Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
My First Ever Game of Chaturanga | How Chess was Played 1000 Years Ago
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2020
- In this video, I play my first ever game of Chaturanga against IM Levy Rozman (@GothamChess).
This was originally streamed on our Twitch Channels:
/ gothamchess and / imrosen
Chaturanga is an older form of chess with different rules that was played 1,000 years ago. Learn more about Chaturanga here: en.wikipedia.o...
Play Chaturanga (along with other variants) here: chess.com/vari...
Stream schedule: imrosen.com/sc...
Support my content: www.paypal.me/...
Now accepting fan mail! My mailbox address:
Eric Rosen
4579 Laclede Ave #205
St. Louis, MO 63108
♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙
WEBSITE: imrosen.com/
TWITCH: / imrosen
DISCORD: bit.ly/2KTDlBK
TWITTER: bit.ly/2sFmNqa
INSTAGRAM: bit.ly/2HspaBa
LICHESS: lichess.org/@/...
CHESS.COM: www.chess.com/...
♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙
Chess book recommendations: imrosen.com/bo...
London Opening 8-hour video course: www.ichess.net...
"I have two queens, is this enough to win?" How you feel when you're 200 elo
200 elo on lichess no less. :p
@@tracyh5751 my mom lost to a 250 elo bot
@@joshenadams2474 everyone starts somewhere. Hope she sticks with it.
But im 1200 😥
I'm 200 because I just play I don't do puzzles or anything and I'm quite casual
"Oh no, I forgot bishops can move backwards"
-International Chess Master Eric Rosen. 2020
The rules are completely different so I forgive him
Because the pawn was in the way, but taking it out of context is very funny...
the way it is commented... so funny
lmao the queen is even more useless than a pawn. and pawns are even more useless than normal. and promoting them into a queen makes them even more useless.
@@fdsafdasfdas5256 not really) Queen is a 1-squared bishop now, which is not so bad. You can fork, defend diagonally etc. Even retreats when you're attacked. pawns are still good. but they are nerfed so much.. they are okay, but slower than before. Bishops are mindmelting weapons xD
so this is what it feels like to be rated 400 in chess
Why it doesn't have likes?
can confirm
I feel personally attacked by this comment
Yes
up the lads
So funny!
-You had a tactic
-Oh what is it?
-You could've taken a free pawn
Two IMs talking
But after that Queen could've been taken due to check and if King hasn't moved properly, rook also
@@infoeducardo6915 queen doesn't seem like a loss in this XD
@iBrow Queens r as strong as knights - me a 1500
@@infoeducardo6915 Nope, if rook takes queen rook takes rook
"you just gave me a bishop"
Nothing of value was lost.
lolololol
"The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. In other words, energy cannot be created or destroyed."
Yes i agree
@@honhonhonhon8110 what?
"Oh yeah, you can checkmate me by moving your light-squared queen to b7."
Whats wrong with it? B7 is a light square isnt it?
@@williamknightsshinconditioning What?
@@williamknightsshinconditioning Because it wasn't explained to you before. the joke is that usually bishops are "light square" and "dark square" bishops. However since he got two Queens that are an extremely nerfed bishops on each square color, they were referring them that way.
Funny seeing you here
@@marlynli4792 funny that
"The future is basically the future present moment, right."
- Eric Buddha Rosen
I still don't understand what he meant by that
@@leadnitrate2194 Right now, tomorrow is the future, but tomorrow it'll be the present. That's what I think he was talking about.
the way he said it was like saying 2 = 2 + 1 - 1
@@forty1thousand it depends on what you mean by future. Thou I think the moral about this quote is "whenever you wanna change the future do it now" or some other motivational bs thing
@@quasquaswex4430 ikr😅
this variant actually has a rule that the first person to lose all their pieces loses the game, it's not just about checkmate. When up a single piece, you actually do want to trade down and that's a win.
ya there were so many opportunities for eric to win, but i dont think they knew about the bare-bones rule
@@insanityfrfr I see, so does this fix it somehow?
how do you lose all your pieces if there's check? There's either check or no check. With check rules there is no losing all your pieces your king will always be your final piece. With no check then you can add a rule of losing all your pieces
@@ashtimbog for the purposes of what I said literally 2 years ago, the king isn't a loseable piece. If you are ever left with just the king in this version of the game, you lose.
Ye
I remember playing this on an old chess pc-game and it was the only game where I could beat the Computer at high levels, because the CPU was hardwired to promote to (useless) queens, where I could promote to anything - So I essentially got outplayed, my opponent promoted to trash and I would promote to rooks and win cheap.
Lol best game ever
Lmao
According to Wikipedia, the promotion is according to the collumn. If is the column where the rock beggins, so it becames, rock, etc. So, If u promote in center, u became a queen. I just don't know what to do when it reaches the King column, maybe it becames simply a queen.
😂😂😂
@@bunivasconcellosdimedeiros3226 becomes a queen.
Eric: *breathes*
Levy: OH MY GOD YOU'RE RIGHT
😂😂😂
I'm glad they patched chess, this version seems borderline unplayable.
Chess 3.0 is the one we play today.
@yeh koi IMRANdi KHANa hai ?? This is shatranj rules actually
@yeh koi IMRANdi KHANa hai ?? from what i read on wikipedia the elephant (bishop) had different moves, and i think the board wasnt checkered.
@@NeoAxiom does that mean pieces could move anywhere? If it's all one square then everywhere is 1 move away 🤭
@@NeoAxiom Pawns don’t have a double step and must promote to queens, bishops jump two squares diagonally (they must move two spaces and jump over pieces like a knight), the queen only moves one space diagonally, there is no castling, and stalemate and a bare king are considered a checkmate.
People saying chess hasnt gotten a update in 1500 years
Chess 1000 years ago:
This is a bad version of chaturanga.
In another version,
queens are a combination of horse & bishop & rook. (But, queen's range is only 2 sqs. Basically, queen can go to all squares within only 2 sq range... vertical, diagonal, horizontal, horse move). Bishops can jump 2 squares. But, also move one square. Range of bishop is 2 diagonal squares maximum. Rooks are the only long range piece. But, Rooks cannot jump over other pieces, while all other pieces (queen, bishop & horse) can jump over other pieces (but, they have limited range). King can make horse move once per game. That allows him to make artificial castle quickly. (The horse move of king is comparable to castling move in modern versions). Soldier can move only 1 sq forward (capture 1 sq diagonal). Promotion to the piece on which the soldier is. Eg: Rook pawns promote to rook only. Only central pawns (d & e) promote to queen.
That version of chaturanga is more fun.
Edit: I forgot to add a few points.
1) In starting position: Queen is always to the left of the king. That means king faces opposite queen in starting position in Indian Chaturanga. (This makes the game more fast paced because both sides will castle on opposite sides normally). (White King starts on d1 square and black king on e1 square)
2) dice was used to randomize the first few moves (like first 5 moves).
3)The version played in this video is shatranj (Iranian version) where queen piece is minister (called wazir). That's why, the queen piece is so powerless because it is not military unit. The version I am describing is the Indian chaturanga where queen piece is the general of the army (most powerful military unit on the board).
4) About the special knight move of king in Chaturanga: In Indian chess, there was no castling. But, there was a special move for king available only once. That move was, King couldmake a horse move once in the game. So, king could jump from e1 to g2. so, in Indian chess, players would create a castle by playing g3, Bh3, Nf3, Kg2, Rf1, Kg1, Bg2. This king side fianchetto setup was the common Indian castling setup. When Indians started playing against Europeans with the modern castling rule, they still used the kingside fianchetto setup as they were comfortable with it. so, it was known as Indian systems to Europeans. Today, many modern (or hyper modern) openings use bishop fianchetto (particularly kingside fianchetto). And they are called 'Indian' openings for this reason. Eg: King's Indian Defense, Nimzo Indian Defense, modern defense.... etc. So, modern openings are actually emulating the ancient Indian openings.
Yeah tbf I was expecting more from chaturanga. Quite disappointed to see that it was basically a nerfed version of chess.
@@leadnitrate2194 Yeah, this version was not good. I didn't like it.
Well when I heard it was the Iranian Version, it kinda made sense that the Queen has no Power at all
@@Plonom LOL! 😁 Actually, that queen piece is called wazir (minister). So, there is no queen on the board in Iranian chess.
Historically, queens & ministers were very powerful in Iran (palace intrigues & stuff).
@@Plonom
So smart..
The piece is not a female in Iranian/Arabic 😒
11:45 "I have two queens, but is that enough to win?"
*Said from a chess IM.
two Ferz ;)
Obviously 2 Queens = Win
@@woooshmeifyoucan3761 it's like two bishops in modern chess, but worse
@@jareldg.stream1742 2 nerfed bishops and you have to stalemate your opponent to win
this is the perfect display of how playing any game old patch feels like
It’s more of a better display of master chess players not understanding chaturanga.
It may be well advised to play these variants with a bit more time on the clock. It would allow to come up with an actual strategy that makes use of the added rules instead of getting into a tactical time scramble.
under 2s a move these guys will still play better then 90% of their audience with unlimited time. But I agree it would have been a fairer way for them to evaluate the game
Chess, but theres no action
What’s funny is that literally every singe rule they changed was done to speed up the game.
I play it sometimes, elephants are worthless until the board is nearly empty. To win I use a ‘elephant hole’ tactic, every time the enemy attacks with and elephant early game, I trap it. And then kill it.
@@joaqu7002 arent the rooks chariots and the bishops elephants?
@@ClockworkAnomaly yes, you’re right
@@ClockworkAnomaly no I am from India chess was originated here in India . it was kinda a war game where pieces represents soldiers , and in local chess till today we say rook is elephant , bishop is camel. Qween is wazir, wazir is kinda kings Right hand . king is king . knight are Knight. And pwans are foot soldiers obviously.
Bishops are soooo bad in this variant, they literally can't access 3/4 of the board
Edit: Nope, I was wrong. The bishops are way worse than I first thought, they can only access 8 squares each.
Making them worse than pawns in movement (which can potentially move to more places by taking). But bishops can jump over pieces, so there's that...And queens can only move on half the board, but so so slow. N and R are OP in this game. If I were to use point system I'd give pawns, queens and bishops 1 point, knights 3 and rooks 5. Or maybe queen could have 2, thanks to the "good" movement.
@@remus-alexandrusimion3439 Yeah, that seems about right. I'd be happy if the bishop traded for 2 pawns
@@pairot01 TBH, i'd double all the points so that you can get the queen between the current 1 and 2 and have an integer number. So pawns and bishops get 2, queen gets 3, knight gets 6 and rooks get 10. That's a hell of a lot of points in the game but would feel right i think. Dunno why i'm thinking about this since no one would really care. This game variant is sooo slow and uneventful, it can't possibly make a real comeback.
@@remus-alexandrusimion3439 old comment but i think everyone would prefer having pawns than bishops since with pawns, u can create a strong chain and bishops are completely useless in this version so maybe id give the bishops less than a pawn value
And they can't even attack each other. Only usefulness would be in damaging pawn structure, or very obscure puzzles.
I'm glad the devs improved chess since this alpha version. Can't wait for the 2021 update when they add spaceships
underated comment
Glad they scratched the spaceships during beta testing and came up with the Duck
Wow, if this was chess 1000 years ago, it's a miracle people carried on playing. Compared to the modern game this so restrictive and slow.
I am seeing a lot of games say this is an Iranian version which is quite different than the original Indian version
It's not even that this is the Iranian version, its that they're approaching it like a modern game of chess with defensive tactics. You win the game by taking all the pieces, not by checkmate. The end game could have been over in three moves but they were trying to get checkmate instead of just duking the queens out. Whoever only has one piece left loses. Its a pure offensive game, capturing pieces is what its about, its supposed to be quick. If you defend like an IM chess player would, the game draws out and nobody attacks and it takes 17 minutes to draw a game.
It was played widely till the pre British period, which is less than 300 years ago
@@sameash3153 Chess: patzer edition.
It's a war game. It makes sense why people did. Many similar games were are.
Wow, a bishop is garbage in this game. It can only ever use 8 squares all game. A queen seems much more useful than a bishop.
I feel like you could take the bishops off the board and you'd probably give only pawn odds
its almost like the differences are completely logical, like i dont know who could play this game for very long without thinking "the elephant (bishop) is completely useless, let's play where it can move more"
also the queen in this is strangely familiar, seems oddly reminding me of King in Checkers.. where did checkers come from anyway
@@tacokoneko what are you talking about lol. It's useless in almost any position
@@henrymccoy2306 in checkers moving a piece to eighth rank promotes to king which can move one square diagonal, in this moving pawn to eighth rank auto promotes to this queen/ferz which can move one square diagonal
2:32 fun mathematical fact: for simple parity reasons, Eric would've never been able to fianchetto his bishop, no matter how many times he tried to "triangulate".
Also, you'd need four bishops to be able to access all the squares with bishops. The concept of color complex weakness would then have to be replaced by something a tad more sophisticated. What a weird variant 😄
Ikr
When they were low on time, they sounded like 2 cavemen discovering fire or something XD
"The future is basically the future's present moment"
- IM Eric Rosen
If you teach chess to someone, play a game of chaturanga before. Then you will understand why it takes the beginner so long to see if any of his pieces is attacked :D I'm playing chess for more than 15 years, but playing this game is just like you've forgot anyting you've learned about chess - i had literally no clue what was going on in game 1 :D had to pause the video every 5 seconds haha
So true, it’s easy to forget how things were when you didnt know or understand something.
Chaturanga is really hard. Traditional players are real masters of it. But they are very rare. My grandfather was a master player. He was unbeatable. He won against many players across several states (That was long ago). But the legacy wasn't continued. For my father didn't cared to learn that. And my grandfather died before he could teach me. Like wtf. I just lost a treasure. Damn that old man's liquor addiction. If else he would have been still with us. Also, the original Chaturanga is not played like this. The placement of the pieces are different.
@@scp-yearsagoOh wow, I thought this variant ended being played centuries ago. Sad that your grandpa could transmit his knowledge
two of my faves!! one is calm and the other is just edgy a mix of both!
Bishops have 2 more parities in this version compared to modern chess where the only parity is color and bishops are limited to half the board. In this version they can't move to D4 for example if they star from D2, D6, B4 or F4 even though all these squares are dark (like D4). This is because the allowed moves for bishops add or substract 2 from the number AND at the same time increase or decrease the letter by 2 steps (From D to B or F). So going from D4 to D2 or D6 is impossible because somehow you only have to change the number by +-2 while NOT changing the letter.
Further they also cannot go to odd numbered squares if they start from an even numbered square similarly bishops starting on files A,C,E,G cannot move to files B,D,F,H. All these limitations combined limits a bishop to a grand total of 8 squares on the board. Of the 64 total squares 32 are gone because of the color parity, 16 of the remaining is gone for the odd/even number parity and 8 of the remaining is gone because of the letter odd/even parity (A,C,E,G: odd - B,D,F,H: even).
This makes it almost impossible for them to make blockades and they can't even pin a piece. Since they are restricted to play 2 diagonal squares, their ability to effect 2 sides of the board is even less than the knights since knights can move to all the squares eventually and traverse the board almost as fast as the bishops. So I'd say in this version a bishop would be 0.75 points, if pawns are 1, since pawns can eventually be promoted to queens which can move to 32 squares of the same color eventually, they can blockade and maybe most importantly they can effect more squares since they capture diagonally.
King Knights and Rooks are the only pieces which can travel to all the squares. A Rook is insanely strong since it is the only piece which can traverse the entire board in 1 move.
When king is actually useful
0:05
Loved your starting move:
succesfully applied confussion to Levy with that quote.
(very nice quote, btw)
"my queen can never move to a dark square"
Yeah that also means you can't do a queen sacrifice. At least any where the queen takes the other queen.
that would be a queen trade, not a queen sacrifice
bishops teleporting in this is confusing
Bishops back then had a slim body that's the reason why they could slip through other pieces
@@muhammadridho7680 lol
@Linpaws hsohg Hsohg that still doesn’t really make sense. Do they just like walk over
@Linpaws hsohg Hsohg don’t be sorry, it’s not you that’s at fault here. You were just trying to help my pea-sized brain comprehend. Not your fault
@Linpaws hsohg Hsohg ty
"Wow that was a good move! "
"Thanks"
IM's everyone
IIRC the winning conditions of this ancient form of chess were to take all pieces of the opponent, without him being able to capture your last piece with his own king. Either that or checkmate the king. If you take the opponent's last piece and he is able to take your last piece in the next move, it's a draw.
Wow. Ruy Lopez suggested the 50 move draw in his book, back in 1561. But from what I've read, the first tournament to use "the 50 move draw rule" was (322 years later) in the 1883 London tournament.
I played this for myself its the most cursed thing I ever experienced
I saw it in variants
Read the rules
And said nope.
So the trippy bishop movement is actually preserved in some other ancient chess's descendants. For example in traditional Chinese chess, the bishop (elephant/advisor) has this movement, but it cannot jump over pieces and is restricted to one own's side of the board, making it a definitively defensive piece.
The elephant pieces also share "nodes" meaning a pair of elephants can form quite an annoying defensive array on the home side. Definitely a more interesting piece in xiangqi than this version of chaturanga.
Gut instinct piece values:
Pawn 0.75
Bishop: 1.25 (it can access 8 squares!)
Queen: 1.75
King: 2 (if it weren't royal)
Knight: 3.5 (it's very tough to counter)
Rook: 6 (also tough to counter)
Im pretty sure a pawn is more valuable than a bishop tbh
I recently got into Janggi (Korean chess) and the dynamics are pretty engaging. It's just a little hard to get clarity on some of the rules regarding the Generals (kings) and draws. Also, learning the symbols.
You don’t have to checkmate to win, baring the king is also a win (taking all pieces except the king) so at the end you could have traded down and won!
Don't say things if u don't know, I just played a game and listen to your advice. I t turns out its a draw so pleaase delete this comment.
@@I_am_Itay It's the rule, but obviously not in the version on that site.
@@xy-um3cw move*?
@@rhoddryice5412 oh so why
@@xy-um3cw what?
Wikipedia says that you can win by taking all the other pieces except the king as long as you are left with one more piece alongside your king. With that rule, the endgame won't be such a torture.
Favorite fact: the queen used to be called something mean "king's advisor," because all pieces on the board were male. Then, when she was added, she was the weakest piece on the board. It was only later that she was made so power, the most coveted target to trap or kill.
In India that piece wasn't called a queen. But when chess reached Europe that piece got called as queen cause there were many female monarchs ruling Europe during middle ages.
i think it was inspired by queen isabella
@@guywhoneversleeps
ISABELLA, QUEEN of Castile, the monarch who unified Spain and sent Christopher Columbus to discover America,
was also the inspiration for the figure of the queen in modern chess.
@@rememberwhen7271 In India Queen is called "Wazir" meaning Minister.
@@truewarrior3646 thats what i was saying
8:20 I was screaming for you to play qa4+ with the fork then I remembered
It's interesting comparing the different cursed variants. In Chinese Chess (xiangqi) the bishops (elephants) move the same way as chaturanga and you have two senators (queens) that are restricted to a 3x3 square along with the king. There are also cannons that move like rooks but can only capture when jumping over a piece while knights can't cannot jump over squares directly orthogonal that are occupied by pieces.
Chess in Mahabharat was played in 10x10 board called Dashpaad. The name of the game was called Shadyantra in those days. Game can be played with dice (2 team game) and without dice for 2 players.
Chakraview was also a similar game played in Mahabharat times.
Was this variant something played very long ago?
@@joshuapatrickvidal4954 yes. This is the actual grandmother of all chess variants. Invented more than 8000 yrs ago
Even though this variant feels weird, I kind of get why it is like that. As it's like one of the original variants of chess, you can just see what the rules are intended like.. they tried to make the knight and bishop similar, that's why they hop over other pieces and can move only 2 suqres diagonally... And a queen irl in the monarchy age would never go into the battle field, that's why the queen is powerless here
In Shahtranj or Chaturanga, the queen is actually a vizier or advisor. There is no actual "queen" in the game.
You know something is wrong with your life when you are watching Chaturanga games at 5
Welcome to Chaturanga, where pawns are stronger than queens and knights have longer range than bishops
This is really interesting as you can see at least a potential relation to the modern game of Chinese Chess - Elephant "Bishops" that may only move two squares, two "Advisors" at the King's (General's) side which may move one square diagonally, and the rook (chariot) as by far the most valuable and powerful piece.
Watching this in April 2021, both of you made some huge jumps in production. This is a great flashback and now I want to see you do a rematch.
about this chess mode
"It's evolving! Just backwards"
when you trade your rook and knight for a queen then realize
That the queen is worse than the knight and the rook
If I'm remembering correctly, the "Queen" was called the "Advisor" as in the advisor to the king, and that's why it was so powerless. I think the Queen came about more recently (like i the past 5 centuries).
01:40
Eric Rosen: "Ok, I think I understand"
Me: "You don't yet understand..."
"lets do something more fun then chaturanga" - and then Chess was invented
Sorry to be like that guy but "than"
@@PhantomAyz "lets do something more fun then chaturanga" - and *than* Chess was invented
@@PhantomAyz no, it's then
@@purewaterruler wrong "then"
@@PhantomAyz confidently incorrect lmao
I see Eric, I Click!
xD the "let's do something more fun than Chaturanga" at the end
You short circuited Levy at the start.
No "Oh no my queen" for Eric Rosen in this one😂😂😂
Oh no my pawn 9:18
The rules of this game are of the original "Shatranj" that was invented in india .. great to see some shatranj in action
Bhumit Thakkar Isn't that the Arabic way of saying chaturanga
Anik Chakraborty I think so too...Chaturanga sounds more Indian.
@@JuliusKingsley0 Pakistán an India share the same language (Urdu / Hindi) with two different alphabets, so maybe....
Actually chaturanga was invented in Gupta period 6th century .. read Wikipedia for more info !
Thai chess (Makruk) is more “fun” than chaturanga (at least in my opinion). Pawns are in 3rd and 6th rank and promote at enemy’s pawn rank, bishop moves like silver general in shogi. The rest are the same. Faster action but still positional.
Edit: Also the endgame is harder, wayyy harder than bishop and knight. Imagine three ferz and king trying to force checkmate. And counting rules for draws too (not just 50 moves, based on no unpromoted pawn, bare king and remaining piece of winning player, etc).
Most versions of chess before the 15th century had weak queens. The story goes that a traveler from the east who introduced chess to Queen Isabella of Spain, didn't want to offend her by making the queen seem weak, so he made it the most powerful piece. And that's how European chess came about.
This video shows why we should send a new patch update to nerf the queen
The last time I was this early Queens moved one square diagonally
i know what a nice challenge would be: Rosen with chataranga pieces against our 800 elo asses with normal pieces :D
LOL that would be unbelievably good content.
Damn chess used to be lame I am glad they updated it
“The future is basically the future” -chess master Eric Rosen
11:26 "Oh no, my (pawn turned into a useless) queen!"
I've read Chaturanga as Chaturbate. I was a little confused to say the least lol
I'd reckon that the bishops and queens were meant to be defensive pieces (which is similar to the role of the elephants and advisers from Xiangqi)
You should develop the knights and rooks as attacking pieces in the early game
This game was meant to be closer to an actual wargaming, hence why it's slower.
I can't help but imagine what was the reasoning behind these old rules. Chariots (rook) were considered OP at that age, but for some reason can't interweave with infantry like cavalry and elephants (bishops). And the vizier (queen) was just a weak bodyguard.
Chess is believed to have originated in India, c. 280 - 550 CE, where its early form in Tamil Nadu was known as Sathurangam literally four divisions [of the military] - infantry, cavalry, elephants, and chariotry, represented by the pieces that would evolve into the modern pawn, knight, bishop, and rook, respectively
Being an Indian am proud you Spread Chaturanga the Original Indian version of Chess
@@mihir1181 agreed! But isn't it interesting to see the old gane
@@mihir1181 And what's wrong with patriotism , btw ?
@@mihir1181 bruh, chess started from here after modifications from middle east+India and final touches from Europe it is like this
It's cool that Indians invented such an amazing game but it's just much worse compared to modern chess
@Kyro Zephyr the thing is everyone hates Indians :-(
Queens move like queens in checkers, there is some kind of queen opposition and when one reach the side of the board it's in zugzwang.
Bishops move faster than queens, but only on 16 squares, bishops can never attack bishops, while queens attack bishops from undercover spots.
Bishops are probably weaker than pawns, so one strategical thing would be to trade them on anything, maybe even on some valuable pawn.
Well, queen can only attack the bishop of same color, so the other bishop has really a funny status.
In Chaturanga, both Kings are placed to the right of their Ministers (in Chaturanga the piece is called a Minister, not a Queen) in the starting position - on e1 and d8.
And the pishops was elephants
in chaturanga, king do not face each other. white king start on e1 and black on d8.
10:45 Take the pawn!! lol
A bishop can only move between the same 8 squares, ever
Basically useless
"I was so close to winning." I literally bust out laughing! Suuuuure you were. XD
Not much different, but before the english chess in 18th century the chess rules also depended on country not just on timeline. Also some visual/meaning changes were made. Rook means kid of a boat, but originally it was symbolising a chariot which made sense looking at the piece, it doesn't look like a boat but we call it rook for some reason.... And bishop is an elephants trunk but english thought of the weird bishop hat so they called it bishop.
"the nicest torturer" really fits Eric xD
At 14:00 im screaming for Eric to move his king besides the queens
Yeah missed win
I realize that the queen here moves like a queen from the checkers game. What an interesting relationship.
We call chess "cheturange" in Arabic nowadays..
yeah but chaturanga is basically Sanskrit word and that's how we all are connected
Chess was invented in India. But thanks to the arabs that they took this game to Europe from where it got popular throughout the world.
there actually exists a different variant aclled : shataranj, closer to the arabic lol
Oh now I get it. We call it chatranj in urdu
Checkmate is actually a Persian word
It's pretty cool to think about how people played chess on PC 1000 years ago
No pc that time (ik you j) .. also it is played only in India that time
Back then people played Chaturanga using dice
This one is Shatranj(Chatrang in middle persian) the persian version of Chaturanga.
Levi's face on 0:11 🤣
I feel like this might be more fun if it was slightly modified.
- Queen moves two any direction
-bishops hop a square any direction
That way queen is more valuable but bishops are a little more agile. I read down in the comments someone explaining a different version of chaturanga and I'd love to try that too
"I won't take your queen, that would be a bad trade for me"
15:38
The 50-move Rule (if 50 moves are made without capturing any pieces or moving any pawns, the game is a draw) was introduced in 1561 by Ruy Lopez.
Chaturanga was invented in the 6th century so no, it wasn't even around lol probably had to implement it though or the games would last forever.
I mean technically there are still definitive draw positions but most endgames are winnable such as this one.
@@jaakezzz_G You're right, but I did not mean literally forever sorry.
The bishop has only 8 squares on the entire board that it can ever occupy or control, and the Queen is about as useful as a pawn for delivering a checkmate. How do you put any sort of attack together in this variation 🤔
just some boy with a pen I’d have to disagree. Less available moves means less possible lines. Would a game with rooks nights and 11 pawns apiece be considered more complex? Because that’s what this is closer to. I wonder if the game will change more in the next 1000 years
My guess to the points assigned to pieces:
Pawns = 1
Knights = 3
Bishops = 0.5
Rooks = 5
Queen = 1.5
The fifty move rule is a recent invention in chess. It's unlikely but not impossible that they had it back when this was played.
This makes more sense, a queen and the priests (bishop) do the least, pretty much accurate to every empire other than the rare warrior queen.
Actually both queens and religious leaders were absolute imperatives to good diplomatic relationships. So they did a lot in times of peace. Too bad these are war games :)
@@remus-alexandrusimion3439 I was talking about in a war
Its not a bishop in this game, its called an elephant
I’d like to see a lot of these top chess streamers try other foreign chaturanga variants. We all obviously know, and hopefully love, chess. It’s the game I grew up playing and can’t get enough of. But I also really like xiangqi and have recently been getting very into shogi. I’d like to see games like that get more recognition from the chess community.
Guys if you rewind to 8:55 you may see an ~amazing tactic~ regarding white's F pawn.
Eric could perhaps had checkmated if he just moved the king next to those "queens". I think both players keep forgetting that they only move adjacent.
This seems like a weird fusion of Chinese chess and modern chess, it's pretty amazing
Even after like 15 minutes you were still forgetting how Queens move 😂😂
It feels like checkers, in which the queen too is just an upgrade of the "pawn"/checker
Some parts of this really remind me of Chinese chess. Like the bishops moving two squares diagonally (same as the elephants, except they can’t jump over pieces) and the queen moving one square diagonally (like the uh things next to the generals)
my two favourite chess geeks