Chess rook is not the castle; Investigating the Differences between "Rook" and "Castle" in Chess based on Old Persian Literature Texts

Document Type : علمی- پژوهشی

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran

2 phd student

Abstract

One of the themes poets and writers have created themes in their works is related to chess. As this game has had various forms in different eras, so some people and consequently commentators, ignoring this and just based on its current form, have described and explained related texts. One of these is to equate "castle" with "rook". This research using descriptive-analytical method based on induction, and following old Persian texts follows to prove the differences between these two elements in chess. The results show that "castle" was a place in Roman chessboards, and has had significant differences with "Rook". Some commentators ignoring this issue have slipped in the description of texts related to this game and have referred rook as "castle", which itself has caused misunderstanding in describing terms, interpretations, and finally deviating from poets and writers' intentions.which itself has caused misunderstanding in describing terms, interpretations, and finally deviating from poets and writers' intentions.

Highlights

Chess Rook is not the Castle; Investigating the Differences between "Rook" and "Castle" in Chess Based on Old Persian Literary Texts

Shirzad Tayefi

Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran

 

Mehdi Ramazani

PhD. in Persian Language and Literature

Abstract

One of the themes poets and writers have created in their works is related to chess. As this game has had various forms in different eras, some people and consequently commentators, ignoring this and just based on its current form, have described and explained related texts. One of these is to equate "castle" with "rook". This research, using descriptive-analytical method based on induction, and following old Persian texts, tries to prove the differences between these two elements in chess. The results show that "castle" was a place in Roman chessboards, and has had significant differences with "Rook". Some commentators, ignoring this issue, have slipped in the description of texts related to this game and have referred to rook as "castle", which itself has caused misunderstanding in describing terms, interpretations, and finally deviating from poets and writers' intentions.

Keywords: Chess, Castle, Rook, Descriptions of old Persian texts.

Introduction

Old Persian texts research, due to temporal dimension and various changes resulting it, has drawbacks that, without comprehensive studies, can lead to various slips; therefore, it is necessary for any interested person and commentator to consider the appropriate information related to the periods under study to receive the concepts considered by poets and writers. The importance of this issue is doubled when some explanations are cleared and the contents turn hierarchically among experts.

In different explanatory pathology of literary texts, we notice two content and structure drawbacks, of which content ones are more frequent due to poets' thematic creation with various cases. Among the cases that esteemed commentators have faced are ones related to thematic creation with various scientific terms, including chess. This game has been considered by courtiers and consequently poets and even mystics due to its various functions and pieces and also the conformity of its existence philosophy with battlefields. Among such thematic creations, the cases related to "rook" are more thought-provoking. Looking at the text descriptions related to chess, we find that this piece is synonymous with a place in chess under the name of "castle". In this study, we have tried to provide a clear reading of differences between the two by presenting the functions of "rook", and explaining various forms of chess in different periods, and finally to deal with some related explanations pathology.

Discussion

Difference between rook and castle

Many chess-related reference books do not provide complete and accurate information about "rook". They just refer to some kind of animal; and this seems justified; since the pieces next to rook (knight, bishop and sometimes camel) are among huge animals; However, pondering different types of chess mentioned, we realize that "castle" is:

  • The name of the position on chessboard not piece name;
  • The function of this position is to provide security for king in threat time;
  • It existed just in Roman type, not all ones;
  • It is not synonymous with "rook";
  • It has a function similar to "castle" in today's chess; Hence, "the king's going to castle" is synonymous with king-castle (= today's common term).

Conclusion

Poets and writers derive a part of their material from the capacities around them, especially intellectual, cultural, social, religious collections, etc. existing in the society and the surrounding and special natural features. One of these topics is old games, including chess, which poets and writers have created themes in different texts, especially classical ones. Pondering the explanations related to these texts, we notice some gross errors that are often due to their lack of attention to reference books and judging based on oral literature and their contemporary form. One of these cases is to equate "rook" with "castle". However, with a purposeful look at different forms of this game at different times and explanations related to them in reference books, as well as paying attention to rook characteristics (= a huge animal with special features) and castle (= A place on chessboard), we notice the essential difference between these two elements in the old forms of chess. The main reason for considering these two elements as one is the adherence to contemporary oral literature; because in today's form, these two words are used interchangeably, and the function of the two pieces is merged in today's form; In other words, the side piece (rook/ castle) in today's chess can have both the movement of rook and the function of castle.


 

References

  • Azkaii, Parviz; (2005), "A report on chess (Materials for the History of Chess in Iran)", Ayene-ye Miras, N. 30- 31, pp. 14- 44.
  • Amoli, Shamsuddin Mohammad; (2001), Nafais al-Fonun fi Arais al-Oyoun, Tehran, Islamic Bookstore.
  • Amir Khosrow Dehlavi, Abolhassan; (1982), Divan, Saeed Nafisi (with the efforts of M. Darvish), 2nd edition, Tehran, Javidan.
  • Balaghi, Seyyed Abdul Hojjat; (1990), Genealogy book of Nain people "Madinat-ol Orafa" and Shatranj-ol orafa book, Tehran, Sepehr.
  • Bayat, Saeed Reza; (1992), "Chess in the field of Persian literature", Chista, N. 86 & 87, pp. 742-750.
  • Tharwatian, Behrooz; (2001), Description of Hafez lyric poems, Tehran: Pooyandegan University.
  • Hafiz, Shamsuddin Mohammad; (1984). Hafez's Divan, edited by Parviz Natel Khanlari, 2nd edition, Tehran: Kharazmi.
  • -----------------; (1989), Hafez's Divan, edited by Allameh Mohammad Qazvini and Qasem Ghani (with a collection of commentaries and footnotes by Allameh Mohammad Qazvini), an effort by A. Jarbzehdar, 2nd edition, Tehran: Amirkabir.
  • Demiri, Kamaluddin; (1424), Hayat al-Haywan al-Kubra, 2nd edition, Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Alamiya.
  • Dehkhoda, Ali Akbar; (1995), Loghatnameh, under the supervision of Mohammad Moin and Seyyed Jafar Shahidi, Tehran: University of Tehran.
  • Zakeri, Mustafa; (2002), "Etymology of Chess Terms", Association Letter, N. 1 to 4, pp. 22-37.
  • Zulriastin, Mohammad; (2001), Dictionary of ambiguous words in Hafez's poems, Tehran: Farzan Rooz.
  • Ravandi, Mohammad; (1986), Raha al-Sodur and Aya al-Sarwar, by the effort of Mohammad Iqbal with necessary corrections by Mojtaba Minavi, 2nd edition, Tehran: Amirkabir.
  • Ramezani, Mehdi and Gholizadeh, Haidar; (2016), "Newly found point in Nezami's Iqbalnameh and Khaghani's Divan ", Baharestan-e Sokhan, 13th year, N. 32, pp. 221-245.
  • Saad al-Din Varavini. (2014). Marzbannameh: with the meaning of words and descriptions of difficult verses and sentences and some grammatical and literary points, by the efforts of Khalil Khatib Rahbar, 19th edition, Tehran: Safi Ali Shah.
  • Safinia, Nosrat; (2007), "Chess according to Shahnameh", Rudaki, N. 15, pp. 158-195.
  • Alizadeh, Nasser; Ramezani, Mehdi; (2019), "Thematic creation and symbolism of chess in mystical poem texts", Islamic mysticism of Islamic Azad University of Zanjan, 57, pp. 41-62.
  • Ferdowsi, Abolghasem; (2007), Shahnameh, by the efforts of Jalal Khaleghi Motlagh and Abolfazl Khatibi, Tehran, Great Islamic encyclopedia center.
  • Goli, Ahmad and Ramezani, Mehdi; (2015), "A type of chess game in Ferdowsi Shahnameh and its comparison with other types", Miras-e Maktoob, N. 56, pp. 101-120.
  • -----------------; (2014), "Pondering on the minutes of chess in the poetry of prominent Azerbaijani and Iraqi poets", Sher Pajoohi (Bustan Adab), the 6th year, N. 3, (Series 21), pp. 157-178.
  • Molavi, Jalaluddin Mohammad Balkhi; (2005), Generalities of Shams's Divan, according to the corrected version of Badi'at-e-Zaman Forouzanfar, 3rd edition, Tehran: Shahzad.
  • Nejati, Mohammad Ali; (1961), Amazing Life of Timur, Translation of Ajayeb-ol Maghdour fi Akhbar-e Timur book, Tehran, book translation and publishing company.
  • Najmuddin Razi; (2002), Asadi's mysteries in Davoodi's mysteries, by the efforts of Mohammad Reza Shafiei Kadkani, Tehran: Sokhan.
  • Nezami Ganjavi, Elias Ibn Mohammad; (2008), Haft Peykar, edited by Behrouz Thervatian, Tehran: Amirkabir.
  • Homayi, Jalaluddin; (1961), "Ari = Ara", Yaghma, N. 15, pp. 30-37.
  • Yektai, Majid; (1969), "Historical Background of Chess", Historical Review, NN. 23 & 24.

 

 

 

 

Keywords

dor 20.1001.1.22517979.1399.73.242.7.4

Main Subjects


-         اذکایی، پرویز؛ (1384)، «گزارشی دربارۀ شطرنج (موادی برای تاریخ شطرنج در ایران)»، آینۀ میراث، ش 30 و 31، صص 14-44.
-         آملی، شمس‌الدین محمد؛ (1379)، نفایس‌الفنون فی عرایس‌العیون، تهران، کتابفروشی اسلامیه.
-         امیرخسرو دهلوی، ابوالحسن؛ (1361)، دیوان، سعید نفیسی (با همت و کوشش م. درویش)، چ دوم، تهران، جاویدان.
-         بلاغی، سید عبدالحجت؛ (1369)،  کتاب انساب خاندان‌های مردم نایین «مدینه العرفاء» و کتاب شطرنج العرفاء، تهران، سپهر.
-         بیات، سعیدرضا؛ (1370)، «شطرنج در گسترۀ ادب فارسی»، چیستا، ش 86 و 87، صص 742-750.
-         ثروتیان، بهروز؛ (1380)، شرح غزلیات حافظ، تهران: پویندگان دانشگاه.
-         حافظ، شمس‌الدین محمّد؛ (1362). دیوان حافظ، تصحیح پرویز ناتل خانلری، چ دوم، تهران: خوارزمی.
-         ------------------؛ (1368)، دیوان حافظ، به تصحیح علامه محمد قزوینی و قاسم غنی (با مجموعه تعلیقات و حواشی علامه محمد قزوینی)، یه اهتمام ع. جربزه‌دار، چ دوم، تهران: امیرکبیر.
-         دمیری کمال‌الدین؛ (1424)، حیات‌الحیوان الکبری، چ دوم، بیروت: دارالکتب العلمیه.
-         دهخدا،  علی‌اکبر؛ (1373)، لغتنامه، زیر نظر محمد معین و سیدجعفر شهیدی، تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
-         ذاکری، مصطفی؛ (1381)، «ریشه‌شناسی اصطلاحات شطرنج»، نامۀ انجمن، ش یک تا چهار، صص 22-37.
-         ذوالریاستین، محمد؛ (1379)، فرهنگ واژه‌های ایهامی در اشعار حافظ، تهران: فرزان روز.
-         راوندی، محمد؛ (1364)، راحه‌الصدور و آیه‌السرور، به سعی و تصحیح محمد اقبال با تصحیحات لازم مجتبی مینوی، چ دوم، تهران: امیرکبیر.
-         رمضانی، مهدی و قلی‌زاده، حیدر؛ (1395)، «نکته‌ای نویافته در اقبال‌نامۀ نظامی و دیوان خاقانی»، بهارستان سخن، سال سیزدهم، ش 32، صص 221- 245.