Talk:Chaturanga

The word "Chaturanga"
This page should be disambiguified somehow. The word "Chaturanga" has nothing to do with chess or a strategy game, except that a stragegy game is named it. The word itself, at the article's own admission, means "having four limbs (or parts)", and is a term that is also used in Yoga. I'm not qualified to disambiguify this, otherwise I would... I just came across it when I was editing the Loonette the Clown article and it mentioned that she does a chaturanga stretch in each episode. CrackerjackWannabe 20:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The word means the four limbs representing the four divisions of the ancient Indian army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaturaji (talk • contribs) 22:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The word means, among other things, a tetralogy, i.e. a novel or movie composed of four distinct parts. It also means a crossing of four roads, a piece of money worth a quarter, etc. etc. 46.215.54.217 (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

History
Was it ancestor of Shatranj or was Shatranj an ancestor of Chaturanga??? im confused, the articles say diffrent things :|


 * Chaturanga was the ancestor of Shatranj.

The elephant went from moving one square diagonally or one forward to leaping exactly two sqares on the diagonal. This move lasted until mad queen chess developed in Italy. Also check was introduced with Shatranj. In Chaturanga you would capture the king. Jake 23:32, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(I am almost certain that the "mad queen" developed in Spain, XV century)

Piece move descriptions
The reference to the knight move for the king seems like something from Shatranj, an early form of the king's leap. I'll have to look it up. Jake 23:32, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Knight's leap for the king was introduced much later, in middle ages. Then it was replaced by castling as it known today. Andreas Kaufmann 07:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Elephant move
An article on Chaturanga on chessvariants.com gives another rules for elephant movement: "The elephant moves two squares diagonally, but may jump the intervening square." Pritchard's Encyclopedia of Chess variants says the same. Shouldn't we correct this? Andreas Kaufmann 18:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually elephant movements were not established yet at that time... Andreas Kaufmann 4 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)
 * Now I updated the article to reflect existing uncertainty in Elephant moves. Andreas Kaufmann 07:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Please don't describe moves only in terms of moves of similar games. DGerman (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Indian Chess (Chaturanga)
Hi! to Everybody. I like chess very much. My father was very good chess player. In my childhood he used to say there are two ways in playing chess (one Internation method and another Indian method). As far as i know about the names and moves of the pieces in Chaturanga(Chess), i try to present some information before you.I am from Andhra Pradesh, so i put even Telugu Names along with Original Sanskrit ones for more information. (I am not here to argue that Chess originated in India like that, just to present what I know, thats all.)


 * Rāja(Raju)    --> King
 * Mantri(Mantri) --> Queen
 * Ratha(Śakatam) --> Bishop
 * Aśva(Gurram)  --> Knight
 * Gaja(Enugu)   --> Rook
 * Sainika(Bantu) -->pawn

So, Their movements are desined accordingly in the Chaturanga (Indian Chess) also.


 * Rāja -->One Step to a Square in any Direction (Vertical/Horizontal or Diagonal)
 * Mantri-->Any number of Steps to a Square in any Direction (Vertical/Horizontal or Diagonal)
 * Ratha-->Any number of Steps in Diagonal Direction.
 * Aśva-->Normal "L" Shaped Jumping Step.
 * Gaja-->Any number of Steps in Vertical/Horizontal Direction.

(Here when I mention about Step, I actually mean one Move.)

It really Stuns us the way the position and movements of pieces (Anga) were there, as they correctly suits to the reality of Indian warfare situations.


 * Actually Rāja(King) is the most powerful, but often won't come into action unless required. The Knight-move of a King(Rāja) resembles the escape of a King for safer location in most-crutial time (Āpaddharma kāla) in a warfare.


 * Mantri(Queen) is the next Most Powerful person in an Indian Empire/Kingdom. Though King only passes the decrees, Actually it the Prime minister who actually decides all kinds of acts and stratagies that are required for the welfare of King/Kingdom. (In Sanskrit, Mantri means Prime Minister.)


 * Ratha/Śakata(Bishop) is known For their famous Zig-Zag movements while attacking. Often the opponent doesn't takes into consideration the presence of Chariots which inturn give stunning, often devastating blows in an Indian Warfare. (Actually Śakata is also an Sanskrit word meaning Chariot.)


 * Aśva(Knight)is known for its irregular jumping movements which often keeps the opponent in a dilemma for a movement. Interstingly, even in the game it is the Aśva(Knight) that has highest number of moves than any other piece. (In Sanskrit, Aśva means Horse.)


 * Gaja(Rook) is known for Straight forward devastating attacks. Often opponent knows its advance but cannot escape. In olden days Gaja(Rook) played an very important role in scattering the army of an enemy, thereby making them to deviate from their stratagical movements. (In Sanskrit, Gaja means Elephant.)

The above four constitute the premier forces of a king in Indian warfares. Interestingly, even the game is also named as Chaturanga, which means four limbs (of a King). Since (Sainika) Pawns are infantry, they are also called as Padāti(in Sanskrit) and Kālbantu(in Telugu).)

Anybody wants any clarifications regarding sanskrit (or any indian) terms,please contact me. -Krishna Chaitanya 7.09PM 10,October,2006 IST(UTC)


 * Modern Indian Chess, which is basically international Chess without castling and without pawn double steps, has not much to do with Chaturanga, at least not more than any other local variants of Chess. Indians derived that from British colonizers not from the truly ancient game of Chaturanga. --176.146.177.22 (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Reverted major edit
Article largely replaced by a link to an external site by an anonymous editor with no history. Nothing in wikipedia policy to justify this change (that I can see) and nett loss to wikipedia by the edit. Reverted. If this was a good faith edit please justify here before repeating.--Shoka 20:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reverting this! This is already second time when this article was partly damaged and link to http://www.chaturanga.net added. Previous IP of probably the same user was 86.144.176.182. I think the reason is that software sold on chaturanga.net favors Cox-Forbes theory of origin of chess and what they call Chaturanga is more commonly called Chaturaji (4-player version of Chaturanga). Andreas Kaufmann 22:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Kraaijeveld paper: phylogeny of chess
Alex Kraaijeveld wrote two papers on the phylogeny of chess, using population genetic methods to find the evolutionary relationships between different chess/chaturanga variants. It would seem to fit well as a reference for this article.

Variant Chess (1999; 32: 56-58).

Board Games Studies (2000; 3: 39-50).

See his web page. - Samsara contrib talk 03:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My apologies. This has already been mentioned in origin of chess. - Samsara contrib talk 11:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Misleading
Is the board at the lead showing chess or Chaturanga? If it is chess, it shouldn't be there, it's very misleading! Mandel 17:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's clearly intended to be chaturanga, because the board is not chequered and chess has the king and queen the other way around. Using modern chess symbols for chaturanga is somewhat misleading, but commonly done. --Zundark 20:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not clear at all, because a chequered board and inverse king/queen position will be noticed by a prudent chess player, but certainly not by someone who does not play chess. I'm not sure using modern chess symbols are as common as you claim. For example chaturanga has elephants, this chart inexplicably uses bishops instead, and has queens for counsellors. Look at http://www.chessvariants.org/historic.dir/chaturanga.html, the explanation is infinitely clearer. Mandel 15:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The use of bishop symbols for elephants is explicable by the fact that bishops are derived from elephants. Similarly for queen symbols. But if you want to use different symbols, then go ahead. --Zundark 15:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added a table of pieces at the start of the article (and changed the caption on the first board) to clarify that this is not chess. --Ant 00:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

History
The information in this page is largely outdated and has no consideration for the work of historians. At least, everyone recognizes the huge work done by HJR Murray withhis History of Chess (HoC) in ... 1913. Not really yesterday. Murray cleared out several facts which should be know better appreciated now. Such is the given passage from Mahābhārata. I invite to read HoC p36 (OK it is written in very small character...) where Murray explained that what is also given on this Wikipedia page is only the free translation of a modern author. The sanskrit term is the general term of Phalaka, Murray says "there is no term that necessitates chess".

Since Murray's time, historians have progressed. Subandhu's Vasavadatta is no more considered talking about Chess, even by those supporting the idea of an Indian origin. The word translated as chessmen, nayadyutair, is not specific to the Chess and can indicate the pieces of any boardgames. The colors are not those of the two camps, but mean that the frogs have a two-tone dress, yellow and green. Lastly, some translate "black field squares" by "black edges of the irrigated fields"; and in any case, the chess-boards used by the Indians were unicoloured, the black squares being an European invention with the Middle Ages.

Finally, Bana's Harshacharita is controversed. The text says: "Under this monarch, only the bees quarreled to collect the dew; the only feet cut off were those of measurements, and only from Ashtâpada one could learn how to draw up a Chaturanga, there were no cutting off the four limbs of condemned criminals...". All the text plays with puns. If there is little doubt that Ashtâpada is the gaming-board of 8x8 squares, the double meaning of Chaturanga, as the four folded army, is controversed. There is a probability that the ancestor of Chess was mentioned there. However, some disagree and see in this text an allusion to the giant Purusha, often represented with his limbs folded on a square 8x8 or 9x9 diagram. The vedic mythology says the Gods caught him with a net, and with his sacrifice, the World was created. The point remains open.

I regret that Wikipedia contributes to spread such an obsolete view, I hope some correction will happen. For further reading, my own web site: http://history.chess.free.fr/history.htm I open to any remark. best regards Cazaux 20:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you correct it? That's how this site works. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 21:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I do it.Cazaux 19:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Chess ethymology
This article contains some quite loose remarks on ethymology of chess terminology.

See my previous article Chaturanga or Dice Chess: the rules and pieces ( now withdrawn for revision) and Shatranj for my sources.

Bishop: Alfil (Arabian) is elephant. The similarity between these words is easily heard. In Russia, the Bishop is still called an elephant. The english word Bishop is probably inspired by the form of the alfil: a rounded shape with soldiers on top of it. As Europeans didn't know the elephant, they took the rounded form for a head and the warriors for the points of a bishop's mitre.

Somewhat more difficult is the connection between Alfil and the German word Laeufer. However, the phrase "ein Laeufer" sounds loosely like Alfil, so there may be a connection. The dutch word Loper is of course derived from the German Laeufer.

The words Rook and Rochade derive straightly from the Sanskrit word Roca, which means boat. As India has many rivers and a long coast line, fast sail boats and row boats were excellent attack weapons. In deserts however, ships were not much use, so the Arabians converted them into chariots or siege towers (wooden constructions, built on the battlefield during the siege of enemy cities). German and Dutch words Turm and Toren just translate as tower.

The english term checkmate is derived more or less directly from the German word Schachmatt. It is amazing to find how little this word differs from the Farsi (Persian language) Shah Mat, meaning King Dead. The Shah sound then probably goes back to the first syllabe of Chaturaji or Chaturanga, although this has a totally different meaning. The Shatranj article states that chatu refers to the different chess men; in my opinion however, it is much more logical to link it to the four players of Chaturaji.

Bertus van Heusden 19:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Piece Names
Though the name of the game "Chaturanga" is Sanskrit, the piece names appear to be in Tamil. It is more likely the the pieces' names were in Sanskrit, as found in one of the previous edits. (A previous editor changed the Sanskrit names to Tamil names, which I think is most probably a prank.) Can someone look into this ? --kris (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Predessor?
HJR Murray writes that Chaturanga is predessor of chess. No reference or reasoning is provided. He most likely took that from hat. Moreover Xianggi like 8+8 boards have been found graves millenia older than the age of chaturange is assumed to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.184.83.230 (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You forget that the Elephant is an Indian animal, not Chinese therefore Chess has to originate in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaturaji (talk • contribs) 23:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually the elephant lived in China in ancient times, and still does now. Earlier this year a small band of elephants left a nature preserve in southern China and wandered for hundreds of kilometers, reported on by the world's press almost daily, until they stopped and turned around. J S Ayer (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Ditto
I was about to say the same thing. Can some one please change the names from Tamil to Sanskrit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamevay (talk • contribs) 13:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"An early reference to an ancient Indian board-game ..."
This article currently cites a c. 450 AD text for "an early reference to an ancient Indian board-game." A far earlier reference to the eight-row ashtāpada (Sanskrit; Pali: ) board can be found in several places in the Pali Canon's Dīgha Nikāya (which is traditionally believed to have been stated by the Buddha in the 5th c. BC and, I believe most would agree, written down in Sri Lanka c. 1st BC [e.g., see Tipitaka]).

For example, here's Thanissaro Bhikkhu's English translation of the Dīgha Nikāya's second discourse ("DN 2"):


 * "Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to heedless and idle games such as these — eight-row chess, ten-row chess, chess in the air, hopscotch, spillikins, dice, stick games ..." (DN 2, retrieved from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html )

The actual Pali is:


 * "" (DN 2, retrieved from http://www.tipitaka.org/romn/cscd/s0101m.mul1.xml )

Note that Ven. Thanissaro's word, "chess," does not actually have a Pali equivalent &mdash; it appears to be an inference he made from the reference to , etc. That is, the early Pali text clearly references the board in question; as to what was played on the board, I don't see anything explicitly stated in the Pali text (though my knowledge of Pali is limited). (Overlapping [though, in regards to this content, seemingly unreferenced] information can be found at the website used for in-line attribution in this current WP article: http://history.chess.free.fr/ashtapada.htm . As an aside, this latter web site refers to a "spiral race game" -- which might be a better match for the Pali "" -- which Thanissaro translates as "hopscotch," possibly influenced by the PTS PED entry).

Just thought someone might find this worthwhile for incorporation in this article. Mettāya, 24.136.253.60 (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Article is self-contradictory
The article says that the elephant piece is the precursor/equivalent of both bishop and rook, in different places, and gives two different names for it, without explanation. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Im pretty sure that the elephant is the precursor of the bishop, but I'd rather for someone more familiar with Charturanga to fix it. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I made the change according to a reference I have. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Markings
Been playing Chess since I was 9 (almost 40 years) and variants for 10. I recently became enchanted with Chaturanga. Of the four elements cited, Infantry, Chariots, Cavalry (horses) and Elephants, The Elephants are the one element not familiar to the modern chess player. Based on the two square Diagonal leap move, each Elephant can reach 8 Unique squares on the board, no two elephants, friendly or of opposing armys, will ever occupy the same square. As such the elephants lend to each player the ability to exert 1 extra force count on certain squares, an element not present in modern chess. When vying for control of a particular square or to win an exchange, or even playing to establish a support point for a knight or rook deep in the enemy position, (perhaps created  by an elephant well placed in a hole in the opponents pawn formation) this lends  a distinct tactical advantage to a player on certain squares and a disadvantage on others. With that in mind, it is obvious that understanding the elephants and the "terrain" formed by their movement patterns on the board would have been (and is) key to being a strong Chaturanga player, and, a careful examination of the Elephants moves on the board will reveal the meaning of the "mysterious" markings.The elephants collectively can land on only 32 of the boards 64 squares. The marked squares comprise half of the squares that the elephants do not land on. The other 16 are found in the 4 2x2 squares diagonal to the 2x2 square formed by the four marked squares in the center. The markings are a visual aid for seeing the battlefield as it relates to this important element of the game.John Erastothenes (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.154.232 (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Pawn promotion?
Currently, this article is missing a vital section: pawn promotion! According to Murray, there are many conflicting descriptions in the historical record. In some descriptions, the pawn can only promote to a ferz, in others, it must promote to the major piece originally on that file, and possibly only to replace a captured piece of that type. If the board is patterned like an ashtapada (corners and original KQ-squares marked specially), then promotion on the marked squares might differ. It would be good if a chess history scholar could summarize the most common promotion rules for this ancient game. --IanOsgood (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Title
Why is the title italicized? That seems wrong. (But I don't know how to fix it.) Bruce leverett (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * An editor at some point changed to italic chaturanga, xiangqi, janggi, makruk, shatranj, sittuyin, etc., on the rationale they are foreign terms or words. (I'm not sure the correctness of that either. Shall I research that editing point to identify better who/when/why?) --IHTS (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Mm, yes, italicization of foreign words. I don't like this when the foreign word is an article title, but MOS:FOREIGNITALIC doesn't mention that case.  That style guideline does say that proper names should not be italicized, but how much of a stretch is it to say that we are using the names of games as proper names?  (I never see "Sudoku" italicized.)  Also if you type "Xiangqi" into the "Search Wikipedia" box you get a half-dozen articles, and needless to say, they aren't being treated consistently (only one of them is italicized).  Need to think about this some more (I'm looking for an excuse not to italicize).  Bruce leverett (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * These don't need to be italicized. The article title italics were from Italic title.  Quale (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Origin
I am slogging through this new section, as it was pointed out to me in a discussion of another article.

There are only two footnotes in the whole section, both of which are web archive links to the same site. This site is a history of chess, not of chaturanga. The footnotes don't give the title, the editor's name, the date, the access date, or any of the usual amenities one expects with a Wiki reference. There are no page numbers or links to sections or subsections; one has to search for anything about chaturanga. For example, where does it say that the earliest reference is from the sixth century, and is from northwest India? I have not found that.

How reliable are the articles that make up this website? Do they meet any of the usual criteria for Wikipedia reliable sources? I ask because some of them look more like speculation than like encyclopedia material. Are any other sources available? Are there no published books about the history of games that mention the history of chaturanga?

Does chaturanga go back to the age of chariots, or doesn't it? As a casual reader, I don't expect to research this question; I was kind of hoping that you would know the answer. If you don't know the answer, why bring up the question? Nothing I read in this section enables me to get beyond the first sentence, "The origin ... has been a puzzle ..." One doesn't need a whole section to say that it is a puzzle; one sentence is sufficient. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Have sources been checked?
I'm reading Stewart Culin's book "Chess and Playing Cards" and the description of Chaturanga is too different. The chess board showed looks more like an Arab chess (Shatranj) than a chaturanga. --Coffeedrinker115 (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I checked some of the sources with doubtful assertions. Sources don't look reliable (old webpages of not specialists) and the assertions can't be found. I'll remove unsourced and contradictory content.--Coffeedrinker115 (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Removed rules and board
I removed most of the rules and the board. After checking other sources, I could confirm that they're confusing shatranj with chaturanga. All the publications by Chess historians agree that chaturanga had four players and used dices. --Coffeedrinker115 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right. Al-Biruni, who travelled in India around the year 1000 A.D. and wrote a voluminous work about it, only found the game for four players, each having four pawns, one king and three more pieces. This was a game played with dice. No two-player chess-like game was played in India at the time. Did the Indians invent a two-player chess game in the 6th century, then forgot about it, and began to play the inferior dice game after that? I doubt it.
 * The Mahabharata mentions gameplay with dice (and a board) about 80 times, but it never mentions a chess-like game.
 * The Wikipedia article, as it is today, has the following phrase: "the earliest clear reference dating from the sixth century of the common era, and from north India." Where is this "clear reference"? It doesn't exist! 46.215.54.217 (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is really confusing shatranj with chaturanga
The initial set is not chaturanga, it's shatranj. All reliable sources agree that chaturanga rules remain unknown, but agree that the initial set were four armies. This is one of the few English articles that are worst than in any other language. I read that User:The_Witty_Warrior was looking for sources. You can check the Spanish or the French version, they have pictures of the table in the initial set. There're many books about History of Chess, just not confuse shatranj or chatrang with Chaturanga, they're different games. And most of the books about the History of Chess that I've read agree that the game was played with dices.--JPaulo07 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

History of chess
This article is citing a website titled "The History of Chess", which is long gone (domain taken over by some other chess-related business). Where to get the information that used to be at that website?

Murray's main book, "A History of Chess", 1913, can be found as a PDF at:. There may be other places on the Web that are easier to use. However it is not the source of this article's first diagram, the one whose caption begins, "Chaturanga starting setup".

I wonder if that diagram is from Murray's later book, "A Short History of Chess", which he wrote in 1917, but which was published in 1963, long after his death. It's not hard to find this book for sale on the Web, but I have not found any free PDF's or whatever. Apparently it was prepared for publication by Harry Golombek, so one can also find it, sometimes, by searching for Golombek. This book is allegedly not just an abridgement of Murray's 1913 book, but has additional material, so that diagram and some other things in the article might have ultimately come from Murray's 1917 book.

I have looked at a book by Gollon (1968), "Chess Variations: Ancient, Regional, and Modern", using Google Books. It mentions chaturanga, giving the starting position we are giving. It is a tertiary source, that is, there is no evidence that Gollon looked at the sources from antiquity that Murray looked at.

I have not seen Eales's book, "Chess, the History of a Game" (1985), or Pritchard's compendium of chess variants. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If I had looked at my own previous contribution to this talk page, I might have answered my own question. The website that we were citing was a collection of articles about the history of chess by an assortment of authors.  I cannot find it on the Web any more.  I recall that there was an article by Ricardo Calvo, and another article by Yuri Averbakh, but I do not remember the other authors' names.


 * I complained at the time that the articles didn't look like reliable sources. I think that, even if this collection of articles surfaces somewhere, we should not attempt to use it.  I would not take for granted, at this point, that reliable sources can be found about a predecessor of chess that may have been called "chaturanga"; our other sources at this point are either about contemporary or successor games, or about references to a game of the same name, with no information about playing board or equipment, rules, etc.


 * In addition to the two books by Murray that I mentioned above, he wrote a third one, History of Board-games Other Than Chess (1952), which might be helpful. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

History of chaturanga
We cannot say with certainty that Chaturanga is the ancestor of xianqqi, etc. That is why the expression "commonly theorized" was used (which I will restore). There is a brief discussion of this very question in Talk:Chess.

This sentence is not even grammatically correct: "The game may have been played by four players with dice also known later to scholars as chaturaji." We have an article about chaturanga, and an article about chaturaji. Evidently they are two quite different games, although probably related. I am not going to try to fix this so it makes sense; I will just remove it, so that the original editor can start over if he or she wishes. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay we can talk here, please ask me to clarify anything which I have edited. Thank you. Chaturaji (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, my questions, or complaints, are given above. Do you agree that the expression "commonly theorized" is appropriate?  If not, why not?  And, is it not clear that chaturaji and chaturanga are different games?  (Murray makes a point of noting that games played with dice are unlikely to have an interesting role in the history of chess.)  I would think that the most we can say about chaturaji in the article about chaturanga, is that they may be related.  Bruce leverett (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your view. The country of origin for Chess is not really the debate, as all the evidence shows it to be from India. The Elephant is an Indian animal. The Persians and Arabs in their earliest records, are testimony to India being the origin of Chess or Shatranj. The debate really should be, was Chess originally a two handed strategy game played without dice or was it a four player game played with dice which some refer to as Chaturaji. Chaturaji is not a game but a way to win the game with the most money (gambling) in Chaturanga, like checkmate in Chess. Chaturaji (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Murray (1913) presents evidence that chess originated in India: (1) the earliest clear references to it are from Persian and Indian manuscripts from the 7th century; (2) in these manuscripts, the Persians ascribe the game to India.  We rely heavily on Murray, but as always with ancient history, there are important caveats:  (1) we cannot take for granted that there are no earlier manuscripts, not yet discovered, or perhaps lost, that tell a different story; and (2) it may be that there is earlier history that was not mentioned in any manuscripts, particularly since this was a thousand years before the invention of printing and the advent of universal literacy.  The book, A World of Chess, by Cazaux and Knowlton, suggests alternative theories of the origin, in which the Indians got chess from elsewhere before passing it on to the Persians, e.g. they got it from Central Asia or perhaps from Eastern Asia.  Chess, for example, cites this book.  I should mention that, intuitively, I prefer the theory of Indian origin; but as Wikipedia editors, we are enjoined not to rely on our intuitions, but to rely on reliable sources.  If you are new to Wikipedia, follow that link -- it's very important.


 * Our article about chaturaji says unequivocally that it is a game, separate from Chaturanga. What is your source for the claim that it is not a game, but a way to win a game with the most money?  It's important for us all to be on the same page about this!  Bruce leverett (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The theory that all games of the chess family evolved from chaturanga is commonly accepted, but it is not an established historical fact. Alternative theories have been suggested, and are not considered WP:FRINGE. By removing all caveats from the article, this editor is clearly trying to introduce their own point of view, contrary to wikipedia policy. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving the following two paragraphs from where they were mistakenly placed (in the "History of Chess" section") to here. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Im afraid you cannot prove your point, especially that the elephant (an Indian animal is used) even in the Chinese game. I’m afraid all other sources are too late compared to the Persian and Indian texts. Chaturaji is never mentioned as a name of a game in any Indian text, you will have to provide the source for that, and I doubt you can read Sanskrit anyway. Chaturaji (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The Arabs have claimed that the numbers and zero come from India - which is proved true, they say that the book of fables kalila was dimna comes from India - true, in the same sentence they say chess comes form India therefore it did as the other two are also true. Al Adli could not have lied about chess being fork India as he states the truth of the Indian numbers and kalila wa dimna book if fables. About this book ‘works if chess” which you refer, it is a flawed theory for whatever agenda the author wants to ascribe the game to China or Central Asia, when they themselves have no record of it. Unless it can be disproven then Murray’s theory is correct until new discoveries of older texts are found which is unlikely. As I have stated clearly before anyone can believe that chess originates from whatever country or land wether it be the Aztec’s or the Japanese or aborigines, however that is only in the mind of the person who’d has an alternative agenda without a shred of evidence. It is unfortunately in the persons imagination, but that does not change or prove anything. For you to remove my edits you will have to disprove my own which are taken from ancient Sanskrit texts and Murray’s “a history of chess”. Deleting my info without proof is therefore vandalism of what the accepted truth at present regarding Chaturanga and spreading misinformation. Chaturaji (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

(End of moved paragraphs) Bruce leverett (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The description of chaturaji as a game can be found in Murray, pp. 68-71. I have seen it elsewhere on the Web, but mostly one sees it in game playing sites, which are of less value as citable references than Murray's book.


 * As editor User:MaxBrowne2 has pointed out, there is no "accepted truth at present". No matter how angry you get about it, that is the reality.  If you propose that Cazaux and Knowlton's book is the product of an "alternative agenda without a shred of evidence", the burden of proof is on you.  (I would recommend, if you wish to work on this, that you actually read the book.) Bruce leverett (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your answer is correct. "An alternative agenda without a shred of evidence"! We have given all evidences which are in our knowledge in our book. No less. We have no nationalist bias of any sort.
 * What some people are saying that we have said in our book is just wrong. That issue is complex. Too much for people who are too busy and in hurry to read.
 * A precision: this WP page says "Chaturanga is first known from the Gupta Empire in India around the 6th century CE" This is no more accepted by modern historians. As said later on the page, "Banabhatta's Harsha Charitha (c. AD 625) contains the earliest reference to the name chaturanga". This is true. 625 is the 7th century CE. Cazaux (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Catur
Thanks to User:Chaturaji for drawing our attention to this. One can search for "catur" on the Web and find various chess-related things, including a commercial game called "American Catur", but I have not found something that clearly connects it with chaturanga. Does anyone know where I should be looking? Bruce leverett (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Though it is a Sanskrit word meaning ‘four’ It is not used by the Indians as any game in their texts, the game is called ‘Chaturanga’ meaning four limbs. Chaturaji (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Czatur is a Proto-Indo-European word, meaning "four". You can find it back in both Romance (quattuor, quatre...) and Slavic (cztery, четыре, keturi...) languages. 46.215.54.217 (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Markings
"The board sometimes had special markings, the meaning of which are unknown today." Aren't these markings used as the "castle" points in ashtapada? It would be similar to pachisi in that way, because even though pieces are moved differently the safe spots are located in similar places in the board.... 190.145.163.176 (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)