies: elephants, chariots, horses, and foot soldiers. Foot soldiers always comprised the main part of the army throughout human history, but elephants, chariots and horses appear to have been parts of the army in certain periods. The period from 4C B.C. to 4C A.D. is the only period when these different armaments comprised the army together in India (Ferlito & Sanvito, 1990).
Therefore if chess was invented from the image of war, the norms of this period might be a reasonable inference. Examining the basis of the 2-handed theory, the evidence is mainly literal documents alluding a little to chess from 7-10C A.D. (Bock-Raming, 1995). If chaturanga is regarded as the prototype of chess, the evidence after the time when chess has already been set up as 2-handed normal version could be inferred as being useless to suggest that 2-handed is precedent to 4-handed.
Second, Chaturanga is named after the 4 armies in reality. In its beginning it could have started as a race game with dice and gradually evolved into a strategic game. When it was played as a race game, the group playing could be 4 and later these 2 parts may have converged. If 4-handed game transformed into 2-handed like present day chess, the king of 1 side must have changed his role from king to counselor. The 4-handed theory explains well why modern chess has 5 armies including the queen even though its name means 4 armies, and why elephants, chariots and horses exist in pairs.
Moreover, it meets the general theory that the game developed from a simple game to a complicated one and from a race game with dice into a strategic one without the element of chance. It also explains why chess shares the game board, the so called “ashtapada” with the traditional Indian race game of the same name. It seems logical to consider that chess has developed from a race game.
Third, the mysterious movement of pawns is one of the most difficult questions for chess scholars. One theory tries to explain that it was affected by a Greco-Roman board game (Samsin, 2002) and another theory insists that chess is a hybrid game merging two different kinds of game: one is a pawn’s game, the other a major pieces’ game (Cazaux, 2003). These scholars endeavor to solve the question, which is still a puzzle for most chess historians.
If the 4-handed game is the prototype of chess, its explanation is simple. In the 4-handed game the place of pawns are very close to the place of other kings. If it is permitted for pawns to capture by moving forward, all kings would be so enormously endangered and the pawns’ movement of each side would be restricted in each half of the whole board, as well. Therefore the peculiar movement of pawns’ may have been devised by intelligent human beings in order to enjoy a more strategic game.
To conclude, from a historical view 4-handed theory meets every question of chess development. In comparison to the history of armaments, there is no meaning to find in the documents from 7-10C A.D. discussing the origin of chess. Compared to the development of the game, the supposition that chess evolved from a race game with fortune meets 4 players’ group and its board. Lastly it can explain well all kinds of features and development of chess. In the land and the time of no facts, and no evidence, we can rely on only our reason.
References:
Bock-Raming, Freiburg i. BR., “The varieties of Indian chess through the ages.”, Asiatische Studien 49.2 (1995): 309-331
Cazaux, J. L., “Is chess a hybrid game.”, The anatomy of chess, promos-Verlag GmbH (2003)
Ferlito, G. and Sanvito, A., “Origins of chess protochess, 400 B.C. to 400 A.D.”(1990)
Josten, Gerhard, “Chess – a living fossil.”, Cologne: Initiative Group Koenigstein (2001)
Mark, Michael, “The beginning of chess.”, Ancient board games in perspective (2007)
Remus, Horst, “The origin of chess and the silk road.”(N.D)
Rudolph, Jess, “Chaturanga-Indian chess shatranj-Arab chess the history and variants in West Asia.”(N.D)
Samsin, Myron J., “Pawns and pieces: towards the prehistory of chess.”, Mimeo (2002)
(2013. 03. 15)
부기: 아일랜드의 더블린 대학에서, 영작 교정받으면서 써둔 나의 즐거운 주제^^
