Chess Researcher/Historian Needed!

@wacky_woohoo_pizza_man I knowww.... i feel like it's so hard to make out the characters in old German script

idk about blackjack, sorry. this is a chess forum

@soupsailor72 well this time i'm trying to talk about real history, with some real sources and references. am looking for more information on any of this lot <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Pleiades&gt; regarding their writing on society.

ummm... I love chess. that's why i'm here. and i'm not really interested in who's a good guy and who's a bad guy. would just like to represent 19th century chess history accurately based on the sources, and make a recommendation accordingly. looking for help with that, not trolls. thank you.

those are not my words at all. you are taking them out of context. I was speaking about one rule within the game of chess that came into existence at a particular time in history which, it is well established, was the height of scientific racism and ideologies of natural racial superiority/inferiority. do you understand the difference between what i wrote, and what you insinuated?

<What you want already exists in Shogi>

Ok thank you for the suggestion. i'll check it out.

I wonder if the rule really was made during the time of colonization, then why no modern day historian is talking about it, especially now where things like racism are taken very seriously. And even if the rule was made at that time. What is supposed to happen? Change the rule so that black goes first?

💀

This dude? Wouldn't take him too seriously

ok everyone, thanks for your input on my request. happy chess playing to you

After a quick research I've some doubts doubts:

"Algebraic notation is the most widely used method for recording moves. It is based on a system of coordinates (a–h for files, 1–8 for ranks) to uniquely identify each square. In embryonic form it was used by Philip Stamma in the 1737 book Essai sur le jeu des echecs. It was later adopted (in long form) by the influential Handbuch des Schachspiels and became standard in German publications." (source: Wikipedia)

I've followed your link to the Handbuch des Schachspiels (from comment #47) and read the text there (German is my native language and as a historian I've read many texts in Fraktur font). There isn't any hint, that the way of notation is new in 1852. It's presented with the same matter of course as the names of chess pieces.

Already the German edition of Wikipedia several other publications which used Algebraic notation earlier than the Handbuch: "Die algebraische Darstellung, die sich gegenüber der beschreibenden Methode (siehe Beschreibende Notation) nur allmählich durchsetzte, findet sich erstmals 1737 bei Philipp Stamma in seinem Essai sur le jeu des échecs. In Deutschland erfolgte der Übergang relativ früh, ausgelöst durch das in Breslau erschienene dreibändige Werk Das Schach des Herrn Gioachino Greco Calabrois und die Schachspiel-Geheimnisse des Arabers Philipp Stamma, von Moses Hirschel von 1784 und das erstmals 1795 erschienenen Lehrbuch Neue theoretisch-praktische Anweisung zum Schachspiel von Johann Allgaier."

It's looks to be likely that the Algebraic notation leads to a White-moves-first habit as one of its inherent compromises is the Queen on a light square on the d file left from the king and the black Queen on a dark square on the d file right from the king.

But, where is any direct relation between Philip Stamma's French book in the 18th century and German science in the 19th century? 

.

I'll answer you once: I've spent some time with this forum and @blackplaysfirst's thesis. He gave a lot of facts, argued very precisely, presented sources, showed connections and took me to some first quick research. Judging the intentions of others (like you are visibly doing here) instead of and before having checked the offered facts, doesn't look to be friendly, appreciative or in any way helpful. This forum would be more pleasant without your attacks.

@tournamentix this is super interesting stuff. Thank you!!!

If I understood the passage right, books by Stamma 1737, Hirschel 1784, Allgaier 1795 all use the standardized notation? And by the matter-of-fact way the 1852 Handbuch presents the notation, you're right, it would appear that it wasn't such a revolutionary idea at that time.

Regarding the causal connection you suggested between the algebraic notation and the white moves first habit: it's possible, but I'm not convinced. Was having queens on squares of the same colour (and kings on opposite colour squares) so important that it would force changes to other rules? And why does a8 have to be a white square? And could the converse be true -- in order to ensure that the white pieces play first, these other rules regarding piece placement then fall into place? I also wonder what Stamma (and Hirschel and Allgaier) wrote about this. I'll dig

@blackplaysfirst: A chessboard without letters and numbers will either have a light or a dark square on the bottom right. To put correctly the pieces on the board you only needed a few rules: Probably one of them was, to have the queen on a square of its color. Such a rule makes sure, that both queens will be facing each other. With a notation which refers to the initial position of pieces you'll get a written result, which allows experienced players (both in the game and the notation) replaying the game without knowledge about colors and board orientation.

The main idea of the Algebraic notations looks to be to give a defined name to each square.
After deciding, that line 1 is on the bottom and a on the left, decision is taken (don't know by whom, but probably not later than in the first half of the 18th century) to put white pieces on lines 1 and 2. If you want continuing with the rule, that a white Queen starts on light square, the d and e file are remaining. With the Queen's name being "la dame" (French), "die Dame" (Deutsch) and "Dama" or "Reina" (Espagnol), I'm not surprised to see the piece on the d-file, which makes h1 a light square as well.

After transposing notation to the Algebraic system you get, what you need to compare chess games easier, to show typical positions in diagrams, to develop chess theory (for openings, strategy and tactics) and (probably later) correspondence chess. Now you can exchange more easy with others by exchanging shorter descriptions and diagrams. It's surely possible, that decisions in favor of white pieces have been made under chess unrelated convictions, but as far as I can see, the process itself looks to be orientated towards the development of the game and its popularity than towards anything other.

For me, next steps would be

• looking for confirmation, that "Queen on a square of its color" is an older rule. Bilguer (p.2) is quoting Hamilton: Aegyptiaca, London 1809 (p.259), that – as a particularity – this rule isn't practiced in Egypt,
• looking of confirmation, that orientation of chess boards wasn't part of the rules before showing games by using diagrams based on Algebraic notation and
• checking presentation in Stamma's book. 

Concuerdo

Huh