straight forwards.
6. It takes always moving obliquely. When it arrives at the last square, it becomes a Counsellor when it is returned thence to the square it occupied previously. If it arrive at the end on a goose-foot it becomes a Counsellor at once, and not only after the return to the former square. Thus the rule is correctly taught according to the regulation.
6*. Dividing itself by non-repetition, and variety, the game is doubly desired. There is a division for the square, and what is placed upon it, and through this the first is doubly desired. (Text corrupt, and meaning doubtful.)
7. Hereupon the two Pawns (padati) which stand before the two Counsellors (sachivā), and along after them the two Counsellors themselves are to be moved two squares distant. Also another piece which goes one square distant is advanced at the same time by others.
8. A piece standing in the way does not hinder the Horse (haya) and Camel (ushṭra) from going and coming. The Horse and the rest hinder the Elephant (gaja) if they stand before it.
9. The two Pawns (patti) which are placed next the back corners of the Counsellor are firm, so also are the two which go in the chain behind the Camel.
10. This army placed in double array which accomplishes the slaughter of the enemy according to the usual arrangement is called durokhaṣa.
11. If the Elephant (dvipa) is placed in the centre opposite to the opposing King after the removal of his own, it is called kātīṣa.
12. No piece should be placed without protection, and it is desirable to protect by a weaker piece. It is not proper to protect another piece rather than the King. The slaying of the King is yet considered proper.
13. Imprisonment is counted as a defeat of the King. If the King is left entirely alone it is reckoned a half-victory, if he is checked 64 times in succession he is also held to be defeated.
14. When a King is imprisoned without standing in check, and no other of his pieces can move, he may slay the piece of the enemy in his vicinity which imprisons him.
15. If a piece remains over in the army of the imprisoned King, the player of it counts up the counter-marks (?); then he adds 2 for himself and doubles the sum. (Meaning not clear.)
16. When he has finished, he numbers the marks, if there are 64 against him, he loses. If he has as many he is equally defeated, if he has more the result is reversed.
Immediately following this text are three Knight’s tours, the solutions of which are concealed by syllables written on the chessboard, which, when read in the correct order of the tour, yield a connected text. These tours are not only re-entrant, but also to a certain extent symmetrical, and the verses are all based on the same tour, starting from different squares.22 The text begins:—
Draw a diagram of 64 squares, write the syllables siṃ na hi beginning in the S.W. (top right-hand) corner, and also in the N.E. (bottom left-hand) corner. Afterwards move the Horse by reading these syllables, ṣri siṃ, hana, &c.
The solution to the first diagram, ascribed to a king of Sinhaladvīpa (Ceylon), is—
There was a rich host of wise men under king Ṣrī Siṇhaṇa. They knew how to move the Horse into every square, a move at a time.
The second diagram is ascribed to Nīlakaṇṭ·ha’s father, Ṣamkara.
Ṣamkara moved the Horse from his square by 63 leaps in the incomparable palace of Prince Rāmeṣa surnamed Nārāyaṇa.
The third diagram is solved by a poem, which concludes:—
Thus again Nīlakaṇṭ·ha moved his Horse from here.
It is accordingly Nīlakaṇṭ·ha’s own.
Knight’s Tour (Nīlakaṇṭ·ha).
It has generally been assumed that Nīlakaṇṭ·ha describes a game that has been largely influenced by Persian usages. This view depends mainly upon Weber’s clever conjecture that the two technical terms durokhaṣa and kāilṣa were Sanskrit transliterations of Persian terms—du-roka-shāh (two Hooks-King, i.e. the game in which these pieces have their usual positions) and kāt-i-shāh (the migration of the King, i.e. the game of transposed King and Rook). This, however, is entirely a matter of nomenclature, and I can detect no other evidence of Persian influence. The method of play is unlike that of the Persian Shaṭranj, and the rules are throughout essentially Indian. We may account for the two Persian technicalities by ascribing their introduction to Parsi players.
Nīlakaṇṭ·ha’s account of chess is on the whole clear and intelligible; the few obscurities only concern minor points, such as the method of calculating the result in the case of stalemate. The instructions for describing the chessboard are very interesting; the scratching of the diagram on the ground is contemplated, and the marked squares are carefully defined. Apparently the arrangement of the chessmen is the normal one, and the two Kings are placed upon the same file (see § 11). The want of fixity in the names of the pieces is typically Indian. The name of each piece is constant, but four different names are used for the Elephant, three for the Horse, and two each for the Camel, Counsellor, and Pawn. I infer from this that Nīlakaṇṭ·ha was accustomed to play with carved pieces which reproduced the actual figures of men and animals. The two players (7) commence the game by each making a double move: Pd4 and Qd3, Pd5 and Qd6. Some players moved a third man on this move, apparently a second Pawn. The initial double step (9) is only allowed to the Pawns on the a, d, and h files; the other Pawns can move only one square at a time. Promotion (6) is connected with the marked squares; the Pawn ‘queens’ at once on the marked squares a8, d8, e8, h8; but elsewhere it has to make some further move—apparently to the square it had occupied the previous move, but the text is not sufficiently explicit. Checkmate and Perpetual check are wins, Bare King a half win. A King in a position of stalemate is allowed to remove the piece which confines him: the final result of this position apparently varies with circumstances.
Nīlakaṇṭ·ha’s rules are important as the earliest statement of the rules of the native chess of Southern India. In some points his rules approximate to rules observed in Malay chess; in others they show a remarkable similarity with the rules associated with the German village of Ströbeck. In common with existing forms of Indian chess (specially the form I call Parsi chess) are the restrictions on the double step of the Pawn, and the abnormal method of playing the first move. In contrast are the rules of Pawn promotion.
Slightly later than Nīlakaṇṭ·ha is a work by Vaidyanātha Pāyaguṇḍa, who lived in the first half of the 18th century or later. This work has for title Chaturangavinoda, The Game of Chess, but only the last chapter of 44
The Chariots (ratha, syandana) occupy the corners, next to them are the Horses (turaja). then the Elephants (dvīpa, nāgendra, nāga), and in the centre are the King (rājā, nripa) and his Counsellor (mantri). The 8 Foot-soldiers (padāti) stand in front….
The Chariot leaps diagonally into the third field….
The Horse goes (?) to the corners of a square standing on 4 squares….
The Elephant goes in the 4 streets….
The Counsellor goes one or two or all squares diagonally….
The King goes to all the squares round about….
The Pawn goes one field forwards, and takes to both sides….
The special points about this description are: (1) the name chaturanga is still used for the ordinary two-handed chess, (2) the original names of the pieces remain, (3) the Chariot and Elephant have interchanged moves, precisely as al-Bērūnī describes in the case of the four-handed game, and (4) the