who invented the chess and when?

Europeans did not invent outrigger canoes, they did not invent catamarans, which is the preferred hull design for America's Cup and other racing yachts. Europeans were suffering with Roman Numerals until they were replaced by numbers invented by Arabs and still called Arabic Numerals. Europeans did not know the concept of the number zero until they learned it from the Mayans. The stirrup, a device that gave cavalrymen a huge advantage in war, was invented in China hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. 

Neat. This is like a trivia game for idiots.

Regards,

Lou 

Some white guy invented stirrups, rudders, and chess. It's an indisputable fact!

Is this a joke!?

This is high school algebra. You just complete the square.

x^2 - 10x + 25 = 0

(x-5)^2 - 25 + 25 = 0

(x-5)^2 = 0 (implies x=5)

Therefore, the factorisation is:

(x-5)^2 = (x-5)(x-5) = x^2 - 10x + 25

hmmmm i still have seen no answer that is proven re who invented chess ,im of the opinion its international claims come from a civilisation that influenced asia africa europe america

but before i mention a suspect lets look at what chess is ,it is a mental exercise ,fought with inner lessons ,many every chess player still spends hours a day studying

can it grow crops ,heal the ill ,no so why has it been part of humanity for so long ?

ok if that wasnt enough to laugh at me for for posting i now name my suspect

Atlantis

trolls at the ready

I could be wrong but I think the (0) came with all the other arabic numbers although the Mayans were very smart about numbers they did not play chess to my knowledge.

The prefered mode of battle for the Roman cavalry (ala) was fall into the rear or the flanks of an enemy already deployed against Roman infantry. It proved at its most devastating when it rode down fleeing troops, lancing the fleeing soldiers in their backs. In fact most of the slaughter in ancient battles is thought to have occured, when the opposing army broke and fell into disorder and the cavalry fell upon the panicked and fleeing enemy.
Note that the Roman cavalry rode without stirrups.

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cavalryman-late.html

This site has pictures, too!

I had to try explaining one simple fact at a time, but You're not going to face facts, are you, Fiveofswords? So I'm done here. On to the next thread!

The stirrup wasn't widely used in Europe until around the time of Charles Martel. Some historians credit the invention of the stirrup in Europe as leading directly to the feudal system. Charlemagne required peasants to provide knights with their equipment, including stirrups, but a more practical system involving giving up land and produce for protection (the feudal system) quickly became the norm.

I came hoping for a discussion on the origins of chess, and what I got was some blowhard attempting to dominate the thread with specious historical arguments which only serve as an attempt to inflate his own ego. It was amusing for the first couple of pages, then it became tiresome, then annoying.

There's a pretty good link mentioned on the first page of this thread, so the thread's not a complete waste.

+1

btw, in chess.com expect the unexpected !

I got that answer, (x-5)(x-5),  immediately. But then I plugged it into the computer and it showed that I was wrong. Silly me for overthinking it. I added a "-" to x that wasn't there.

"If you're good at math, find with proof all the perfect powers that differ by one."

I'm compiling a list of non-Eruropean mathematicians with trolly comments about each one, give me time. What I will say is that Fiveofswords's argument seems to be that discoveries by European mathematicians were more important than those by non-Europeans, to which I ask him how he defines "importance" in mathematics

I am the troll.

Everyone who understands what FoS is talking about understands that he does not.

My Quadratic is a little rusty.

However, If I rememeber right.

You have to factor the in between number

x^2-10x+25

^^^ The number in red.

You have to get factors which add up which make the inbetween add up to -10

For example:

-1  + (-9) = -10

-2 + (-8) = -10

-3 + (-7) = -10

-4 + (-6) = -10

-5 + (-5) = -10

^^^ Those are your factors.

Now you have to make one of those factors multiply and equal 25

-1  x (-9) = -9

-2 x (-8) = -16

-3 x (-7) = -21

-4 x (-6) = -24

-5 x (-5) = -25

So the factor you want to use is the last factor in red.

Than the next part is making the parthesis. You can tell how many parthesis you will need based on the largest exponent. Since the largest exponent is x^2 you will have 2 parthesis.

(x)     (x)

Now you add the factors to the x

(x - 5)  (x - 5)

If you wish to check your work than.

You multiply those factors together. You use the FOIL approach.

(x - 5)  (x - 5)

First ones

(x * x)

Outter ones

(x * -5)

Inner ones

(-5  * x)

Last ones

(-5 * -5)

The solution you will get:

x^2  -5x  -5x + 25

You than combine like terms

-5x +  (-5x) = -10x

Your Final Solution

x^2 -10x +25    or   (x-5) (x-5)

They are the same

Next week we can talk about Imaginary numbers!

I am so excited.

Nobody Knows, Some say India, Some say Aliens, My personal theroy- Dolphins

If by "keeping [us] is check" you mean in engaging in a long-winded series of red herrings and strawmen with a side of light racism and irrelevant historical trivia, then yeah, he's been quite the contender. I'd just charge him with sophistry if it wasn't uncertain that it is all an elobrate trolling. It doesn't help that other commenters encouraged the digressions, but personally I can't be bothered to recount the series of events. Is it wrong for me to expect more reasonable behavior despite this being an internet community?

Regardless, history is often a long winding road of innovation and incremental alterations so it is hard to give credit where there is no solid evidence. History is littered with such dilemmas. Sure, ultimately it doesn't matter, but that could be said of any subject matter that doesn't directly influence our daily lives. It can still be amusing to discuss...in a civilized manner, at least. If I wanted a pointless, contentious and pretensious argument about this I could just start a thread on 4chan instead, At least then I'd know I was dealing with clowns and trolls for certain.

Then you would be wrong. In fact you would just not be playing the Mad Queen variant of Chess. Even today there are many forms of Chess, all decending from the same ancestral game: Chinese Chess (Xiangqi), Japanese Chess (Shogi), Thai Chess (Makruk). 'International Chess', i.e. Chess according to FIDE rules, is just one of its variants, and not even the most-played variant on a World scale.

Crediting someone that just made a minor improvement to an existing game with the invention of that game is stretching things a bit. It is like claiming that the inventor of the wheel was really Dunlop, as wheels without inflatable rubber tires are not real wheels.

The last rule changes that led to the FIDE game are Queen move, double-push, e.p. capture and castling, and I am not sure it is known in which order these were added. Courier Chess is reasonably-well documented, but did have none of those, (but it had modern Bishops, called Couriers). Although it did have a remarkable initial position where some of the Pawns already have been advaced 2 ranks, which suggests the double-push was at the verge of a break-through. (And the formalizing of the rules for e.p. capture no doubt came quickly after it.)

I don't know when castling was invented. The need for it has been recognized very long already: even Chaturanga had a special rule to enable you getting the King to safety. But there the rule was that the King could move as a Knight once during the game. Cambodian Chess (Ouk) still has this rule. The need for speeding up Pawn advance has also been recognized very long, but most non-European variants solved this by starting the Pawns in a more advanced position, instead of on 2nd rank.

n0vembr wrote:

DamonevicSmithlov wrote:

Everybody is ganging up on FofS & he's still keeping y'all in check. Hahaha. Fun debate. Please don't start throwing rocks my way, just sayin.

If by "keeping [us] is check" you mean in engaging in a long-winded series of red herrings and strawmen with a side of light racism and irrelevant historical trivia, then yeah, he's been quite the contender. I'd just charge him with sophistry if it wasn't uncertain that it is all an elobrate trolling. It doesn't help that other commenters encouraged the digressions, but personally I can't be bothered to recount the series of events. Is it wrong for me to expect more reasonable behavior despite this being an internet community?

Regardless, history is often a long winding road of innovation and incremental alterations so it is hard to give credit where there is no solid evidence. History is littered with such dilemmas. Sure, ultimately it doesn't matter, but that could be said of any subject matter that doesn't directly influence our daily lives. It can still be amusing to discuss...in a civilized manner, at least. If I wanted a pointless, contentious and pretensious argument about this I could just start a thread on 4chan instead, At least then I'd know I was dealing with clowns and trolls for certain.

In American high school debate I like to argue that "X causes nuclear war"