Divided by a common language

[siegecrossbow]

I respect most your posts which are of high quality , siegecrossbow, but you've overlooked many important historical FACTS related to Chess which are in direct conflict with Indians' ( Indeed Murray's, of British Raj ) claim that "India invented Chess".

This claim has been further peddled in post War era by blatant Anglo propangandas which have brainwashed generations of people.


Please refer to the folowing long essay on this subject which I find most convincing:


Was Chess Invented in India?
by Sam Sloan

Chessays - Sloan - India vs. China


Note:

Sam Sloan studied linguistics as a graduate student at New York University, and is the author of a Khowar-English Dictionary. He can speak Khowar, Pashtu and Spanish, as well as some Persian, Arabic and Mandarin Chinese. He has been to 62 countries in the world, including almost all of the countries mentioned in this essay. Sloan is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Berkeley Computer Chess, Inc.



Yes, it is very long essay, but razor sharply logical and highly educational with abundent facts across disciplines. I highly recommend that ALL Chinese members here read it through.


It's a shame and a pity to see we Chinese nowadays trash away our ancestors' inventions alongwith all the genius and hardships they've entailed so so easily. Sigh!!!

I understand your patriotic sentiments, brother, and I really do appreciate that. I too am frustrated with the ignorance and the lack of acknowledgement of Chinese inventions (like how the Chinese invented the gunpowder but not firearms). How are we different from those ignorant people if we claim credit for everything? As I said in the previous post early form of Xiangqi predates Indian chess but didn't have as much of an influence upon modern Chess as Indian Chess (and there is indeed, some speculation within Chinese academic field, that Indian Chess managed to influence later forms of Chinese Chess as well). We must look at all the sources before coming to a conclusion.

 

[flyinfishjoe]

Wow, what a great discussion this was until we started fighting about something as trivial as the origin of chess.

 

[Speeder 2]

I understand your patriotic sentiments, brother, and I really do appreciate that. I too am frustrated with the ignorance and the lack of acknowledgement of Chinese inventions (like how the Chinese invented the gunpowder but not firearms). How are we different from those ignorant people if we claim credit for everything? As I said in the previous post early form of Xiangqi predates Indian chess but didn't have as much of an influence upon modern Chess as Indian Chess (and there is indeed, some speculation within Chinese academic field, that Indian Chess managed to influence later forms of Chinese Chess as well). We must look at all the sources before coming to a conclusion.

No, I am afraid that you don’t understand me. First read the essay, think over, then responde.

It is not important at all who influenced who in which minor details thereafter, since all human civilisations have been flunencing and have been influenced constantly among themsevels. Let alone chess, Chinese game of “go” has been hughly influenced in recent decades by Japan and Korea. But that is not the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is crucial however, namely who was the originator.

In essense, Chess is a game of Strategy and Maths. Whichever people ( Chinese or Alliens out of Moon) invented Chess must be a people, a culture, being fond of Startegy and Maths immensely in nature, since without mass demand & interests of local people of all kinds, the invention of a mass game such as Chess would have had no incentive to be invented in the first place; even it was invented, it would have had not survived for more than 1 week to be remembered by the rest of us today.

Furthermore, whoever invented the chess must have , or almost definitely have, invented the related similar games ( such as Cards, “GO” etc, both were invented by China in those eras) as well. This is because it was a logical and a natural step to do.

It is very hard , or almost inconceivable, to imagine that India invented Chess but had no trace and no clue whatesoever on the other highly correlated games on Strategy and Maths, not then, not now. Look at Indians ( no offence) , whatever they were/are renouned for, they were/are NOT people renouned for Strategy. Where is ancient Indian version of Act of War of the same era of Chess then ???

I would rather tend to believe that Germans invented Chess than Indians did, if Chinese were out of the question. At least Germans, as people, are known for engineering (largely means having investigative, analysed, scrutinised and penetrable minds, which are in general accordance with requirements of maths and strategy)

Likewise, Cards, Chess and Go are more or less in the same value chain ( in degrees of difficulty of play, and strategy & maths required) as rifle, artillery and ICBM do . It is thus inconceivable to hear a claim, no matter which historian said, that one suddenly invented modern artillery out of blue without pecedent, while having zero knowledge and interests in basic form of rifle, and logical lymore sophisticated ICBM /missles thereafter.

For example, 2000 years from now, if someone asks who invented airplane in 19th century if all related archives are lost, the logical answer, and the most likely correct answer also, would be the same people who invented engines, automobiles alike in the same era and having abundant theise/research published on aerodynamics , etc. so that must be people such as Anglo-Saxen, instead of some ridiculous claim out of blue that according to such such airplane historians ( or International Airplane or Chess Association) that people in Somalia invented airplanes...they even didn't know , and didn't care, and didn't need to care, how to make a decent steel board at the time for christ sake.



See the point?

 

[oceanx]

...
It is very hard , or almost inconceivable, to imagine that India invented Chess but had no trace and no clue whatesoever on the other highly correlated games on Strategy and Maths, not then, not now. Look at Indians ( no offence) , they are NOT people renouned for Strategy. Where is ancient Indian version of Act of War of the same era of Chess then ???

I even rather tend to believe that Germans invented Chess than Indians did, if Chinese are out of the question. At least Germans, as people, are known for engineering (largely means having investigated, analyzed, scrutinized and penetrable minds, which are in accordance with maths and strategy)

...
See the point?

With all due respect, you point is simply out to lunch ... and it's lunch time here and I'm heating up mine.

First of all, how do you know ancient Indians had no strategy? Was there not a Chanakya whose "pearls" were to some degree comparable to Soloman's own? You can argue whether the ancient Hindus were militarily effective in implementing anything resembling sound strategy. But all the Sun Tze in the world couldn't help South Song stave off the hordes from the north, either.

How could the Germans have invented chess way back when these "barbarians" rummaging through Jutland tossing folks into bogs hadn't found a door to written language?

O pardon me, there were the "runes" and "rhine gold" ...

Your approach to history and cultural evolution is simply facile. If the planet freezes or boils over and the whole of China gets wiped out today, archeologists tomorrow will look at the relics of Shanghai and Hongkong and conclude that these places were the most developed out of this place called China in the late 20th century.

But that's about all they can conclude.

They would have to dig into "history" to know that Shanghai and Hongkong were nothing but piles of rocks, dirt and sand until the Brits "developed" them. The "true glories" of ancient China was a thousand miles from where they were.

And finally it's proven beyond doubt that India had math in ancient times ... fairly advanced math for its time.

Today's India's (or China's) poverty relative to Germans' contemporary accomplishment does not have bearing to what could have been achieved 2000 years ago.

 

[Speeder 2]

With all due respect, you point is simply out to lunch ... and it's lunch time here and I'm heating up mine.

First of all, how do you know ancient Indians had no strategy? Was there not a Chanakya whose "pearls" were to some degree comparable to Soloman's own? You can argue whether the ancient Hindus were militarily effective in implementing anything resembling sound strategy. But all the Sun Tze in the world couldn't help South Song stave off the hordes from the north, either.

How could the Germans have invented chess way back when these "barbarians" rummaging through Jutland tossing folks into bogs hadn't found a door to written language?

O pardon me, there were the "runes" and "rhine gold" ...

Your approach to history and cultural evolution is simply facile. If the planet freezes or boils over and the whole of China gets wiped out today, archeologists tomorrow will look at the relics of Shanghai and Hongkong and conclude that these places were the most developed out of this place called China in the late 20th century.

But that's about all they can conclude.

They would have to dig into "history" to know that Shanghai and Hongkong were nothing but piles of rocks, dirt and sand until the Brits "developed" them. The "true glories" of ancient China was a thousand miles from where they were.

And finally it's proven beyond doubt that India had math in ancient times ... fairly advanced math for its time.

Today's India's (or China's) poverty relative to Germans' contemporary accomplishment does not have bearing to what could have been achieved 2000 years ago.

Your weak "attempt" is pathetic, for want of a more polite word, to say the least.

Of course, "india" had strategy. In fact every single culture has its own version of strategy, for that matter South Africa Bushman too while they are hunting. Thus everyone invented Chess along with Cards all together?

"German" was just an analogy, didn't you see? Weather change, people don't.

It is the likelihood we are talking about. By just following some "historians'' PC claims without thoughroughly challenging its obvious scewed logic, you are subscribing a fairytale of blinds leading blinds.

The whole point of the exercise is logic, dam* it!

What do you think the logic and the probability of correctness that one claims to have invented Nuclear Subs all out of sudden( with no mass literature and no public papers of any kind associated with the said subs thereafter, and ever! ), while having no knowhow nor displaying any interests of building and sustaining a simple fishboat before and after?

 

[oceanx]

^^^

You are entitiled to your opinion and I am to mine. And it just so happens that mine is more sound than yours - in my opinion anyway.

In heeding the caution from Webmaster (against derailing threads), I'll let you have the last word while returning to topic.

 

[Speeder 2]

Maths alone means nothing. Ancient Egyptians, Arabs and Persians all had advanced maths, along with Greeks. So?

Strategy is what matters in this case. And strategy-related culture, the MASS culture in fact, which, should have influenced the invention of games like Chess, and cards, and Go, and thereafter supported their popularity throughout history, without which we would have had never heard of either of them today.

Where are the Indian records that show historically mass population in India, both elites and any Singh and Patel in a street, played Chess, talked about chess strategies, ever?

NONE!


On the exactly the opposite, you find that in China. And you can only find it in China. You can find it anywhere in China, Today, tomorrow, yesterday, any point in all dynasties AD, played by the mass. (When I visited CHina in 2007, I saw loads of loads of people playing chess any public parks I went.)


This is called Chess Culture! All right? And said culture can not be formed in one day!


This is precisely the momentum, mass interests (for both intellectual and entertainment purposes), the needs and sheer force behind the tangibles, to make the related invention logically possible and practically sustainable throughout history, be it Chess, or Cards, or Go.


Once Chess was invented, dynasty after dynasty, there have been tons of publications in CHinese literature talking about the game, the strategies related to the game, the stories, jokes about famous people playing the game. Some are within traditional chinese poems, history books, whereas many others are chess-related folktales ( e.g. I know when General Guan of Romance of 3 kingdoms played chess when his doctor tried to pull an arrow out of his back...) and old yet extremely popular Chinese sayings /proverbs derived from detailed strategies of Chess Playing, such as I knew from my Dad that there's a daily phrase in CHinese called "Cannon Behind Horse". What does it mean? Every Chinese, literate or illiterate, knows it they say. Similar examples are numerous.


Where are the Indian equivalents thoughout the history? None, except what Murray, a British Raj scholar, patheticly claimed that Chess pronounced similarly to an Indian word, so Chess must have been invented there, despite the fact all vital ingredientes and proofs, either concrete or logical, are completely missing. So whenever they hear South Africa Bushmen yelling "Con Puuu"(means trees in a tribal dialect), these clothless creatures must have invented the first computers, right?

Get a grip! The ancient Chinese who invented the game and countless generations of ancient Chinese chess players must be turning in their graves when you braindead Pee-Cee people blindly credit it away.

 

[CardSharp]

^^^

You are entitiled to your opinion and I am to mine. And it just so happens that mine is more sound than yours - in my opinion anyway.

In heeding the caution from Webmaster (against derailing threads), I'll let you have the last word while returning to topic.

Let's stay on topic please.

 

[Speeder 2]

... when you braindead Pee-Cee people blindly credit it away.

I apologise to have used "braindead". I would take the word back.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

我当然是爱国者... however I think to claim "Chess" as a Chinese invention is wrong, because it is not supported by the facts, or by historical consensus.

Chinese culture already has so many inventions. No point trying to claim others unless it is strongly supported by historical facts.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Back on topic, here is a sample of "Old Chinese".

This has been reconstructed by a computer so it sounds quite strange. Start watching from 1:00.

Look at 1:10 into the video.

見大王 in Old Chinese seems to be: "keens daads cwang".

However, 見大王 in Standard Mandarin pronunciation would be: "jian da wang".

In Cantonese that would be "Gin daai wong".

 

[Speeder 2]

One last word on issue of chess:

我当然是爱国者... however I think to claim "Chess" as a Chinese invention is wrong, because it is not supported by the facts.

It is NOT a question of patriotism. it's all about to give credit where it's due.

Fact? See that's my problem with PC people. My whole point was that there're NO FACTS, neither any logic, whatsoever to support Indians' claim, only ONE speculation from part of ONE British Raj Official of 19th century when the British had a monopoly of authorities on most Int'l organisations including Int'l Chess Association - see the link of essay I provided in the previous page.

Chinese culture already has so many inventions. No point trying to claim others unless it is strongly supported by historical facts.

It is also wrong.

The invention of Chess was a massive achievement! the inventor/s must have spent most of his/their life/lives designing it and prefecting it, togehter with following army of developers of all kinds.

Hence even though you are very generous to give away inventions, it's not your invention, but other people's ( Chinese) life-time works built by their hardships.

Sorry, but neither you nor I have right to give away other people's "money" as a gift to a third party without due permission, particularly when many people nowadays in internet use Chess as one strong source to support their false argument that both ancient Chinese and modern day Chinese were/are not inventive.

Do you know that there's an old Chinese American who spent the last decade using his own savings to fund research on the issue, flighting on his own to help giving justice and credit to the original inventors of Chess ( whom he is convinced were ancient Chinese)? Google it. Compared to what he has done, I feel really ashamed.

 

[no_name]

at #101 : It sounds a bit like thai or viet. Also I ROFL'd when the king laughed.

But seriously, how can they be sure what classical chinese from 3,4 thousand years ago sounded like.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

at #101 : It sounds a bit like thai or viet. Also I ROFL'd when the king laughed.

But seriously, how can they be sure what classical chinese from 3,4 thousand years ago sounded like.

They can't, it's all computer-based reconstruction, that they developed from rhyming poems in Ancient China.

Still interesting though.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I apologise to have used "braindead". I would take the word back.

Good, as others have said, let's not have Chinese members insulting other Chinese members.

Back on topic, what does everyone think of Old Chinese and Middle Chinese?