| Revision as of 05:04, 23 September 2013 editToccata quarta (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,929 edits "The Oxford Companion to Chess" is unreliable? Huh?← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:15, 23 September 2013 edit undoQuale (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users24,876 edits rv to last version by meNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| The '''Cox–Forbes theory''' is a long-debunked theory on the evolution of ] put forward by Captain ] (died 1799)<ref>] in ] commemorates Captain Cox.</ref> |
The '''Cox–Forbes theory''' is a long-debunked theory on the evolution of ] put forward by Captain ] (died 1799)<ref>] in ] commemorates Captain Cox.</ref> and extended by Professor ] (1798–1868). | ||
| The theory states that a four-handed dice-chess game (]) was originated in ] in approximately 3000 BC; and that arising from the results of certain rules, or the difficulty in getting enough players, the game evolved into a two-handed game (]). On account of religious and legal objections in Hinduism to gambling, the dice were dropped from the game, making it a game of pure skill.<ref>"Chess History and Reminiscences", by H. E. Bird, p. 58</ref> | The theory states that a four-handed dice-chess game (]) was originated in ] in approximately 3000 BC; and that arising from the results of certain rules, or the difficulty in getting enough players, the game evolved into a two-handed game (]). On account of religious and legal objections in Hinduism to gambling, the dice were dropped from the game, making it a game of pure skill.<ref>"Chess History and Reminiscences", by H. E. Bird, p. 58</ref><ref name="Murray" /> | ||
| In Forbes' explanation, the four-handed dice version is called ''Chaturanga'', and Forbes insists that ''Chaturaji'' is a misnomer that actually refers to a victory condition in the game akin to ]. In his 1860 account, the players in opposite corners are allies against the other team of two. He represents this "Chaturanga" as gradually developing into the two-player diceless form by the time it was adopted by the Persians as "Chatrang". He further asserts that this name later became "]" after the Arabic pronunciation. | In Forbes' explanation, the four-handed dice version is called ''Chaturanga'', and Forbes insists that ''Chaturaji'' is a misnomer that actually refers to a victory condition in the game akin to ]. In his 1860 account, the players in opposite corners are allies against the other team of two. He represents this "Chaturanga" as gradually developing into the two-player diceless form by the time it was adopted by the Persians as "Chatrang". He further asserts that this name later became "]" after the Arabic pronunciation. | ||
| The theory was based on evidence in the ]n text '']'', but later study of the work showed the evidence to be weaker than previously thought. The earliest Puranas are now assigned a more conservative date of 500 BC, rather than 3000 BC.<ref name="Murray">{{citation|last=Murray|first=H. J. R.|authorlink=Harold Murray|title=]|year=1913|p=48|publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref> As a result, the theory is now rejected by all serious ]s.<ref name="H&Wp143">{{harvnb|Hooper|Whyld|1992|p=143}}</ref> | |||
| The 1913 work of H.J.R Muray disposed the idea of four handed origin thesis. The idea that chess originated as a four handed game is now rejected by historians. It is further added that chess was a two-handed game, originally, and four-handed variety was an ancient derivative.<ref>"A Short History of Chess", p. 134 - 140</ref> | |||
| Albrecht Weber (1825–1901) and Dutch chess historian Antonius van der Linde (1833–97) found that the Purana quoted by Forbes did not even contain the references he claimed. While working on ''Geschichte und Litteratur des Schachspiels'' (Berlin, 1874, in two volumes), Van der Linde also found that the actual text around which Forbes had built his entire theory (''Tithitattva'' of Raghunandana) was actually from around AD 1500, rather than 3000 BC as claimed by Forbes. Van der Linde thought that Forbes deliberately lied, and was furious. ] wrote in 1898, |
Albrecht Weber (1825–1901) and Dutch chess historian Antonius van der Linde (1833–97) found that the Purana quoted by Forbes did not even contain the references he claimed.<ref name=H&Wp143 /> While working on ''Geschichte und Litteratur des Schachspiels'' (Berlin, 1874, in two volumes), Van der Linde also found that the actual text around which Forbes had built his entire theory (''Tithitattva'' of Raghunandana) was actually from around AD 1500, rather than 3000 BC as claimed by Forbes.<ref name="H&Wp227">{{harvnb|Hooper|Whyld|1992|p=227}}</ref> Van der Linde thought that Forbes deliberately lied, and was furious.<ref name=H&Wp227 /> ] wrote in 1898, "He did not even make good use of the material known to him."<ref name=H&Wp143 /> | ||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| | isbn=0-19-280049-3}} | | isbn=0-19-280049-3}} | ||
| * complete original text | * complete original text | ||
| * |
* website debunking Cox–Forbes | ||
| {{refend}} | {{refend}} | ||
Revision as of 05:15, 23 September 2013
The Cox–Forbes theory is a long-debunked theory on the evolution of chess put forward by Captain Hiram Cox (died 1799) and extended by Professor Duncan Forbes (1798–1868).
The theory states that a four-handed dice-chess game (Chaturaji) was originated in India in approximately 3000 BC; and that arising from the results of certain rules, or the difficulty in getting enough players, the game evolved into a two-handed game (Chaturanga). On account of religious and legal objections in Hinduism to gambling, the dice were dropped from the game, making it a game of pure skill.
In Forbes' explanation, the four-handed dice version is called Chaturanga, and Forbes insists that Chaturaji is a misnomer that actually refers to a victory condition in the game akin to checkmate. In his 1860 account, the players in opposite corners are allies against the other team of two. He represents this "Chaturanga" as gradually developing into the two-player diceless form by the time it was adopted by the Persians as "Chatrang". He further asserts that this name later became "Shatranj" after the Arabic pronunciation.
The theory was based on evidence in the Indian text Bhavishya Purana, but later study of the work showed the evidence to be weaker than previously thought. The earliest Puranas are now assigned a more conservative date of 500 BC, rather than 3000 BC. As a result, the theory is now rejected by all serious chess historians.
Albrecht Weber (1825–1901) and Dutch chess historian Antonius van der Linde (1833–97) found that the Purana quoted by Forbes did not even contain the references he claimed. While working on Geschichte und Litteratur des Schachspiels (Berlin, 1874, in two volumes), Van der Linde also found that the actual text around which Forbes had built his entire theory (Tithitattva of Raghunandana) was actually from around AD 1500, rather than 3000 BC as claimed by Forbes. Van der Linde thought that Forbes deliberately lied, and was furious. John G. White wrote in 1898, "He did not even make good use of the material known to him."
See also
References
Notes
- Cox's Bazar in Bangladesh commemorates Captain Cox.
- "Chess History and Reminiscences", by H. E. Bird, p. 58
- ^ Murray, H. J. R. (1913), A History of Chess, Oxford University Press, p. 48
- ^ Hooper & Whyld 1992, p. 143
- ^ Hooper & Whyld 1992, p. 227
Bibliography
- Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992), The Oxford Companion to Chess (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-280049-3
- The History of Chess, 1860, by Duncan Forbes complete original text
- Chaturanga website debunking Cox–Forbes