an ingenious game performed with different pieces of wood, on a board divided into 64 squares or houses; in which chance has so small a share, that it may be doubted whether a person ever lost a game but by his own fault.

Each gamester has eight dignified pieces, viz. a king, a queen, two bishops, two knights, and two rooks, also eight pawns: all which, for distinction's sake, are painted of two different colours, as white and black.

As to their disposition on the board, the white king is to be placed on the fourth black house from the corner of the board, in the first and lower rank; and the black king is to be placed on the fourth white house on the opposite, or adversary's, end of the board. The queens are to be placed next to the kings, on houses of their own colour. Next to the king and queen, on each hand, place the two bishops; next to them, the two knights; and last of all, on the corners of the board, the two rooks. As to the pawns, they are placed, without distinction, on the second rank of the house, one before each of the dignified pieces.

Having thus disposed the men, the onset is commonly begun by the pawns, which march straight forward in their own file, one house at a time, except the first move, when it can advance two houses, but never moves backwards: the manner of their taking the adversary's men is sidewise, in the next house forwards; where having captivated the enemy, they move forward as before. The rook goes forward or crookedly through the whole file, and back again. The knight skips backward and forward to the next house, face one, of a different colour, with a sidelong march, or a slope, and thus kills his enemies that fall in his way, or guards his friends that may be exposed on that side. The bishop walks always in the same colour of the field that he is placed in at first, forward and backward, sloping, or diagonally, as far as he lifts.

The queen's walk is more universal, as she takes all the steps of the before-mentioned pieces, excepting that of the knight; and as to the king's motion, it is one house at a time, and that either forward, backward, sloping, or sidewise.

As to the value of the different pieces, next to the king is the queen, after her the rooks, then the bishops, and last of the dignified pieces comes the knight. The difference of the worth of pawns, is not so great as that of noblemen; only, it must be observed, that the king's bishop's pawn is the best in the field, and therefore the skilful gamester will be careful of him.

It ought also to be observed, that whereas any man may be taken, when he falls within the reach of any of the adversary's pieces, it is otherwise with the king, who, in such a case, is only to be saluted with the word check, warning him of his danger, out of which it is absolutely necessary that he move; and if it so happen that he cannot move without exposing himself to the like inconvenience, it is check-mate, and the game is lost. The rules of the game are,

1. In order to begin the game, the pawns must be moved before the pieces, and afterwards the pieces must be brought out to support them. The king's, queen's, and bishop's pawns, should be moved first, that the game may be well opened; the pieces must not be played out early in the game, because the player may thereby lose his moves: but above all, the game should be well arranged before the queen is played out. Useless checks should also be avoided, unless some advantage is to be gained by them, because the move may be lost, if the adversary can either take or drive the piece away.

2. If the game is crowded, the player will meet with obstructions in moving his pieces; for which reason he should exchange pieces or pawns, and castle (A) his king as soon as it is convenient, endeavouring at the same time to crowd the adversary's game, which may be done by attacking his pieces with the pawns, if the adversary should move his pieces out too soon.

3. The men should be so guarded by one another, that if a man should be lost, the player may have it in his power to take one of the adversary's in return; and if he can take a superior piece in lieu of that which he lost, it would be an advantage, and therefore the adversary.

4. The adversary's king should never be attacked without a force sufficient; and if the player's king should be attacked without having it in his power to attack the adversary's, he should offer to make an exchange of pieces, which may cause the adversary to lose a move.

5. The board should be looked over with attention, and the men reconnoitred, so as to be aware of any stroke that the adversary might attempt in consequence of his last move. If, by counting as many moves forward as possible, the player has a prospect of success, he should not fail doing it, and even sacrifice a piece or two to accomplish his end.

6. No man should be played till the board is thoroughly examined, that the player may defend himself against any move the adversary has in view; neither should any attack be made till the consequences of the adversary's next move are considered; and when an attack may with safety be made, it should be pursued without catching at any bait that might be thrown out in order for the adversary to gain a move, and thereby cause the design to miscarried.

7. The queen should never stand in such a manner before the king, that the adversary, by bringing a rook or bishop, could check the king if she were not there; as it might be the loss of the queen.

(A) Castle his king, is to cover the king with a castle; which is done by a certain move which each player has a right to whenever he thinks proper. 8. The adversary's knight should never be suffered to check the king and queen, or king and rook, or queen and rook, or the two rooks at the same time; especially if the knight is properly guarded: because, in the two first cases, the king being forced to go out of check, the queen or the rook must be lost; and in the two last cases a rook must be lost at least for a worse piece.

9. The player should take care that no guarded pawn of the adversary's fork two of his pieces.

10. As soon as the kings have castled on different sides of the board, the pawns on that side of the board should be advanced upon the adversary's king, and the pieces, especially the queen and rook, should be brought to support them; and the three pawns belonging to the king that is castled must not be moved.

11. The more moves a player can have as it were in ambuscade, the better; that is to say, the queen, bishop, or rook, is to be placed behind a pawn or a piece, in such a position as that upon playing that pawn or piece a check is discovered upon the adversary's king, by which means, a piece or some advantage is often gained.

12. An inferior piece should never be guarded with a superior, when a pawn would answer the same purpose; for this reason, the superior piece may remain out of play; neither should a pawn be guarded with a piece when a pawn would do as well.

13. A well-supported pawn that is passed often costs the adversary a piece; and when a pawn or any other advantage is gained without endangering the loss of the move, the player should make as frequent exchanges of pieces as he can. The advantage of a passed pawn is this: for example, if the player and his adversary have each three pawns upon the board, and no piece, and the player has one of his pawns on one side of the board, and the other two on the other side, and the adversary's three pawns are opposite to the player's two pawns, he should march with his king as soon as he can, and take the adversary's pawns: If the adversary goes with his king to support them, the player should go on to queen with his single pawns; and then if the adversary goes to hinder him, he should take the adversary's pawns, and move the others to queen (B).

14. When the game is near finished, each party having only three or four pawns on each side of the board, the kings must endeavour to gain the move in order to win the game. For instance, when the player brings his king opposite to the adversary's with only one square between, he will gain the move.

15. If the adversary has his king and one pawn on the board, and the player has only his king, he cannot lose the game, provided he brings his king opposite to the adversary's, when the adversary is directly before or on one side of his pawn, and there is only one square between the kings.

16. If the adversary has a bishop and one pawn on the rook's line, and this bishop is not of the colour that commands the corner square the pawn is going to, and the player has only his king, if he can get into that corner, he cannot lose; but, on the contrary, may win by a stalemate.

17. If the player has greatly the disadvantage of the game, having only his queen left in play, and his king happens to be in a position to win, as above-mentioned, he should keep giving check to the adversary's king, always taking care not to check him where he can interpose any of his pieces that make the stalemate; by so doing he will at last force the adversary to take his queen, and then he will win the game by being in a stalemate.

18. The player should never cover a check with a piece that a pawn pushed upon it may take, for fear of getting only the pawn in exchange for the piece.

19. A player should never crowd his adversary up with pieces, for fear of giving a stalemate inadvertently, but always should leave room for his king to move.

By way of corroborating what has been already said with respect to this game, it is necessary to warn a player against playing a timid game. He should never be too much afraid of losing a rook for an inferior piece; because, although a rook is a better piece than any other except the queen, it seldom comes into play to be of any great use till at the end of the game; for which reason it is often better to have an inferior piece in play, than a superior one to stand still, or moving to no great purpose. If a piece is moved, and is immediately drove away by a pawn, it may be reckoned a bad move, because the adversary gains a double advantage over the player, in advancing at the same time the other is made to retire; although the first move may not seem of consequence between equal players, yet a move or two more lost after the first, makes the game scarcely to be recovered.

There never wants for variety at this game, provided the pieces have been brought out regularly; but, if otherwise, it often happens that a player has scarce anything to play.

Many indifferent players think nothing of the pawns, whereas three pawns together are strong; but four, which constitute a square, with the assistance of other pieces, well managed, make an invincible strength, and in all probability may produce a queen when very much wanted. It is true, that two pawns with a space between are no better than one; and if there should be three over each other in a line, the game cannot be in a worse way. This shows that the pawns are of great consequence, provided they are kept close together.

Some middling players are very apt to risk losing the game in order to recover a piece; this is a mistake; for it is much better to give up a piece and attack the enemy in another quarter; by so doing, the player has a chance of snatching a pawn or two from, or

(b) To queen, is to make a queen; that is, to move a pawn into the adversary's back row, which is the rule at this game when the original one is lost.

(c) When the king is blocked up so as to have no move at all. or gaining some advantage over the adversary, whilst his attention is taken up in pursuing this piece.

If the queen and another piece are attacked at the same time, and that by removing the queen the piece must be lost; provided two pieces can be gained in exchange for the queen, the queen should be given up, it being the difference of three pieces, and consequently more than the value of the queen. By losing the queen, the game is not thrown into that disorder which it would otherwise have been; in this case it would be judicious to give the queen for even a piece, or a pawn or two; it being well known among good players, that he who begins the attack, and cannot maintain it, being obliged to retire, generally loses the game.

A player should never be fond of changing without reason, because the adversary, if he is a good player, will ruin his situation, and gain a considerable advantage over him. But rather than lose a move, when a player is stronger than the adversary, it is good play to change, for he thereby increases his strength.

When the game is almost drawn to a conclusion, the player should recollect that his king is a capital piece, and consequently should keep him in motion; by so doing, he generally gets the move, and often the game.

As the queen, rook, and bishop, operate at a distance, it is not always necessary in the attack to have them near the adversary's king.

If a man can be taken with different pieces, the player should take his time, and consider which of those pieces is the best to take it with.

If a piece can be taken almost at any time, the player should not be in a hurry about it, but try to make a good move elsewhere before he take it.

A player should be cautious how he takes his adversary's pawn with his king, as it often happens to be a safeguard to it.

After all that has been said, it is still necessary for us to advise those who would play well at this game, to be very cool and attentive to the matter in question: for it is impossible that any person in the universe can be capable of playing at chess if their thoughts are employed elsewhere. The laws at this game are,

1. If a player touches his man, he must play it; and if he quits it, he cannot recall it.

2. If by mistake or otherwise a false move is played, and the adversary takes no notice of it till he hath played his next move, it cannot be recalled by either of the parties.

3. If a player misplaces the men, and he plays two moves, it is at the option of the adversary to permit him to begin the game or not.

4. If the adversary plays or discovers a check to a player's king, and give no notice of it, the player may let him stand still till he does.

5. After the king is moved, a player cannot castle.

Sarasin has an express treatise on the different opinions of the origin of the Latin *schacchi*, whence the French *échecs*, and our *chess*, is formed. Menage is also very full on the same head. Leunclavus takes it to come from *Oseches*, famous Turkish robbers: P. Sirmond, from the German *schach*, "theft;" and that from *calculus*. He takes *chess* to be the same with the *tudus latrunculorum* of the Romans, but mistakenly.

This opinion is countenanced by Vossius and Salmasius, who derive the word from *calculus*, as used for *latrunculus*. G. Tolofanus derives it from the Hebrew, *schar*, *valavit*, and *mat*, *mortuus*; whence *check* and *checkmate*. Fabricius says, a celebrated Persian astronomer, one Schatrencha, invented the game of *chess*; and gave it his own name, which it still bears in that country. Nicod derives it from * scheque*, or *xeque*, a Moorish word for lord, king, and prince. Bochart adds that *schach* is originally Perian; and that *schachmat* in that language, signifies the king is dead.—The opinion of Nicod and Bochart, which is likewise that of *Scriverius*, appears the most probable.

Mr. Twits mentions a small treatise on chess, written as he supposes, about 400 years ago; at the end of which is a representation of a round chess-board, with directions for placing the men upon it. In this the knight can cover the 64 squares on the board at as many moves. The board is divided into these 64 parts by four concentric circles, having an empty space in the middle; and each of these is divided into 16 parts. Number 1 is placed in the outermost circle; number 2 in the third circle counting inwards, in the division to the right hand of the former; number 3 is placed in the outermost circle, in the division to the right hand of 2; 4 in the third circle, counting inwards to the right hand of three; and thus alternately from the first to the third, and from the second to the fourth circle, till the round is completed by 16 on the third circle to the left hand of 1. Number 17 is then placed on the division of the innermost circle to the right hand of 1; 18 on the second circle counting inwards, to the right hand of 17; and thus alternately from the fourth to the second, and from the second to the fourth circles, until the round is completed by 32, directly below number 1. Number 33 then is placed on the third circle directly to the right hand of 2; 34 on the fourth circle, to the right hand of 4; and thus alternately between the third and fourth circles, until the round is again completed by 48 on the fourth circle, directly below number 33. The numbers are now placed in a retrograde fashion; 50 on the outer circle in that division immediately to the right hand of 1; 51 on the third circle, to the left hand of 2; and directly below number 32; 52 is then placed on the outer circle, immediately on the left hand of 1; 53 on the third circle directly to the left hand of 16; and thus alternately on the first and third circles, until the last ground is completed by 64 between the number 3 and 5. On this round chess-board, supposing the black king to be placed in number 48 on the fourth circle, the queen stands on number 17 at his left hand; the bishops in 33 and 2; the knights 18 and 47; the castles in 3 and 50; the pawns on 19, 4, 49, 64, and 46, 51, 32, 1. The white king will then stand in 25, opposite to the black queen; the white queen in 40 opposite to the black king, and so on. In playing on a board of this kind, it will be found, that the power of the castle is double to that in the common game, and that of the bishop only one half; the former having 16 squares to range in, and the last only four. The king can castle only one way; and it is very difficult to bring the game to a conclusion.

With regard to the origin of the game at chess, we are much in the dark. Though it came to us from the Saracens, it is by no means probable that they were the original inventors of it. According to some, it was invented by the celebrated Grecian hero Diomedes. Others say, that two Grecian brothers, Leda and Tyrrheno, were the inventors; and that being much pained with hunger, they fought to alleviate the pain by this amusement.

According to Mr Irwin it is a game of Chinese invention. During his residence in India, he found that a tradition of this nature existed among the Bramins, with whom he frequently played the game. While he was at Canton in 1793, he gives the following account of the information which he acquired relative to the origin of the game of chefs. 'A young mandarin, of the profession of arms, having an inquisitive turn, was my frequent visitor; and what no questions could have drawn from him, the accidental sight of an English chefs-board effected. He told me, that the Chinese had a game of the same nature; and on his specifying a difference in the pieces and board, I perceived, with joy, that I had discovered the desideratum of which I had been so long in search. The very next day my mandarin brought me the board and equipage; and I found, that the Bramins were neither mistaken touching the board, which has a river in the middle to divide the contending parties, nor in the powers of the king, who is entrenched in a fort, and moves only in that space, in every direction. But, what I did not before hear, nor do I believe is known out of this country, there are two pieces, whose movements are distinct from any in the Indian or European game. The mandarin, which answers to our bishop, in his station and sidelong course, cannot, through age, cross the river; and a rocket-boy, still used in the Indian armies, who is stationed between the lines of each party, acts literally with the motion of the rocket, by vaulting over a man, and taking his adversary at the other end of the board. Except that the king has his two sons to support him, instead of a queen, the game, in other respects, is like ours; as will appear in the plan of the board and pieces I have the honour to enclose, together with directions to place the men and play the game.

"As the young man who had discovered this to me was of a communicative and obliging disposition, and was at this time pursuing his studies in the college of Canton, I requested the favour of him to consult such ancient books as might give some insight into the period of the introduction of chefs into China; to confirm, if possible, the idea that struck me of its having originated here. The acknowledged antiquity of this empire, the unchangeable state of her customs and manners, beyond that of any other nation in the world; and more especially the simplicity of the game itself, when compared to its compass and variety in other parts, appeared to give a colour to my belief. That I was not disappointed in the event, I have no doubt will be allowed, on the perusal of the translation of a manuscript extract, which my friend Tinqua brought me, in compliance with my desire; and which, accompanied by the Chinese manuscript, goes under cover to your lordship. As the mandarin solemnly assured me that he took it from the work quoted, and the translation has been as accurately made as possible, I have no hesitation to deliver the papers as authentic.

"From these premises I have therefore ventured to make the following inferences:—That the game of chefs is probably of Chinese origin. That the confined situation and powers of the king, resembling those of a monarch in the eastern parts of the world, countenance this supposition; and that, as it travelled westward, and descended to later times, the sovereign prerogative extended itself, until it became unlimited, as in our state of the game. That the agency of the princes, in lieu of the queen, befriends forcibly the nature of the Chinese customs, which exclude females from all power or influence whatever; which princes, in its passage through Persia, were changed into a single vizier, or minister of state, with the enlarged portion of delegated authority that exists there; instead of whom, the European nations, with their usual gallantry, adopted a queen on the board (D). That the river between the parties is expressive of the general face of the country, where a battle could hardly be fought without encountering an interruption of this kind, which the soldier was here taught to overcome; but that, on the introduction of the game into Persia, the board changed with the dry nature of the region, and the contest was decided on terra firma. And lastly, that in no account of the origin of chefs, that I have read, has the tale been so characteristic or consistent as that which I have the honour to offer to the Irish academy. With the Indians, it was designed by a Brahmin to cure the melancholy of the daughter of a rajah. With the Persians, my memory does not assist me to trace the fable; though, if it were more to the purpose, I think I should have retained it. But, with the Chinese, it was invented by an experienced soldier, on the principles of war. Not to dispel love-sick vapours, or instruct a female in a science that could neither benefit nor inform her; but to quiet the murmurs of a discontented soldiery; to employ their vacant hours in lessons on the military art, and to cherish the spirit of conquest in the bosom of winter-quarters. Its age is traced by them on record near two centuries before the Christian era; and among the numerous claims for this noble invention, that of the Chinese, who call it by way of distinction, chong ke, or the royal game, appears alone to be indisputable."

Translation of an Extract from the Concum, or Chinese Annals, reflecting the Invention of the Game of Chef, delivered to me by Tinqua, a Soldier Mandarin of the Province of Fokien.

"Three hundred and seventy-nine years after the time

(D) That on the acquisition of so strong a piece as the vizier, the pao were suppressed, this possessing powers unintelligible, at that time, to other nations; and three pawns added, in consequence, to make up the number of men; and that as discipline improved, the lines, which are straggling on the Chinese board, might have been closed on ours." time of Confucius, or one thousand nine hundred and sixty-five years ago, Hung Cochu, king of Kiangnan, sent an expedition into the Shenfu country, under the command of a mandarin, called Hanfing, to conquer it. After one successful campaign, the soldiers were put into winter quarters; where, finding the weather much colder than what they had been accustomed to, and being also deprived of their wives and families, the army, in general, became impatient of their situation, and clamorous to return home. Hanfing, upon this, revolved in his mind the bad consequences of complying with their wishes. The necessity of soothing his troops, and reconciling them to their position, appeared urgent, in order to finish his operations in the ensuing year. He was a man of genius, as well as a good soldier; and having contemplated some time on the subject, he invented the game of chefs, as well for an amusement to his men in their vacant hours, as to inflame their military ardour, the game being wholly founded on the principles of war. The stratagem succeeded to his wish. The soldiers were delighted with the game; and forgot, in their daily contests for victory, the inconveniences of their post. In the spring the general took the field again; and, in a few months, added the rich country of Shenfu to the kingdom of Kiangnan, by the defeat and capture of its king, Choupayuen, a famous warrior among the Chinese. On this conquest Hung Cochu assumed the title of emperor, and Choupayuen put an end to his own life in despair.

Explanation of the Position, Powers, and Moves of the Pieces on the Chinese Chef's-board, or Chong Ke (Royal Game).

"As there are nine pieces instead of eight, to occupy the rear rank, they stand on the lines between, and not within, the squares. The game is consequently played on the lines.

"The king, or chong, stands on the middle line of this row. His moves resemble those of our king, but are confined to the fortresses marked out for him.

"The two princes, or fou, stand on each side of him, and have equal powers and limits.

"The mandarins, or tehong, answer to our bishops, and have the same moves, except that they cannot cross the water or white space in the middle of the board to annoy the enemy, but stand on the defensive.

"The knights, or rather horses, called māā, stand and move like ours in every respect.

"The war-chariots, or tchê, resemble our rooks or castles.

"The rocket-boys, or paō, are pieces whose motions and powers were unknown to us. They act with the direction of a rocket, and can take none of their adversary's men that have not a piece or pawn intervening. To defend your men from this attack, it is necessary to open the line between, either to take off the check on the king, or to save a man from being captured by the paō. Their operation is, otherwise, like that of the rook. Their stations are marked between the pieces and pawns.

"The five pawns, or ping, make up the number of the men equal to that of our board. Instead of taking

sideways, like ours, they have the rook's motion, except that it is limited to one step, and is not retrograde. Another important point, in which the ping differs from ours, is that they continue in flatu quo, after reaching their adversary's head quarters. It will appear, however, that the Chinese pieces far exceed the proportion of ours; which occasions the whole force of the contest to fall on them, and thereby precludes the beauty and variety of our game, when reduced to a struggle between the pawns, who are capable of the highest promotion, and often change the fortune of the day. The points of the ping are marked in front."

But according to Sir William Jones, this game is of Hindoo invention. "If evidence were required to prove this fact (says he +), we may be satisfied with the testimony of the Persians, who, though as much inclined as ourselves, other nations to appropriate the ingenious inventions of India, foreign people, unanimously agree that the game was imported from the west of India in the fifth century of our era. It seems to have been immemorially known in Hindoostan by the name of Chaturanga, i.e., the four angās, or members of any army; which are these, elephants, horses, chariots, and foot soldiers; and in this sense the word is frequently used by epic poets in their description of real armies. By a natural corruption of the pure Sanscrit word, it was changed by the old Persians into Chetrang; but the Arabs who came after took possession of their country, had neither the initial nor final letter of that word in their alphabet, and consequently altered it further into Shetrang, which found its way presently into the modern Persian, and at length into the dialects of India, where the true derivation of the name is known only to the learned. Thus has a very significant word in the sacred language of the Brahmins been transformed by successive changes into axedrez, scacchi, échecs, chefs, and, by a whimsical concurrence of circumstances, has given birth to the English word check, and even a name to the exchequer of Great Britain."

It is confidently asserted, that Sanscrit books on chefs exist in Bengal; but Sir William had seen none of them when he wrote the memoir which we have quoted. He exhibits, however, a description of a very ancient Indian game of the same kind, but more complex, and in his opinion more modern, than the simple chefs of the Persians. This game is also called Chaturanga, but more frequently Chaturaj, or the four kings, since it is played by four persons representing as many princes, two allied armies combating on each side. The description is taken from a book called Bhavishya Purāṇa, in which the form and principal rules of this fictitious warfare are thus laid down: "Eight squares being marked on all sides, the red army is to be placed on the east, the green to the south, the yellow to the west, and the black to the north. Let the elephant (says the author of the Purāṇa) stand on the left of the king; next to him the horse; then the boat; and before them all, four foot soldiers; but the boat must be placed in the angle of the board."

"From this passage (says the president) it clearly appears, that an army with its four angās must be placed on each side of the board, since an elephant could not stand, in any other position, on the left hand of each king; and Radhacant (a Pandit) informed me, that the board consisted, like ours, of 64 squares, half of them occupied by the forces, and half vacant. He added, that this game is mentioned in the oldest law books, and that it was invented by the wife of a king, to amuse him with an image of war, while his metropolis was besieged in the second age of the world. A ship or boat is absurdly substituted, we see, in this complex game, for the rath', or armed chariot, which the Bengalese pronounce roth', and which the Persians changed into rokh; whence came the rook of some European nations; as the vierge and fal of the French are supposed to be corruptions of fera and fil, the prime minister and elephant of the Persians and Arabs.

As fortune is supposed to have a great share in deciding the fate of a battle, the use of dice is introduced into this game to regulate its moves; for (says the Puran) "if cinque be thrown, the king or a pawn must be moved; if quatre, the elephant; if trois, the horse; and if deux, the boat. The king passes freely on all sides, but over one square only; and with the same limitation the pawn moves, but he advances straightforward, and kills his enemy through an angle. The elephant marches in all directions as far as his driver pleases; the horse runs obliquely, traversing the squares; and the ship goes over two squares diagonally." The elephant we find, has the powers of our queen, as we are pleased to call the general or minister of the Persians; and the ship has the motion of the pieces to which we give the unaccountable appellation of bishop, but with a restriction which must greatly lessen its value.

In the Puran are next exhibited a few general rules and superficial directions for the conduct of the game. Thus, "the pawns and the ship both kill, and may be voluntarily killed; while the king, the elephant, and the lave, may flay the foe, but must not expose themselves to be slain. Let each player preserve his own forces with extreme care, securing his king above all, and not sacrificing a superior to keep an inferior piece." Here (says the president) the commentator on the Puran observes, that the horse, who has the choice of eight moves from any central position, must be preferred to the ship, which has only the choice of four. But the argument would not hold in common game, where the bishop and tower command a whole line, and where a knight is always of less value than a tower in action, or the bishop of that side on which the attack is begun. "It is by the overbearing power of the elephant (continues the Puran) that the king fights boldly; let the whole army therefore, be abandoned in order to secure the elephant. The king must never place one elephant before another, unless he be compelled by want of room, for he would thus commit a dangerous fault; and if he can flay one of two hostile elephants, he must destroy that on his left hand."

What remains of the passage which was copied from Sir William Jones, relates to the several modes in which a partial success or complete victory may be obtained by any one of the four players; for, as in a dispute between two allies, one of the kings may sometimes assume the command of all the forces, and aim at a separate conquest. First, "When any one king has placed himself on the square of another king (which advantage is called finhafana or the throne), he wins a stake, which is doubled if he kill the adverse monarch when he seizes his place; and if he can seat himself on the throne of his ally, he takes the command of the whole army." Secondly, "If he can occupy successively the thrones of all the three princes, he obtains the victory, which is named cheturaji; and the stake is doubled if he kill the last of the three, just before he takes possession of his throne; but if he kill him on his throne, the stake is quadrupled. Both in giving the finhafana and the cheturaji, the king must be supported by the elephant, or by all the forces united." Thirdly, "When one player has his own king on the board, but the king of his partner has been taken, he may replace his captive ally, if he can seize both the adverse kings; or if he cannot effect their capture, he may exchange his king for one of them, against the general rule, and thus redeem the allied prince, who will supply his place." This advantage has the name of nriparajita, or recovered by the king. Fourthly, "If a pawn can march to any square on the opposite extremity of the board, except that of the king, or that of the ship, he assumes whatever power belonged to that square." Here we find the rule, with a slight exception, concerning the advancement of pawns, which often occasions a most interesting struggle at our common chess; but it appears that, in the opinion of one ancient writer on the Indian game, this privilege is not allowable when a player has three pawns on the board; but when only one pawn and one ship remains, the pawn may advance even to the square of a king or a ship, and assume the power of either. Fifthly, According to the people of Lante, where the game was invented, "there could be neither victory nor defeat if a king were left on the plain without force; a situation which they named cacacabhiha." Sixthly, "If three ships happen to meet, and the fourth ship can be brought up to them in the remaining angle, this has the name of urilannauca; and the player of the fourth seizes all the others."

The account of this game in the original Sanscrit is in verse.

This game was very fashionable in former times in every part of Europe; though in this country it is not now very common, probably on account of the intense application of thought required to play at it. It has long been a favourite of the Icelanders and other northern people. There is little difference between their game and ours.

The game of chess has been generally practised by the greatest warriors and generals; and some have even supposed that it was necessary for a military man to be well skilled in this game. It is a game which has something in it peculiarly interesting. We read that Tamerlane was a great chess-player, and was engaged in a game during the very time of the decisive battle with Bajazet the Turkish emperor, who was defeated and taken prisoner. It is also related of Al Amin, the caliph of Bagdad, that he was engaged at chess with his freedman Kuthar at the time when Al Mamun's forces were carrying on the siege of that city with so much vigour that it was on the point of being carried by assault. Dr. Hyde quotes an Arabic history of the Saracens, in which the caliph is said to have cried out when warned of his danger, "Let me alone, for I see checkmate against Kuthar!" We are told that Charles I. was at chess when news were brought of the final intention of the Scots to sell him to the English; but so little was he discomposed by this alarming intelligence, telligence, that he continued his game with the utmost composure; so that no person could have known that the letter he received had given him information of anything remarkable. King John was playing at chess when the deputies from Rouen came to acquaint him that their city was besieged by Philip Augustus; but he would not hear them until he had finished his game.

The following remarkable anecdote we have from Dr Robertson in his History of Charles V. John Frederic, elector of Saxony, having been taken prisoner by Charles, was condemned to death. The decree was intimated to him while at chess with Ernest of Brunswick, his fellow-prisoner. After a short pause, and making some reflection on the irregularity and injustice of the emperor's proceedings, he turned to his antagonist, whom he challenged to finish the game. He played with his usual ingenuity and attention; and having beat Ernest, expressed all the satisfaction that is commonly felt on gaining such victories. He was not, however, put to death, but set at liberty after five years confinement.

In the Chronicle of the Moorish kings of Granada we find it related, that in 1396, Mehemed Balba seized upon the crown in prejudice of his elder brother, and passed his life in one continual round of disasters. His wars with Castile were invariably unsuccessful; and his death was occasioned by a poisoned vest. Finding his case desperate, he dispatched an officer to the fort of Salabreno to put his brother Juzaf to death, lest that prince's adherents should form any obstacle to his son's succession. The alcayde found the prince playing at chess with an alfaquí or priest. Juzaf begged hard for two hours respite, which was denied him; at last with great reluctance the officer permitted him to finish the game; but before it was finished a messenger arrived with the news of the death of Mehemed, and the unanimous election of Juzaf to the crown.

We have a curious anecdote of Ferrand count of Flanders; who, having been accustomed to amuse himself at chess with his wife, and being constantly beaten by her, a mutual hatred took place; which came to such a height, that, when the count was taken prisoner at the battle of Bovines, he suffered him to remain a long time in prison, though she could easily have procured his release.

The game of chess has undergone considerable variations since it was first invented. We have it on good authority, that, among the eastern nations, the piece now called the queen was formerly called the vizir or king's minister, and that the powers of the queen herself were but very small. The chess-boards used by Tamerlane were larger, and contained many more squares than those at present in use. Carrera invented two new pieces to be added to the eight commonly in use. One of these, which he calls Campione, is placed between the king's knight and castle; the other, named Centaur, between the queen's knight and castle, has the move of the bishop and knight united. This invention, however, did not survive its author. In another of this kind, the two additional pieces are called the centurion and decurion; the former situated between the king and his bishop, in its move the same with that of the queen, but only for two squares; the latter moves as the bishop, but only one square at a time.

This, like the former, died with its inventor. The chess-board of Tamerlane was a parallelogram, having 11 squares one way and 12 the other. In the Memoirs of the late Marshal Keith, we find it related, that he invented an amusement something similar to that of chess, with which the king of Prussia was highly entertained. Several thousand small statues were cast by a founder; and these were ranged opposite to each other as if they had been drawn up in an army; making the different movements with them as in real service in the field.

A very complicated kind of game at chess was invented by the late duke of Rutland. At this the board has 14 squares in breadth, and 10 in height, which make in all 140 houses; and there are 14 pawns on each side, which may move either one, two, or three squares the first time. The other pieces were the king, queen, two bishops, two knights, a crowned castle uniting the move of the king and castle, and a common castle. On the other side of the king was a concubine, whose move united that of the castle and knight, two bishops, a single knight, a crowned castle, and a common one. In this game the pawns are of very little use; and by the extent of the board, the knights lose much of their value, which consequently renders the game more defective and less interesting than the common one.

There is an amusing variety at the game of chess, in which the king with eight pawns engages the whole set, by being allowed to make two moves for every one of his adversary. In this he is almost certain of coming off victorious; as he can make his first move into check, and the second out of it. Thus he can take the queen when she stands immediately before his king, and then retreat; for he cannot remain in check. He cannot be check-mated unless his adversary has preserved his queen and both castles.

Chess-trees, (toquets d'anjure); two pieces of wood bolted perpendicularly, one on the starboard, and another on the larboard side of the ship. They are used to confine the clue, or lower corners of the main-sail; for which purpose there is a hole in the upper part, through which the rope passes that usually extends the clue of the sail to windward. See Tack.

The chess-trees are commonly placed as far before the main-mast as the length of the main-beam.