[HN Gopher] Senet ___________________________________________________________________ Senet Author : tosh Score : 243 points Date : 2021-07-19 12:54 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (en.wikipedia.org) (TXT) w3m dump (en.wikipedia.org) | AvocadoCake wrote: | I found the game strangely addictive: | http://www.playonlinedicegames.com/senet | krylon wrote: | So when chess was first played, this game was already ancient. | That is pretty cool. | ggggtez wrote: | Chess is old, but not as old as backgammon. And backgammon is | an evolved version of this game. | | There are 3 ancient games still played commonly: chess, | backgammon, and go. | shadowgovt wrote: | I find it interesting that they span three very broad genres | of gameplay: | | * deterministic with heterogeneous pieces | | * deterministic with homogeneous pieces | | * nondeterministic | gnatman wrote: | I was introduced to senet via the 1995 pc game "Nile: Passage to | Egypt" | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile:_Passage_to_Egypt | addingnumbers wrote: | > Espen Aarseth asked if the game Senet could be said to still | exist, given that the rules were unknown. In response, Alexander | de Voogt of the American Museum of Natural History pointed out | that games did not have a fixed set of rules, but rules varied | over time and from place to place. | | The game is the rules. Those people played different games. If | you can do anything you want with it, it's a toy, not a game. | | If everyone forgot and lost the rules to pinochle, would we say | pinochle still exists because people are playing poker with the | same deck of cards? | jlkuester7 wrote: | I get your point, but really is anything like this so black and | white? What about "house-rules"? If I am playing Pinochle with | several additional house-rules (that either add or subtract | from the "official" Pinochle rules) then what am I playing? On | one hand I could see the argument that I am technically no | longer playing official Pinochle, but it seems wrong to say | that I am playing a game that is completely distinct from | Pinochle. It seems more accurate to describe games (and | honestly most other human activities) as existing on a | continuum of more-or-less instead of a rather black and white | boolean reality. | addingnumbers wrote: | You'd be playing a variant that directly evolved from | pinochle. There's an undeniable lineage there. | | If you reverse-engineered your own rules from scratch knowing | nothing but what a deck of cards looked like, it would be | silly to claim you'd rediscovered pinochle. | | Say we fling a chess set out into space and ten million years | later and alien civilization discovers it and concocts a game | where they take turns placing pieces on the board like some | elaborately-scored tic-tac-toe, would you say they | rediscovered Chess? | mannerheim wrote: | It's funny you should mention chess, because early modern | chess was at one time considered just a variant of | chess[0]: | | > The queen replaced the earlier vizier chess piece toward | the end of the 10th century and by the 15th century had | become the most powerful piece;[64] in light of that, | modern chess was often referred to at the time as "Queen's | Chess" or "Mad Queen Chess".[65] | | There was still some variation in the rules until the 19th | century: | | > The rules concerning stalemate were finalized in the | early 19th century. Also in the 19th century, the | convention that White moves first was established (formerly | either White or Black could move first). Finally, the rules | around castling were standardized - variations in the rules | of castling had persisted in Italy until the late 19th | century. | | Is chess with different castling rules still chess? Chess | without en passant? | | Plus, it's easier to point to the set of rules that were | standardised in the 19th century and call that chess. For a | game like senet, there may never have been a standard set | of rules. Or there may have been multiple standards that | were all fairly popular, like poker. | | [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess#1200%E2%80%931700: | _Origi... | rcoveson wrote: | This is a great example of the fallacy of gray. | | Compare the changes to the rules of chess you've | described to the descriptions of senet's rules referenced | by the wikipedia article[0]. If these are the best | attempts at senet rule reconstruction that the article | author could find, then I must assume that the rules are | basically made up from scratch with nothing but a game | board, some pieces, and the vaguest of references to the | game in ancient texts. Familiarity with one of these so- | called senet rulesets would be of no use at all to | somebody playing the other, and I'm sure familiarity with | both would be of no use at all to somebody wishing to | play senet with any ancient player. | | Classifications can be fuzzy, but they're not just a | giant meaningless void of gray where anything goes. Chess | has variants that can be placed on an evolutionary tree. | Senet appears to have nothing but a handful of naive | attempts at total reconstruction from practically no | information. The game that was historically called senet | appears to be lost. | | 0. http://www.gamecabinet.com/history/Senet.html | platz wrote: | If you fling a chess set out into space, once it is | disconnected from it's environment, does it enter a | macroscopic superposition of states and start playing | itself? | samatman wrote: | This question is more like asking whether a card game qualifies | as poker. | | There is no natural boundary with which to say that a game has | so many variants from Platonic poker as to no longer qualify. | Any abstraction proposed as a criterion for classification is | just that, an abstraction, since poker is a socially- | constructed category. | JackFr wrote: | Well technically a pinochle deck is different from a deck you'd | play poker with. | ggggtez wrote: | Of course you're right. But the rules are not entirely unknown. | For example, archeologists found the pieces. So, they know the | dice are involved. And they likely correspond to rules for | other similar games (roll and move, like backgammon or Ur). | | So, it's not entirely black and white. Historians are pretty | sure about some of the rules, but it's possible there were | other rules we don't know. The rules played today are a balance | between historical accuracy, and just trying the different | theories and playing the one that seems the most fun. | | That might seem like just making things up, but that's what the | quote is referring to. It's hard to say what set of rules was | the most common, but there is some reason to believe that the | current set of rules is as least _similar_ , and might have | been played due to the way that these games didn't have 1 | concrete set of rules. "House rules" meant that there was often | many different sets of rules in place. Think how checkers has | sets of rules that allow for non-forced jumps, flying kings, | etc. Maybe your can't tell whether your set of rules was the | most common set, but if your rules are based on evidence, it's | likely that it was played similar to that somewhere. | rcoveson wrote: | I urge you to read the sets of rules invented by the senet | historians referenced in the wikipedia article. I think you | are overstating their knowledge of the game. From wikipedia: | | "Although details of the original game rules are a subject of | some conjecture, senet historians Timothy Kendall and R. C. | Bell have made their own reconstructions of the game." | | Here is the citation[0]. | | My belief is that these are two completely different games, | and therefor probably completely different from any ancient | iteration of senet. | | Using the same game board and (some of) the same pieces is | totally insufficient to call a game a "variation". Is old | Japanese text, which adopted the Chinese writing system, a | variant of the Chinese language? | | 0. http://www.gamecabinet.com/history/Senet.html | comicjk wrote: | The rules are what matters, yes, but the naming of games is a | classification problem over sets of rules. This is most obvious | with competitive video games, which have complex rules that are | tweaked often - each balance patch changes the rules a little, | but it's still the same game. The boundaries are fuzzy, and | even the players may disagree about what constitutes enough | change to be a different game. | | With Senet, we don't even know how much the rules have changed, | so it's hard to say. But hopefully the reconstructors did well | enough that an ancient player wouldn't say "what game is that?" | but instead "that's a goofy way to play Senet." | rcoveson wrote: | Here is the reference wikipedia gives for the two historians | who have tried reconstructing the rules[0]. | | It seems that only "tomb images" and some game boards and | pieces are used in the reconstruction. The article doesn't | suggest that _any_ rules have a basis in history. What rules | we have are fabricated from nothing but the pieces, like | reconstructing the English language from nothing but the | alphabet. | | 0. http://www.gamecabinet.com/history/Senet.html | platz wrote: | A video game with two hundred thousand lines of code doesn't | seem like an apt comparison to a board game. | egypturnash wrote: | Pretty close to a physical sport, if we assume that most of | that code is involved in simulating something resembling | physics, or in running simple robot players. | | Like, how much of a basketball game is concerned with the | actual Rules Of Basketball vs. simulating a bunch of people | playing basketball? And if you made Space Basketball with | characters with superpowers who kept getting balance tweaks | as the player community figured out holes in the rules, | most of that simulation code would stay the same, as the | tiny percentage of rules code evolved. | ggggtez wrote: | The modern rules are largely just a guess, but the rulesets I've | played with are... so-so. There is enough excitement, I guess, | but nearly every game comes down to 50/50 luck. It's incredibly | difficult to gain any sort of strategic edge. | | It's a curiosity,. But you should probably rather be playing | backgammon. | peter303 wrote: | In the Ten Commandment movie Nefertiti plays a different actual | Egyptian game called Hounds and Jackals. | v7p1Qbt1im wrote: | I remember getting the game as part of a collectors edition of | the show LOST. Used to play it quite a bit. | platz wrote: | You played a modern interpretation. No one knows what the | original game was. | thrower123 wrote: | I remember as a kid having a shareware sampler that had some very | nicely done videogame versions of Senet, Hnefatafl, the Royal | Game of Ur, and some sort of a Pueblo board game . Peak late 90s | skeumorphism, complete with little rendered win/loss cutscenes. | Unless I can find that CD, it's probably gone forever though | themodelplumber wrote: | There are a lot of people out there who remember shareware CDs. | I'm always surprised by that particular aspect of software | nostalgia. Same with things like ads in computer magazines; | lots of people remember extremely well. | | Did the game happen to be one of these? | | https://archive.org/search.php?query=senet%20shareware | thrower123 wrote: | I think it is the Steve Neeley one, actually | anthk wrote: | I think you have these at https://wiby.me by searching "Windows | 98". | | I can't remember the URL right now, but there was a game | collection full of items with "real life mimicking" pieces. | taejo wrote: | The Internet Archive has a collection of those shareware | samplers, maybe yours is there? | https://archive.org/details/cdbbsarchive | wanda wrote: | > Senet is the oldest known board game. | | I was always under the impression that a form of backgammon was | on the ancient Mesopotamian/Sumerian scene around the same time | -- though, now that I actually come to look for a good source to | support that notion, I'm struggling to find one. | | Wikipedia and other sources just say "backgammon can be traced | back nearly 5000 years" [0] | | [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backgammon | mabub24 wrote: | You might be thinking of Ur, which is roughly 4,500 years old. | This is an interesting video from Dr. Irving Finkel on it and | its playing rules.[0] | | [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZskjLq040I | guard-of-terra wrote: | There are quite a few rulesets for the board. It's hard to | say how exactly the inventors has played it. In this video | the basic ruleset is shown. More advanced sets make use of | more tile types, of pieces being two-sided - so that pieces | have to return where they have started from, after being | flipped at the opposite side of the board. | dang wrote: | A couple small past threads: | | _Senet: the original board game of death?_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22288441 - Feb 2020 (6 | comments) | | _Senet: board game from predynastic and ancient Egypt_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11099052 - Feb 2016 (5 | comments) | myWindoonn wrote: | Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Game_of_Ur for | which we have guessed at the probable rules and can play it | today. | acheron wrote: | There's a great video on YouTube of Irving Finkel (quite an | interesting guy) playing the Royal Game of Ur. | https://youtu.be/WZskjLq040I | amitport wrote: | I once won an AI tournament for senet :) so for me this post | relates to AI... But still... it's a mystery how this gets to the | top of HN | ggggtez wrote: | What's the best strategy? I barely notice any strategic edge, | or even penality for making moves that look bad. | YeGoblynQueenne wrote: | >> I once won an AI tournament for senet :) | | When and where was that? More details please? :) | OJFord wrote: | > it's a mystery how this gets to the top of HN | | Because people (such as me!) found it interesting and up-voted | it. | | Per the guidelines: | | > What to Submit | | > On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. | That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to | reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that | gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | comicjk wrote: | Random wiki pages are one of the things that give HN its | pleasant Old Internet atmosphere to me. Sometimes I've thought | about sampling over wikipedia uniformly at random, submitting | to HN, and observing the trends in what rises to the top. | coldpie wrote: | Hahaha. Have you ever clicked the "Random Article" button on | Wikipedia? I learned the world has a _lot_ of tiny villages | no one has ever heard of. | bckr wrote: | What if there were a recommender system in the loop that | looked at which articles tend to be voted up and then would | be more likely to submit articles that it thought HN would | find interesting -- would a uniform distribution filtered | by a "probability to be well-upvoted" be a good way to do | this? | karmakaze wrote: | Too bad we don't know the rules. Also, I think it's one of the | oldest board games including Go and Backgammon. | raunak wrote: | Anyone else know about senet from the Rick Riordan series The | Kane Chronicles? | zests wrote: | I love ancient board games. It's amazing to think about chess and | how rules have been changed slightly over time for 1000 years. | The game has since been stable for about 500. The computer era is | revolutionizing the game again and maybe will usher in new | popular variants (Fischer random, no castle chess) as our | understanding of the game evolves. | primus202 wrote: | I read "It's All a Game" by Tristan Donovan and the chapter on | chess was definitely one of the most fascinating. There are so | many little bits of human history frozen in amber by the rules. | | I had no idea the game had middle eastern origins for instance. | The rooks used to be war elephants hence how they "charge" | across the board in straight lines (they were adapted into | rooks as the game was Europeanized). Also the reason you never | capture the king, which used to be the shah, and resign instead | is because killing a rival shah was a big no-no! | | So many interesting tidbits in that book. Highly recommend. | satchlj wrote: | Thanks for the recommendation - I will check it out. | | In "Do Dice Play God", another great book, I learned that the | earliest dice (probably used initially for diving the future | and only later for gambling) had rectangular sides instead of | square ones. | | I wonder if (a) that was because their creators didn't | understand even the very basics of probability, or (b) if the | idea of fairness and each number being rolled with equal | frequency just wasn't important to them. Not sure. | simonh wrote: | It may be they were mimicking the shape of knuckle bones. | satchlj wrote: | Just bought "It's All a Game" - looking forward to reading | it! | lllllll0 wrote: | > I had no idea the game had middle eastern origins for | instance. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_chess#Origin | | Chess originated in India, not the Middle East. | capableweb wrote: | Seems like the precursors might have originated from India | but what would evolve into what we today call "Chess" seems | to have been taking shape in Persia (Iran). | renewiltord wrote: | Do the historians who track these things have some metric | that they determine that separates 'precursors' from the | game itself or is it a human "you know it when you see | it" or consensus? Just curious. I imagine it's something | similar to how we answer the question "Are these distinct | species?" (which doesn't really have a great answer). | jcmeyrignac wrote: | Some researchers try to rebuild the original rules from these | old games, using AI: https://ludii.games | | About Senet, a few rules have been suggested: | https://ludii.games/details.php?keyword=Senet | zentiggr wrote: | I love the idea of "Bad Chess"... such a wild concept on top of | an otherwise very structured ruleset. | goblinux wrote: | Very Bad Chess by Zach Gage is the best I've seen of this. | It's on the iOS App Store, might be on google play. Worth a | look if you like "bad chess" | legitster wrote: | Richard Garfield (mathematician and designer of Magic the | Gathering and others) used to give a talk about randomness in | games. | | He talked about the history of chess, and how there used to be | a lot more variants of the game (some even being a 4 player | game with dice!), and over time competitive players naturally | will want to remove random elements from the game. | | But on the other hand, some amount of wild unpredictability is | important to attract players - there's a softening of skill | gaps. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | Yeah, add health to pieces and use dice to determine what | happens when pawn takes the queen: roll 5 and your queen | wins, but with 1/3 health. | | That would really suck. | mcguire wrote: | Greg Costikyan's book _Uncertainty in Games_ is another good | source. | | And this topic frequently comes up in wargaming circles | (frequently enough to be annoying :-)). Some feel that | nondeterminism is a crutch for the low-skilled while others | feel that it is the only reasonable way to handle a low- | fidelity model of reality or that it teaches the valuable | skill of how to deal with the bag of rotten lemons that the | universe periodically hands you. | joshuaissac wrote: | > some even being a 4 player game with dice! | | Charutaji: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaturaji | mikepurvis wrote: | In many games, it's pretty clearly part of the design that | the random elements are there to provide rubber-banding-- | particularly in games with more than 2 players, where | sometimes you try to win without looking too much like it, so | you avoid getting ganged up on (think: the robber in | Settlers). | da_chicken wrote: | You can see his lecture on YouTube: | | https://youtu.be/dSg408i-eKw | | You can tell he's going a little from memory, but the points | are all still there. His arguments that skill and luck are | not opposite sides of the same spectrum is quite good. | mod wrote: | In some of my own pursuits, I've seen things that make me | agree. | | Pool has little randomness, and therefore it is very | difficult to beat a player who is better than you. The best | players want to eliminate the possibility of that happening | by making longer races, racking their own balls, winner | breaks, things like that. Pool is dying for it. | | Meanwhile poker has a large amount of short term variance | (luck) and it keeps bad players interested for years and | years. The worst player in the world can sit and beat the | best players in the world at any given moment. Poker is still | going as strong as ever-- maybe more strongly than ever at | this point. People are coming out of the woodwork this year | itching to play. | | I think most of the greatest, longest- lived games in the | modern era will need a high amount of randomness, because of | computers doing analysis. Even more, with the absent of | solvers and the like, many poker variants cannot be solved in | real time and all-encompassing strategies cannot be | developed. More computational power could change that in the | future, I guess. | tialaramex wrote: | The machine doesn't care about randomness. Poker variants | people actually _play_ get tackled by machines. | | Cepheus http://poker.srv.ualberta.ca/about is an | approximately perfectly strategy for Heads Up Limit Hold | Em. That is, the two player game of Texas Hold Em poker | with fixed bet sizes. There are almost certainly other | approximately perfect strategies, which would break even | against Cepheus over the long term, but you can't beat it. | The best an opponent could hope for is to merely get lucky | briefly, for which you might just as well play Roulette. | | In principle if you could memorise Cepheus you could play | the same strategy, but it's basically a vast number of | fractions/ percentages so you're not going to -- and it's | important to note that while the strategy is _unbeatable_ | it is not the best way to extract money from weaker | players. If you want to grind money playing poker you need | to focus on taking $1000 from that holidaymaker playing $5 | /$10 before anybody else realises they're soft, not on | trying to break even with a machine. | | Heads Up _No_ Limit which was still being played a fair | amount not so many years back, is crushed by AI. Pluribus | beat the best players in the world, comprehensively. Unlike | Cepheus, Pluribus doesn 't have an incredibly boring yet | precise strategy mapped out that you could copy, it's a | result of AI learning. Its bet sizing feels a bit weird to | humans, but it ends up taking their money, so, whatever. | mod wrote: | You've picked two of the easier games to solve--heads up | games. More specifically, heads up games with specific | stack depth | | There is no AI that can play well, for instance, in a | 9-handed game with varying stack sizes, while itself and | some competent players are 600BB deep and some other | players are 40bb deep. | | It takes a specific, narrow ruleset to tailor an AI to be | able to play it at such a high level. Or more compute | than we currently have in real-time. | | Pluribus' matches against pros had each hand reset to | 100BB. | | Also, notably, the bot can still lose in the short term | to terrible players, which was the thrust of my post. In | fact, given its bluffing frequency, it might actually do | worse against weaker players than it did against pros. | Additionally, no human can realistically implement an AI | strategy, meaning the AI is not a big detriment to the | actual game of poker, as it's currently played. | YeGoblynQueenne wrote: | Good to note that Pluribus is trained with Counterfactual | Regret Minimization rather than deep learning, same as | Libratus, the first AI player to beat professional | players in Heads up no limit Texas Hold' em. | | I'm not sure about the relation between Pluribus and | Libratus- I think Pluribus is a newer version of | Libratus, essentially? | failrate wrote: | I enjoy thr Royal Game of Ur and even made my own board. One | recommendation I'm trying to propagate is to use 4 "2-sided" | randomizers instead of a 4-sided randomized for purposes of | more strategic play (normal distribution versus flat). I | usually play with a reroll 0s option or my ultimate house rule: | 0s get you maximum 1 free reroll token. | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | > The computer era is revolutionizing the game again and maybe | will usher in new popular variants... | | It's going to be fascinating to see. I can imagine games | getting "frozen" with hard coded rules and clear Official Rules | too. I expect that to happen to word spellings, for example, | with most everything we write having a layer of autocorrect in | the loop. Digital games could do the same, when you can't make | house rules without programming your own variant. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Digital games could do the same, when you can't make house | rules without programming your own variant. | | Or go the other way, as low-/no-code customization tools and | online distribution make it easier to make and share variants | than it is to do so at any scale with physical games, subject | to the openness (both in design and social factors like IP | status) of the base game. | shusaku wrote: | It seems like an AI can now be trained just by encoding the | rules and having it play itself (no database required to | bootstrap). This should be great for variants (assuming enough | processing power) since you will always be able to find a | partner. | toxik wrote: | I think paying an AI won't be very satisfying, though. You | can't do sneaky things to a player that is essentially | statistics on steroids - even if you pull it off, it's likely | not that you were sneaky that gave you the win, you just | found a pattern it didn't know. It's dead, cold, calculating. | Beating a human will always be more interesting, because you | can talk about it, "ha, you could've mated me then in two | moves," etc. | | Humans will never be replaced by anything less than humans. | andrepd wrote: | The Royal Game of Ur is another very very very old game. | guard-of-terra wrote: | ...especially when played with ruleset where different tiles | have specific rules. | joemi wrote: | I highly recommend Xiangqi and Shogi. They both feel very | chess-like but also very different. They're a little tricky to | learn to play if you're not familiar with Chinese characters | (Xiangqi) or Japanese characters (Shogi), but once you get | familiar with the characters used in the games, it's easy | enough. | | Shogi is really neat in that captured pieces can be returned to | the board by the capturer. You don't have different colored | pieces, but directional pieces to show which side they belong | to. | | Xiangqi is my favorite of the two. To me, it feels like a | better depiction of war than Chess. The equivalent of Chess's | king stays in a small area, there's a river separating the two | sides of the board which some pieces can't cross, there's a | catapult for interesting ranged attacks. Maybe I've just grown | a bit bored of Chess over all the years and Xiangqi is just | relatively newer to me, but Xiangqi feels a lot more fun to | play, IMO. | colordrops wrote: | It has less pieces and is a faster game than chess, which | makes it a more "casual" game than western chess, which could | be what makes it fun. | dragonwriter wrote: | > It has less pieces and is a faster game than chess | | Xianqi has sixteen pieces on a side just like chess; Shogi | has 20 on a side. | colordrops wrote: | Well would you look at that, you are right. The different | layout fooled me, with the pawn row being smaller. It | even has the same number of different types. | mcguire wrote: | And then there's hnefatafl | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafl_games). | Revery42 wrote: | I'm actually working on a rogue-like chess game as an | independent project right now! It got me thinking and | researching more deeply about variant chess. My favorite so far | is Fog of War. | mcguire wrote: | Have you looked at InfoChess? | (https://paxsims.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/infochess-and- | permu...) | btilly wrote: | _It 's amazing to think about chess and how rules have been | changed slightly over time for 1000 years._ | | Medieval chess was a very different game. For the most stark | example, the queen did not get her modern move until around | 1450. | | _The game has since been stable for about 500._ | | And yet something as basic as, "white moves first" was first | suggested in 1857. | lupire wrote: | "white moves first" is an arbitrary/aesthetic/logistic | choice, that doesn't affect gameplay logic. | | Left-handed players may prefer Black goes first. | QuercusMax wrote: | Does "white moves first" actually affect the game, though? | It's just a convention. | rodrigosetti wrote: | Yes, if our definition of "game" is broadened to mean | "culture" around this tradition (as historians might), | rather than just reducing to the rules. | | In this sense, it also includes the conventions, skill- | level titles, playing etiquette, etc. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Does "white moves first" actually affect the game, | though? | | Materially, no, though it probably makes it less complex | for humans by slightly simplifying the pattern recognition | issues, particularly in the opening. | dvirsky wrote: | Statistically, white wins more than black. | Jtsummers wrote: | Because white goes first. The phrasing and context | becomes important. There are two statements that are true | but without them as context you end up with a misleading | notion: | | First player wins more than second in chess (because | there's a slight advantage). | | White goes first in chess. | | Therefore, white wins more than black in chess. | | However, that conclusion (what you present) is valueless | without the context. If you reversed which color starts | the game then we'd end up with "black wins more than | white in Chess" as a conclusion and your statement would | be false. And if there was no specific color which always | started, we'd be left with just the first statement: | First player wins more than second in chess. | BeefWellington wrote: | First player advantage seems to be consensus but I wonder | how much of an effect piece layout has for players | playing second. | | If you reversed the king and queen placement for both | players would the advantage be as great? | InitialLastName wrote: | Unless there are hidden psychological effects (which good | players will attempt to surmount, as a matter of course), | mirroring the board placement will make no difference. | | There is no asymmetry of moves other than the starting | position of the king and queen, so all strategy will | simply be mirrored if the king and queen are mirrored. | JohnJamesRambo wrote: | What did the queen do before then? | btilly wrote: | The queen was called a fers, and could only move one space | diagonally according to most descriptions. | gus_massa wrote: | More details: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_chess#History | boomboomsubban wrote: | Even more details, like how Queen Isabella may have | inspired the change and that it was common to declare the | queen in "check" for quite some time. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_(chess)#History | iamjake648 wrote: | I can't remember the exact book, but contained in a book about | Ancient Egypt, there was the rules, paper pieces and a sample | board for this game - we used to play it all the time as kids. | | My grandpa helped us make a wooden set of pieces and a board | before he passed, it was a a great little intro to woodworking | project. | tallies wrote: | Egyptology? | iamjake648 wrote: | yup, that's the one! | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | Looks a bit like Mancala. I don't know much about Senet, but we | played Mancala all the time, when I was a kid (in Africa). | amitport wrote: | Well it's more like backgammon | samatman wrote: | Intriguingly, mancala is the Egyptian Arabic name for that | game. | | Some very early boards from e.g. Aksum in Ethiopia were | identified by archaelogists as mancala boards, but are more | likely to have been for Senet. | | It's probable that the Ancient Egyptians played both, but I | don't believe the record is clear on where mancala came from | and at what time it reached Egypt, presuming that isn't where | it came from, which it might be. | metaphor wrote: | Apparently, variants abound. | | I grew up on a small island in the Pacific and played something | similar[1] called chongka' as a kid as well. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asian_mancala ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-19 23:00 UTC)