Talk:List of chess variants/Archive 1

Historical links between national variants and chess

I was not aware of any scholarly debate about the historical link between the national variants of chess (shogi, xiangqi, janggi, etc.) and shatranj (or its predecessor chaturanga). Would someone be so good as to provide me a reference for [...] may even come from unrelated origins. Some writers even emphasize that they are not chess.? Thanks. --Karl Juhnke

[1] is a good reference on the subject. The conclusion there is that the theory that it comes from India (which I believe is the traditional story in China, BTW) is entirely plausible, but that there is no concrete evidence for its truth.

Thanks for the reference. It puts in perspective how scanty the evidence for common origin is. However, it is one thing to point out a lack of proof for one theory, and quite another to articulate an alternative theory. True, the evidence for a common origin is sparse and inferential, but the evidence for independent (convergent) evolution is AFAIK as non-existent as the theory is implausible. The article you link does not advance any evidence, direct or inferred, against the notion of xiangqi being descended from chaturanga; it merely points out gaps in our knowledge.

By all means, let us be cautious about presenting a tenuous theory in the guise of fact. But if the evidence for common Indian origin (prior written references and extremely similar rules) is so much stronger than the evidence for inpendent invention (absolutely nothing), I don't see why the latter theory should get equal or greater emphasis.

If I am still missing the point, please educate me. Peace, --Karl Juhnke

I didn't write the original paragraph, I just answered your request for a reference. Personally, I don't think any commentary either way is needed on this page, which is really just linking structure. Someone will doubtless write a separate article on the game family as a whole eventually. Matthew Woodcraft

Can we call XiangQi and Shogi a "chess variant"?

As some of you probably already know, I don't like calling XiangQi and Shogi variants of chess, because I don't believe they are variants of Chess. AFAIK, a chess variant is a change of chess to another ruleset. XiangQi and Shogi seem so completely different to me than Chess that they should not be called variants (I think Asian players of those games would be offended by this) even though the Chess variants page lists them as variants. What do others think? --Chuck Smith

I think it depends on whether people think of 'Chess' as referring to the FIDE game, or to the family as a whole. My impression is that among English speakers, shogi is usually called 'shogi' and not 'Japanese chess', but xiang-qi is called 'Chinese chess' at least as often as it's called 'xiang-qi'. So maybe there's no way to make everyone happy. More practically, this page could usefully distinguish between games which begin with FIDE chess and make changes from there, and games of the same family where the common ancestor is much further back. Matthew Woodcraft

Matthew seems to have grasped what I was getting at when I restructured the way that chess is treated on Wikipedia. It was completely intentional to put variants as the last major subdivision of the Chess article. In making place for variants, I had no intention to have it dependent on the history of chess. I can appreciate Chuck's position that Shogi and Xiangqi are not chess, but one cannot excape the simple fact that they are chess-like. If someone were to ask me "What's shogi?" I would be hard put to avoid saying that it's like chess. Maybe I'll just add the words "chess-like" to "National variants". Eclecticology

I too think Matthew has hit the nail on the head. When I edited the page, I didn't call Shogi and Xiangqi "National variants", I called them "Chess-like games derived from Shatranj". I was reserving the word chess for the game that standardized in Europe by the 1500's, and xiangqi et al are not variants of that chess. I know that whatever convetion we adopt here won't be universal, but that shouldn't prevent us from adopting a convention. Let's respect Chuck's point and reserve "chess variants" for games derived from chess, and call games with a common ancestor to chess "chess relatives", or "chess cousins", or something that emphasizes the actual genetic relationship. Chess is not a shogi variant, and shogi is not a chess variant, they are both (in all probability) chaturanga variants.

I understand that's the trend in modern biology too. Don't we group species based on how long ago the split occurred, rather than on how similar species superficially appear to be? Traditionally we would love to group all the other apes together and split ourselves off as being special, but actually chimps, gorillas, and humans are all more closely related to each other than any of us to the orangutan. Something like:

common ancestor ______________organutan
                \
                 \____________gorilla
                    \
                     \________chimp
                        \
                         \____human

OK, that was a wild tangent, but the point is that the error of viewing "our" chess as primal is somehow akin to viewing our genes as privileged, and miscategorizing other species as a result. --Karl Juhnke

The tendency in biology is to base differences on the DNA maps of the different species, but I'll refrain from including references in the article to chess playing orangutans. My intent with national variants was not at all to exile some games which did not have the proper breeding. I'll keep trying to find a commonly accepted term. Eclecticology

Additionally, if this page is going to describe variants in the whole family, rememeber that shogi has a great many variants of its own (see shogi), and doubtless the other national forms do as well. I have heard that chu shogi is the most played of any country's 'secondary' chess-family game; certainly it has hundreds of years of history of high-level play.

I like the idea of building a good taxonomy of games that have evolved from chaturanga. There is a second level of variation around each of these games and this is prone to cause confusion. I agree that treating fantasy variants of FIDE chess in the same way as games like Shogi which have their own history and variation, seems inappropriate and misleading. That said, I don't know what the best term is for the overall family of games is.

The confusion comes from the fact that the word chess in English followed ultimately from chaturanga. But the game of chess exists today essentially as a single well defined game. Historically there have been several different games that have gone by the same name, so looking back we have to call them something different to distinguish them. Perhaps we could refer to other descendents of chaturanga as relatives rather than variants? --Jeff 17:30 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

The web site chessvariants.com has no difficulty Shogi et al. as variants. Eclecticology

I also think it's fine to list the national chess-like games on the Chess variants page, but not to call them variants. Would you list Chess under Shogi variant and Xiangqi variant? Do you consider Chess to be a Shogi variant?

--Chuck Smith

The case with shogi and Chinese chess is less clear-cut, but these games do not derive from modifying the rules of chess, so I would not call them variants of chess. --Zundark, Sunday, April 14, 2002

Admittedly, "chaturanga variants" may be a historically more appropriate term than "chess variants". Nonetheless, the term "chess variant" has a long-established history (in old books) of usage to describe games of this reasonably well-defined lineage or type. Note that this is a compound noun with a distinctly different meaning than its single, contained word "chess".

After Hans Bodlaender founded "The Chess Variant Pages" (dedicated to "chaturanga variants" ... if you prefer) in the early days of the internet, this term became established worldwide to any extent it was not already. The days of making games of this class known by "shogi variants" or some such had permanently passed.

When the Zillions Of Games AI program (powerful, adaptable, creative) was advented in 1998, they adopted the same term.

For better or worse, it is now set in the English language- the prevalent language of the internet. There is nothing left to debate. Anyone with a deficient understanding of this matter should NOT be so bold as to try to redefine the language on Wikipedia or anywhere else. In fairness, noone has messed-up this page to date.

OmegaMan

I disagree that Shogi, Chinese Chess, Korean Chess, Thai Chess, should be called a chess variant, for the plain simple reason that such a label does not respect the culture which developed their own Chess-like games completely independent of the "Mad queen chess" (modern western Chess) developed in Europe in the 15th century. While, from the perspective of a western person, Shogi and Chinese Chess are indeed variants, there needs to be a term which does not imply that these regional versions of Chess are somehow derived from "mad queen Chess". And, yes, there are Shogi Variants (Tori Shogi, Chu Shogi, etc.) which were developed as modifications of Shogi instead of Chess, and are generally considered "Shogi Variants" instead of "Chess Variants". Samboy 21:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Chess variants" is the only currently existing and established term available for universally referring to any and all board games of this defined class. Your lingering dissatisfaction with it as a matter of historical and cultural origins is understandable yet would not "shogi variants" be just as unfair to Westerners? Perhaps, the prevalence of the term "chess variants" arose because chess-playing Westerners (esp. in Europe and North America) were more avid about chess variants than Easterners. Obviously, "shogi variants" is left with a more restrictive meaning than "chess variants" but this did not evolve within our language as a result of anyone trying to be unfair to anyone. A term was needed and so, a gap was filled albeit awkwardly.

OmegaMan

Well, I feel it is clear that the chess variant terminology here has been imposed by self-appointed 'experts'. I satisfy my conscience by saying that it is used for the game stripped of all its culture and associations. On the other hand, why 'variant'? These games are all chess games, in a much less offensive sense. Charles Matthews 19:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think "chess cousins" might be a better description. Common, though not immediate, ancestor. Jake 18:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I have always preferred lesser-used yet known terms such as "chess-related games" or "chess games". Notwithstanding, it is correct that "chess variants", which carries an implication of insignificance, has become the standard term.

The pioneers of the field became the first experts by default and this process has not yet run its course due to great advances in chess variant software (AI) and computer hardware recently made, the ramifications of which are still being explored.

I consider this situation legitimate although I think it should be strongly noted that such "experts of chess variants" generally cannot be compared at a fraction of the rigor and training required to become experts in long-established sciences (for instance).

Unfortunately, formal combinatorial game theory just does not address how to create chess variants of the highest quality since mathematics concerns measurement instead of value judgments. So, this work is being undertaken informally and mostly without applying (or even attempting to correctly apply) quality guidelines by a mixture of people who strangely regard themselves as qualified and/or creative. In my studied assessment, a few are genii, a few are idiots and most are stuck (despite their efforts) with being merely average.

BadSanta