Cox–Forbes theory: Difference between revisions
m Dating maintenance tags: {{Fact}} |
more precise citations for individual statements |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''Cox-Forbes theory''' is a long-debunked theory on the evolution of [[chess]] put forward by Captain [[Hiram Cox]] (died 1799)<ref>[[Cox's Bazar]] in [[Bangladesh]] commemorates Captain Cox.</ref> and extended by Professor [[Duncan Forbes (linguist)|Duncan Forbes]] (1798–1868). |
The '''Cox-Forbes theory''' is a long-debunked theory on the evolution of [[chess]] put forward by Captain [[Hiram Cox]] (died 1799)<ref>[[Cox's Bazar]] in [[Bangladesh]] commemorates Captain Cox.</ref> and extended by Professor [[Duncan Forbes (linguist)|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 purely of skill.<ref>"Chess History and Reminiscences", by "H. E. Bird", p. 58.</ref> |
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 purely of skill.<ref>"Chess History and Reminiscences", by "H. E. Bird", p. 58.</ref><ref name="Murray" /> |
||
In Forbes' explanation, he calls the four-handed dice version ''Chaturanga'' and 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 players. 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. |
In Forbes' explanation, he calls the four-handed dice version ''Chaturanga'' and 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 players. 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 [[India]]n 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.<ref name="Murray">{{citation|last=Murray|first=H. J. R.|authorlink=Harold Murray|title=[[A History of Chess]]|year=1913|p=48|publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref> As a result, the theory is now rejected by all serious [[chess historian]]s.<ref>{{harvcol|Hooper|Whyld|1992|p=143}}</ref> |
|||
| ⚫ | Albrecht Weber (1825–1901) and Dutch chess historian Antonius van der Linde (1833–1897) 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, two vols.), 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.{{ |
||
| ⚫ | Albrecht Weber (1825–1901) and Dutch chess historian Antonius van der Linde (1833–1897) found that the Purana quoted by Forbes did not even contain the references he claimed.<ref>{{harvnb|Hooper|Whyld|1992|p=143}}</ref> While working on ''Geschichte und Litteratur des Schachspiels'' (Berlin, 1874, two vols.), 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>{{harvnb|Hooper|Whyld|1992|p=227}}</ref> Van der Linde thought that Forbes deliberately lied, and was furious.<ref>{{harvnb|Hooper|Whyld|1992|p=227}}</ref> [[John G. White]] wrote in 1898, "He did not even make good use of the material known to him."<ref>{{harvnb|Hooper|Whyld|1992|p=143}}</ref> |
||
== See also == |
== See also == |
||
| Line 18: | Line 20: | ||
| title=[[The Oxford Companion to Chess]] | edition=2nd |
| title=[[The Oxford Companion to Chess]] | edition=2nd |
||
| publisher=Oxford University Press | location=Oxford |
| publisher=Oxford University Press | location=Oxford |
||
| isbn=0-19-280049-3 |
| isbn=0-19-280049-3}} |
||
| pages=143, 226–7}} |
|||
* [http://books.google.com/books?id=Oa4UAAAAYAAJ&client=firefox-a The History of Chess, 1860, by Duncan Forbes] - complete original text |
* [http://books.google.com/books?id=Oa4UAAAAYAAJ&client=firefox-a The History of Chess, 1860, by Duncan Forbes] - complete original text |
||
* [http://history.chess.free.fr/chaturanga.htm Chaturanga] - website debunking Cox-Forbes |
* [http://history.chess.free.fr/chaturanga.htm Chaturanga] - website debunking Cox-Forbes |
||
Revision as of 05:59, 22 September 2013
The Cox-Forbes theory is a long-debunked theory on the evolution of chess put forward by Captain Hiram Cox (died 1799)[1] 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 purely of skill.[2][3]
In Forbes' explanation, he calls the four-handed dice version Chaturanga and 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 players. 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.[3] As a result, the theory is now rejected by all serious chess historians.[4]
Albrecht Weber (1825–1901) and Dutch chess historian Antonius van der Linde (1833–1897) found that the Purana quoted by Forbes did not even contain the references he claimed.[5] While working on Geschichte und Litteratur des Schachspiels (Berlin, 1874, two vols.), 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.[6] Van der Linde thought that Forbes deliberately lied, and was furious.[7] John G. White wrote in 1898, "He did not even make good use of the material known to him."[8]
See also
References
- ^ Cox's Bazar in Bangladesh commemorates Captain Cox.
- ^ "Chess History and Reminiscences", by "H. E. Bird", p. 58.
- ^ a b Murray, H. J. R. (1913), A History of Chess, Oxford University Press, p. 48
- ^ (Hooper & Whyld 1992:143)
- ^ Hooper & Whyld 1992, p. 143
- ^ Hooper & Whyld 1992, p. 227
- ^ Hooper & Whyld 1992, p. 227
- ^ Hooper & Whyld 1992, p. 143
- 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