The Irish invented Chess! I kid you not...

by Brian Sat Oct 22, 2011 04:27

I apologise that it has taken so long to reply to these comments:

Sean O'hAodha
"Tafl is somehow suspiciously too cognate to Tabula for belief, linguistically speaking."

Absolutely, I'd say 'tabula' in Latin, 'taipléis' in Irish, 'tafl' in Scandanavian, and then 'tables' in later English, are all the one 'stream' of game or games, going by the way they are pronounced, as you say.

"And, why would the Gael-Gall not have called their version of it, An mBord?"

Interesting point, instead they borrowed the word to go along with the new game they were learning. But thats what the Irish language is full of, the old Irish were great magpies when it comes to pulling in big words like that, they prefered an interesting new word rather than apply the old Irish equivalent word to the game. (An off the cuff example would be the Irish word for 'knight'. Instead of reusing some old Irish word for a mounted warrior they instead went with 'cnicht', which was their way of pronouncing 'knight', and 'rídire', which was there way of pronouncing the english word 'rider'.) Thats then what I am saying they would have done with chess, they would have brought in the European words for chess if it was a new game, but in fact they already had it in fidchell/brannaimh I'd say.

"and in the tangles of Dragon's teeth"

Its curious you should say that because I think the word for dragon might have been used for a fidchell piece, as you can read below. That 'Dado' might have been right in that we may very well find out in due course how these games like buanbach were played. Personally I think that the Alea Evangelii game, which I think was Irish, might throw up a few clues on some of these other Irish games i.e. other than brannaimh and fidchell which I obviously think was chess!


In any case this has obviously turned into a book (available at: http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/the-irish-invente...54284 ) and I thought I would include here the last chapter there which hopefully brings together some of the main points which clarify this thesis:

1. The first point I'd like to make is to address a potential flaw in this theory. Critics might say that if fidchell and brannaimh was chess then why doesn't the Irish language have words for the different pieces in chess - chess being a game played obviously with multiple pieces each with different powers, not just kings and men - and for the important moves like checkmate?
The basic answer, I believe, is that the interesting references to fidchell in the Irish language are of such antiquity that the words for the pieces are probably there but they are currently being mistranslated. There are in fact a few mysterious words used in the context of fidchell whose real meaning is very obscure and which might very well signify the proper pieces and moves of chess, but that currently we are not translating them correctly. I will list a few words here that seem to be overlooked in this context:

branán - The Dictionary of the Irish Language (DIL) says: “name of principal piece in some board-game(s).” This certainly includes fidchell because there is a reference, listed at the same DIL entry, to “a bhranáin óir os fidhchill”, “a golden branán from fidchell”.
Two other interesting references listed there are:
‘trí branáin chláir na cruinne,’ which has been translated as meaning ‘The Trinity’, in the religious sense.
‘a bhranáin Chruachan Connacht,’ which has been interpreted as ‘The Archbishop of Connaught [at?] Chruachan’.
Also we have:
“clár nocha bí gan bhranán,
ní bhí ál gan uachtarán”
which could be translated as:
“there is no chessboard without a branán,
similarly it is not desirable to be without a president,” (1)
The above meaning might be reinforced by the reference to “[a] bhranáin uaisle”, meaning “the King's nobles”, the King being the branán in this translation, and earlier in the poem he is referred to as ‘rígh’.(2)
So it seems that if the branán is not the king itself, and it might be going by the above two quotes, then it is one of the nobles in the game of fidchell.

fían fidchell - O'Curry translated this phrase as “chess-warriors”,(3) and other derivations of it turn up like: ‘fian fidhcelda’.(4) In one recent academic paper the author felt that this word ‘fian’ did indeed signify a separate chess piece: Lauren Dye, The Game of Sovereignty, in Proceedings of the Harvard Celtic Colloquium vol 18/19 (1998/9), p.34-41. I say ‘separate’ because it most likely doesn’t mean just the ‘men’ in fidchell. There is already a word for that, it is ‘fear’ or ‘fir’, the recognised Irish word for ‘man’, and is very commonly used in that context for fidchell.
Hence we seem to have a new piece for the game of fidchell, with ‘fian’ deriving from much the same root as the ‘Fianna’, the famous warriors of early Ireland.

tochell - Is usually translated as ‘wager’ because it seems to be won, in a game of fidchell, at the same time as the overall game is won. But this is apparently little more than a guess and bear in mind that the word is heavily used in the context of fidchell and it has even been suggested (in the DIL: “declension perhaps influenced by fidchell”), that ‘tochell’ could have some similar root to ‘fidchell’. Could it mean something like ‘checkmate’, which would also fit the context? Some old translations have it as just ‘win’.e.g.:
“Ní biur do thóchaill dind []ithcill”
“I do not win against thee at chess.” (5)

langmhéur - In a vocabulary of Irish words from the Meath and Louth district compiled by Hugh O'Daly in 1747 (6) this word is simply listed as ‘chess’. Its etymology is a complete mystery but as an example of its use we have this interesting verse in a poem ascribed to Tadhg O’Ruairc from the mid 17th century, transcribed from British Library Additional Ms 40766 fol. 58b-60a:
“Más tioc dírech no tioc cam
no maadh gemonn nach mall bhíos;
laingmhír chóir no brannamh cert;
is trúagh nach léigir mfersa síos.”

Which can be translated as:

“Even if it is straight tioc or crooked tioc
or the trump [back]gammon not the slow one;
just [in the sense of ‘justice’] chess or correct brannamh;
its a pity my man was not let down.”(7)

It certainly seems fair to speculate then that maybe this word, as well as being a name for chess, might signify something about the game, again like maybe ‘checking’ or ‘checkmate’, or one of its pieces?

sítbe - Has been translated as meaning a chessboard king, with the ‘sí’ part presumably deriving from the Irish for ‘fairy’.(8)

rían - Is sometimes translated as a course, or route, or path. But it was translated in the phrase: “iná rianclár fithchilli” as “a square of a chess board.” (9)

búanbach or búanfach, and búanbeg - These are words for some boardgame of which we know hardly anything, but note that búan also means a professional soldier. So maybe this game is a reference to playing ‘soldiers’ as a game? Therefore can we presume that ‘búan’ is another name for a piece at least in some Irish boardgames, and therefore maybe fidchell as well?

quaib and uilneib - These two words were used in a old poem referring to a chessboard, as we know because this phrase is preceded by ‘ba cain ind fhidchell’:
“clar findruine & co cetheoraib auaib ocus uilneib oir.”
“;the board was of findruine with four corner pieces of gold.” (10)
But in practice nobody is at all sure what those words mean in this context, ‘corner pieces’ is really just a guess. ‘Uilneib’ it is thought might indicate elbow, or point or angle, and ‘auaib’ it is felt might be related to ‘ear’ and the DIL speculates might “perhaps [mean] rings or handles for lifting.” But again nobody really knows and so we have again two mysterious words used in the context of chess whose meaning remains obscure.

Also we seem to have two reasonably concrete references to multiple pieces being used in the context of fidchell, i.e. in the fidchell games mentioned in the roscada part of the Táin and in the account of the Roman game from the Book of Lismore.
I wonder if this passage from the roscada could be interpreted as meaning that the queen is a good piece to use in getting checkmate:
 “ ‘Play fidchell and búanbach before a king and a queen, games which have been prepared for eager hosts. You are not unlikely to win the stake [‘thochill’, which actually could mean ‘checkmate’?], for it is with the hands one associates with queens and women. I am well-versed: perhaps in truth the first offences are by women of pleasant rule, and that Findabair loves the valiant Fergus for lowing cattle which he may surround with great hosts from tribes with great possessions; Fergus mac Rossa Roich with the varied beauty of a king, with the fiery glow of a dragon, with the breath of a viper, with the blow of a lion by frontal onset [co n-ilchruth ríg, co mbruth dracon, co n-anáil nathrach, co mbéim léoman de thairreth thossaig, Fergus mac Rossa Róich].’ Then they began to play fidchell; they moved [ad-rethsat] the gold and silver men across the bronze [?crédumai] fidchell board.” (11)
But take note as well of the part where they talk about a king, a dragon, a viper and a lion, are they not listing here pieces with different powers? As in a chessgame? Then you have that Roman game described here in MacWhite's article on ‘Early Irish Board Games’:
“A peculiar allegorical tale is recounted in the Leabhar Breac, and at greater length in the Book of Lismore. The tale concerns a game which, we are told, the youths of Rome were wont to play every Halloween. It was a board game (fidchell) with the figure of a hag at one end and the figure of a girl at the other. The hag releases a dragon towards the girl, and the girl releases a lamb towards the dragon [draicc] so that the lamb overcomes the dragon. The hag, thereupon, releases a lion [leómain] towards the girl who releases a ram which conquers the lion. The game is alleged to have been invented by the Sybil as a prophecy of Christ and the devil. Whether the writer of the tale has any real board game in mind is open to doubt, and if he had it is not the normal fidchell. Besides we are explicitly told that it was a game played by the youths of Rome.”
Again it is pretty obviously referring to the use of multiple pieces and notice the reference to dragons and lions, the very same words referred to in the Táin i.e. the Táin had ‘léoman’ for lion, while the Roman game had ‘leómain’, and the Táin had ‘dracon’ for dragon while the other text had ‘draicc’. (Also notice that in the Japanese version of chess, shogi, they use dragons and lions among other chess pieces, as can be read here: http://history.chess.free.fr/shogi.htm and here: http://history.chess.free.fr/chushogi.htm.) The fact that the game was played by the ‘youths of Rome’ of course reinforces the idea that the old Irish scribes thought that fidchell was an international game, not just a native one, like chess.

Hence not only do we have here fidchell games where pieces with different powers are referred to - as in chess - but also we have the same pieces mentioned in two completely separate texts.

2. Remember again that the word ‘phil’, and other derivations of that like ‘alfil’, are well recognised word roots used in international languages for chess. The coincidence in the sound of that word and ‘fidchell’ seems too much to readily dismiss?

Its not the case at all that we are picking and choosing this ‘coincidence’ factor here from a wide number of international words for chess. Right on page two of Murray’s monumental work on chess history he lists these five words, and only these five words, in reference to chess:
European: ferz - alfil - roc - scac, check! - mat, mate!     
Arabic: firz, firzan - (al) fil - rukkk - shah - mat
Persian: farzin - pil - rukh - shah - mat
Obviously that word ‘ferz’, or ‘firz’ etc, could be easily related to the Irish word ‘fer’ or ‘fir’, which is used all the time in relation to fidchell and brannaimh, meaning the ‘men’ in the game. (And notice that in the banter over the fidchell game in the Táin roscada they talk about a mysterious ‘fer sanais’ which is pronounced very like ‘firzan’. This was translated by P L Henry as a ‘secret messenger’ but an ‘advising man’, i.e. a counsellor to a king, could possibly be a better translation. That would match very well the meaning of ferz and firzan in early chess literature.) This means that you have a very close correspondence between two of the five internationally recognised words for chess and the Irish game of fidchell. Again, this is surely too coincidental?

3. The importance of board games to the early Irish is also very well attested, not least by the sheer range of related games that we can see through the different Irish words for board games. Also we have Alea Evangelii drawn up by Israel Scotus and we have important references that establish the Irish link to the game of backgammon. Incidentally one Irish academic, David Greene, who explored the question of Irish references to backgammon, was stumped by the reference to ‘aón is dó’, ‘one and two’, as being a much sought after move in Irish backgammon: “One and two; a low throw and not a good one in any form of backgammon known to me.” (12) Well clearly that is a reference to ‘Acey Deucey’, a variant of backgammon much played in the US navy in modern times. It is mentioned in this verse in a poem on backgammon - over laced with a romantic theme - by Tadhg O'Ruairc from the mid 17th century:
“Aón is dó iarruim ort
- a ghnúis ettrocht, coisg mo bhrón -
ná mill mo dhísle a ttáobh, a bhen,
caithfead áon go cert is dó.”

Which might be translated as:

“One and two I seek
- your bright face, ending my sorrow -
for the sweetness of my security at your side, woman,
I hope to throw one and by right add two.”
Greene also cites the passage “níor bhfearr liom flaithius an dómhainn do bheith agam am aonar nó an t-aon 's a' dó sin do chaithiomh 7 d'imirt anhuil do theaguisg sisi dhamh,” (13)
This serves to show the extent to which old Irish texts can illuminate the history of internationally played boardgames.

4. Also a related point is that we know enough from the Irish texts to conclude that fidchell/brannaimh is a difficult challenging game. We know this because it would never be held up as a game that proves the prowess as a champion of Irish characters like Cuchulainn and Cumainn unless the readers of these texts were in agreement that to win at fidchell was the mark of a true champion. The point is that if you were to slot in the word ‘tiddly winks’, ‘snakes and ladders’ or even ‘draughts’ into the fidchell translation of these texts you will rapidly begin to understand how absurd they read! To win regularly at fidchell was clearly expected to inspire awe and respect among the readers of these texts. And after all there are not that many games that have been invented through history that inspire that kind of respect, chess is almost the only one. Many of the type of games proposed as the replacement for fidchell are not really all that challenging, such as the fox and geese type, so this narrows down our range of games that it could be, it narrows it down to at least a chess-like game?

Take that brehon law text where one day a week was to be set aside by a king for playing fidchell, as an example. One day of every week just to play a board game? Is this not unheard of, except in the context of chess? In fact its probably the case that in mediaeval times kings were encouraged to spend that length of time playing chess, because it helped their analytical capacity and maybe even ability to plan military campaigns. But could you envisage a law like that encouraging a king to play any other game? If you consider it, fidchell would have to have been at least as good as chess, in complexity and in teaching kingly attributes, and the odds of another great game being invented like this are probably longer than just accepting that fidchell was chess.

5. Harding, it must be said, has done a good service in clarifying for us the established view of this question. He relates that fidchell was a name for an old Irish boardgame and that when either the Vikings or the Normans came the Irish must have got chess from them and reused the old Irish word for this new game.

But this is a very unsatisfactory explanation if you actually pause to consider it. Imagine the scene in some old castle in Ireland c.1180. The lord of the castle has gone to play a game with the conquering Normans and has come back full of praise for this fascinating new game that he learnt there. So instead of playing that ancient boardgame that his ancestors and he were wont to play, fidchell, he decides to call his servant over and request the new board and pieces for this new game. So what he does he do? He calls out for the set for this new game and gives it its proper name, so ‘fidchell board and pieces please’ will reverberate across the castle and the servant will probably go away and come back with his old set on which he used to play the Irish game! Why not, we expect these Irish to use the exact same word for two completely different games? If you think about it, that is hopelessly impractical.

You might be able to run with this theory if fidchell/brannaimh had died out in Ireland long before the coming of either the Vikings or the Normans, and hence it doesn't cause confusion because we are really only referring then to one game as played c.1180 or 900 (depending on whether you think that the Vikings or the Normans had imported it to Ireland). But there is no evidence at all to suggest that the old Irish games would have died out by that time. We have, as you can see in the quotes listed in the first part, references to the Irish kings playing fidchell before taking on the Vikings in battle, and the Book of Rights, with its many references to fidchell, was probably written about half way between these two invasions, possibly not all that long before the Norman one. So we are talking about a society where the two games must have been played then at the same time, two different games but with the one name used for both? A recipe for hopeless confusion and remember that the Irish are not at all slow about incorporating new words. They, generally speaking, tended to expand their vocabulary over the years, and will frequently end up with multiple words with the same meaning, never contracting it to have the same word with such confusing multiple meanings.

Another way of getting around this problem might be to say that they are similar games, fidchell/brannaimh and chess, and hence that would lessen the confusion. So when the aforementioned Irish chieftain called for his fidchell set maybe it was the same set as used for the old game and chess, in which case it would make sense to reuse the old word. But then we are going around in circles because if so we would be conceding that fidchell was so ‘chess-like’ as to be virtually indistinguishable from chess, in which case you have to ask which derived from which, and remember that the Irish fidchell references are far older than other references to chess in Europe.

Therefore the more you think about it the more you are driven to the conclusion that the idea that fidchell/brannaimh was chess is a lot more satisfactory an explanation than any other, and certainly better than the established explanation.

6. The aforementioned book goes into detail on the special move of Guaire and the Cumainn chess game and hopefully satisfactorily links the Irish game of fidchell, as early as the mid 7th century, with an early mosaic in Italy, and with the battle game origins of the game of chess.

7. It may be helpful too to read again some of what Thomas Hyde said about the Irish and this game, as he relates here when talking explicitly about chess:
“ex hoc tamen censu excipiendi sunt Hiberni, qui non ab aliis mutuo acceperunt, sed ab ipsa huius Ludi natura (ut eis videbatur) desumptum vocabulum sibi consingentes et adoptantes. id huic Ludo in suum usum aptarunt. Shahiludii enim naturam seu ingenium ac indolem intuentes (quod sc. difficile esset, et aliquando mentem torqueret) inde aptum ei imposuerunt nomen quod eorum literis scribitur brandub Brandubh.”

Translated as:

“From this reckoning, however, the Irish are the exception, who not from others did they receive in return but from the birth of this game itself (as it is seen by them). The name having been selected while inventing and adapting for themselves, they applied that name for this game into their usage. The birth, or the ingenuity and nature, of Chess having been considered (which, it is plain, may be difficult and sometimes torments the mind) from that, joined together with it, they imposed the name which in their letters is called brandub Brandubh.” (14)

While it may come across as somewhat ambiguous nonetheless three clear facts are self evident:
a) That the Irish claimed to have invented chess, hence the reference to “as it is seen by them.”
b) That brannaimh, or brandubh - which is obviously the same word - was explicitly a word for chess, and remember brannaimh, whether or not you accept it as the same game as fidchell, had certainly been played in Ireland right back to the time of Cuchulainn.
c) That the Irish were, from ancient times, very fond of playing chess under that name, i.e. explicitly the international game of chess, as Hyde describes in his quote about two Irish families incorporating a game of chess into a land deed.

To recap again this is very significant because Hyde is writing in the mid to late 17th century when some of the old Irish bardic historians were still around who could clarify this question for us. And specifically Hyde tells us that he consulted a member of the O’Maolchonaire family, who certainly would have known the correct interpretation of these words. Also, just to make the obvious point, since Hyde is writing a work on the history of chess needless to say he must have probed deeply into this question to satisfy himself that brannaimh was really the same as the international game of chess, and, as the above quote indicates, still meant chess as far back in Irish history as these historians could go, which was quite a distance.

8. While this writer (naturally!) feels that the list of dictionary entries that translate brannaimh or fidchell as chess is quite impressive nonetheless it has to be conceded that the entry for fidchell in Cormac’s glossary is still by far the most important early reference to the game. Hence it makes a big difference how this complicated and obscure Irish and Latin text is translated.

In fact some authors listed in the Appendix infra seem to have quietly interpreted the text as not meaning that the game was played on a chequered board (such as MacWhite who leaves it as: “?chequered as a chessboard, or more likely black and white pieces”) while others, like Joyce and O'Donovan, translated it as explicitly denoting a chequered board. To get a definitive view on this then it might be worthwhile checking to see how it has been translated by the Royal Irish Academy’s Dictionary of the Irish Language, previously known as the ‘Contributions to a Dictionary of the Irish Language’, which summarises the entry in Cormac’s Glossary, and other sources, thus:
“A game played for a stake with two sets of figures on a square board divided by black and white squares.”

So the final word on this Irish text is that fidchell was indeed played on a chequered board. But this is hugely significant, if you look at any of the major works that describe the various old boardgames of Europe and the World, e.g. David Partlett, ‘The Oxford History of Board Games (Oxford, 1999), you will not find any old game played on a chequered board except chess. Even draughts is described in detail in that book and originated in a game played on a non-chequered board.

Also if you read Cormac’s text carefully, and I admit its somewhat ambiguous, but nonetheless you could certainly come away with the idea that the player alternates in playing the white and black pieces, like the Church which has good and bad within it.

9. Finally I will bring up again the question of the Lewis chess set and its links to Ireland. I respectfully submit that the evidence put forward on that score in this work is pretty overwhelming that the set originated in Ireland, and that it must have been prepared in the context of the tributes due from Irish kings as related in the Book of Rights. (Particularly because we find multiple, very ornate, sets all clearly prepared at the one time and transported together. Remember that the donations in the Book of Rights do refer to gifts of multiple fidchell sets, presented at the one time.)

But if that is so then it raises the question of the context of these gifts mentioned in the Book of Rights. The ‘rights’ in question are traditional ceremonial rights that the Irish kings derived from particular districts across Ireland. So for example we have a mention of fish from the Boyne, which of course was famous for it salmon from ancient times, and a couple of fast horses that are received by the kings from other districts etc. These tributes are a bit like the Maltese falcon, which was sent by the rulers in Malta to the Emperor over the years as a symbol of their submission to his authority, the falcon being a native bird which Malta was famous for. Similarly these Irish tributes are some gift which the particular district was famous for producing, like the Boyne salmon.

But now consider this: why then do these Irish kings decide to donate chess sets as part of these traditional gifts? Remember if we are saying that the Lewis chess sets themselves are an example of this tribute, then we are saying that chess sets - very definitely the international game, because that is what was clearly played on the Lewis sets - were donated by an Irish local king to his overlord as part of these traditional gifts. But that final clause is the clincher here, we are saying that they are ‘traditional’ or ‘ancient’ presents that derive from, or are famous in, the particular locality in Ireland. This then raises the prospect that chess sets were perceived to denote something ‘ancient’ and ‘traditional’ in Ireland?

And on that note I will leave you, because obviously if that is so then it really should prove to all and sundry that the Irish invented chess!


Footnotes
1. Studies 1924, 243 no.15 Dánfhocail 108.

2. Lambert McKenna S.J., Historical Poems of Gofraidh Fionn Ó Dálaigh, published in the Irish Monthly January 1919, p.457, available at:
http://www.ucc.ie/academic/smg/CDI/PDFs_textarchive/McK...h.pdf .

3. Ernst Windisch, Irische Texte (Leipzig, 1880), p.231.

4. Osburn Bergin, Anecdota from Irish Manuscripts (Halle an der Saale, 1907-1913), vol ii p.58.13.

5. Études Celtiques ii 5, Myles Dillon, Táin Bó Fraich (Dublin, 1933), p.131.

6. Gadelica vol 1 no.1 (1912), p.19, transcribed from TCD H.1.10 fols 179-176.

7. David Greene, Un Joc Grossier in Irish and Provencal, in Ériu vol 17, p.10.

8.  JRSAI vol 1 no.2 (1871), p.418.

9. John O'Donovan, Miscellany of the Celtic Society (Dublin, 1849), p.72.4.

10. Francis Shaw, Brat Co N-auib, in Ériu vol 16 (1952), p.201.

11. The roscada in the Táin are translated at P. L. Henry, Táin roscada: discussion and edition, in Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie (ZcP). vol 47, Issue 1, 1995, p.32–75; and see also Karin Olsen, The Cuckold's Revenge, in Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies 28 winter 1994, p.51-69; Joanne Findon, A Woman's Words (Toronto, 1997), p.42-43; and https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0711&L=old-...21950 . The overall Irish text for the fidchell game in the Roscada is circa lines 945-1015 from the Táin text in the Yellow Book of Lecan.

12. Greene op.cit. p.13.

13.  From the prose tale ‘Mac na Míochomhairle,’ lines 33-35. This and the O'Ruairc poem reference is from Green op. cit.
David Partlett describes here Acey Deucey, a variant of backgammon:
“Its most startling feature is the privilege attaching to the throw of 1-2. It entitles you to move 2-1 first, then play any doublet (four moves) of your choice, and then to throw again. Such a throw also automatically doubles the stake, and in some circles the final pay-off varies with the number of losing pieces left unborne.” (David Parlett, The Oxford History of Board Games (Oxford, 1999), p.82.)

14. See the translation from Thomas Hyde listed elsewhere in this article.

by Sean O'hAodha - Rathlind Thu Jun 30, 2011 05:01 j.p.hayesjr at hotmail dot com florida USA aka Tartessos 5614608074

There is abundant evidence that Fidchell originated in Ireland. Perhaps the inspiration was an ancient game such as Pachisi, or the memory of such a game carried to Ireland by Celtic immigrants who inherited it from antiquity. The so called proto-Celts and the Avestan speaking tribes who carried Pachisi to India had much in common, in terms of material culture, language, and their notional grasp of real and supernatural things. One glaring example was their mathematics...both counted in Base Seven. Ancient Celts counted people and livestock, and important inanimate things by scores, evidenced by the expressions still in use for scores of heads of cattle...time was reckoned by nights, and by weeks and fortnights (pairs or 'cupla' of weeks). Ancient millefiori game pieces turn up in Celtic graves dating back to several centuries BCE, from Bohemia to Stanway England...evidently, the Stanhope find also produced a fully set up board, which may actually be Fidchell, though under a different name, since the grave was that of a P-Celtic personage, most likely a Druid or a merchant. The grave is notable for its' absence of military regalia and weapons.

Prior to the eight or ninth century, have we any evidence of a game called Tafll, or any related name among the Scandinavians? And earlier, among the Goths? Is there material or literary evidence, or both? Much of what the more sophisticated Vikings toted about with them was literlally plucked from places they raided or where they traded and did mercenary duty, such as Visigothic Spain, Byzantium. Tabula was still very popular in both the (former) Western and Eastern Roman Empire. Tafl enters the picture chronoligically not long after the first literary references to Northmen visiting or raiding these environs. Not to say they copied Tabula, but, perhaps seeing and enjoying a good thing, they made it their own? Tafl is somehow suspiciously too cognate to Tabula for belief, linguistically speaking. And, why would the Gael-Gall not have called their version of it, An mBord?

Gaelic has never been a highly concise language. I confess, the explanations for the name Fidchell perplex me. Wood-wisdom, wood sense. I just don't know. What ancient expression do these relate to? Oh, yes, to Dunsinane's walls Burnham Woods doth march...yet, it is weak. The War of the Woods?

Much stronger, I suggest, is to parse the word as relating to the root meaning "tooth" or "fang." This would relate nicely to the old saying "in the teeth of our enemy we fight..." Teeth in the sense of close in combat, the Gaelic genius for combat with the short sword, and in the tangles of Dragon's teeth that in the old times abounded around the old Raths of Celtic Chiefs. Only the most brave and confident warriors could contend there and prevail, and perhaps Fidchell in a sense, refers to that. Normally, these stones are arranged so that there is a certain choreographed path one can take to get through, a subtle pattern of steps that will get you in and out, not unlike the path one player lays and the contender treds in strategy and pursuit games. If you don't know the steps, then you are most likely destined to fall to the arrows, darts, and fire being hurled upon your brows. If you do know, then you may capture the rath and hold the Ri hostage. An elderly O' Dochertaigh cousin of my family from Kilcar, Co. Donegal town suggested this to me, he was somewhat the local Seanachie, eternal life to him. I think he was conveying some truths from oral tradition to me in saying this. He said his Dado had told him, and he also was a Seanachie. He said he didn't doubt that some day, someone would rediscover the rules and ways of Fidchell, and that Brandubh was pretty much out in the open, if one knew where and how to look...he said he and his peers had called it "Cribbage" or "Draughts," had played it when young. He opined that Brandubh seemed to be a simplified version of Fidchell, more limited in it's variety of play and scope, a bit more tactical and movement oriented. He was in his early eighties, and not clear about all of the rules, but said it was not Tafl or the Fox and Goose Game as he understood them. It was more a strategy game, less tactical, not based on pursuit, and the sides were approximately evenly matched, and a King could take a King.

He also said his recollection from Dado was that Buanbach was somewhat newer, and may have been Fidchell played in reverse, to win by being the first player to forfeit all that could be lost. In Fidchell, and in Brandubh, he said, he knew that the common pieces were compelled to strike, by destiny. The King and his Heroes could choose to stay the sword or to strike, but always had to move, if a move was open. The expression Buanbach has a connotation of "constancy" that refers to activity, not loyalty.AS Pat described it, the players were constantly compelled to move and take such pieces as could be taken. He suggested that I try to play Chess backwards, see how that moved along. I tried that with a Chess Master named John Elliot, who has played notables such as Bobby Fisher. It was fascinating. Though John is of Highland descent, he was swearing like a Saxon!

Did the Irish "invent" Chess? Ni hea, mar gheal they did not need to!

by Spacer. Fri Feb 25, 2011 16:37

Joe Duffy is doing a nice program about Irish inventions at the moment.

The contributers all missed one invention.

The Romans never spaced the words apart on their victory columns or anywhere else.

Some unknown Irish monk spaced the words apart in ancient Irish documents.

So the the biggest thing on your keyboard, the space bar, was an Irish invention.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Thu Feb 24, 2011 15:09

I'd always thought it was the photographers!!

FF just perfected it.

I got none yet. No doubt by the time I do, it wil be hard.

by Brian Thu Feb 24, 2011 15:04

The Book that grew out of this article is being launched today in Navan Library at 7.30pm in case anybody would like to come.

by Grommet Wed Nov 24, 2010 22:08

Who invented cheese? (especially the free stuff)

by Brian Thu Nov 18, 2010 21:35

Well this article, and subsequent book which you can get at amazon etc, has generated a, small, flutter in the dove cotes of academia. A recent paper on this topic was published in the latest edition of Irish Historical Studies (a draft of the paper is available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/2262/38847 ) which refers to this article and this was followed up by a more detailed critique of it by the author, Tim Harding, at: http://www.chesscafe.com/Tim/kibb.htm . What follows is a kind of open letter to Harding, trying to refute the points made by him which are highlighted below in italics:

I am sorry for the length of this and hope that nothing contained therein is in any way disrespectful of the fact that you have done a lot of good work highlighting this otherwise obscure area. Many thanks too for discovering that MacWhite/ Murray correspondence and the Cusack reference, which to be honest I was not aware of before.

Historians, generally speaking, tend to be more interested in how a myth has been used (e.g. by Cusack) than in its truth-value, and that where the editors of Irish Historical Studies advised me to place my emphasis.

So the editors of IHS encouraged you to write an article which effectively disparages the great heroes of nationalist Ireland, like O'Donovan and Joyce and O'Grady, who are very strong on the idea of Irish chess and are big authoritative names in the revival of an Irish nationalist outlook in the late 19th century - not to mention Michael Cusack, founder of the GAA, which you rightly point out was also a believer. With all due respect you don't detect any kind of agenda there? They tell you just to assume that they are perpetuating 'myths', which obviously presents them in a light as being Celtic twilight dreamers, not genuine scholars, and not to trouble yourself unduly with actually finding out if they were right or not?
I apologise for making assumptions here but I am only remarking on what you yourself have just said, if you think about it, its a serious indictment of whatever 'historians' have been leading you in that direction.

"I disagree when he says the following:
"Dr. Keating can be scribbled down as a witness that the game the old Irish were playing was indeed our modern chess."
This is just a complete misrepresentation of MacWhite."

This is the quotation listed above from Keating and dated to c.1631:

"So that it is the same for people in general as for a team in brainnaimh: since we are together in the top position [on the board] in the team of brannaimh men, when we are ready to play with them, so that the king of the team is placed in the seat of most honour on the board, and the queen in the second place, and like that for each of the other men according to the position on the brannaimh board; and similiarly for people, the time we are on the chequered [thíthibh] ground, playing the brannaimh of life with them, each one of us is certainly in our own place as regards honour and ability; howbeit, notwithstanding that though, we give that distinction to the different men of the brannaimh team only when we are playing with them, at the time that the gambler is putting the team in the bag, pouring them all in together, he doesn't look at one man of them beyond another, so that it is immaterial to him if the king goes into the bag first or last, and the same for the least man of the team; and as well its the same to him whether they are on the top or the bottom of the bag. The same way it befalls people, the time that the brannaimh boy comes from the world .i.e. dies, the person falls into the bag of the earth from the draughts [táiplisi] board of life, there is no honour in the death above that of any of them. And if the prideful masses would give heed to how comparable this was to the makings of death in people, they might forsake their pride and evil desires."

"idir eachaibh is spréidh, éadach, fhithchill is bhrannuibh, bhogha is bholgán soighead, stabhall is arm;"
translated as:
"both steeds and cattle, clothes, chess and backgammon, bows and quivers, sling and arms"

"THE BISHOP. Among the Persians and Arabs, the original name of this piece was Pil, or Phil, an elephant; under which form it was represented on the eastern chess-board. It appears that the Spaniards borrowed the term from the Moors, and with the addition of the article al, converted it into alfil, whence it became varied by Italian, French, and English writers into arfil, alferez, alphilus, alfino, alphino, alfiere, aufin, alfyn, awfyn, and alphyn.
...
The French, at a very early period, called this piece Fol, an evident corruption of Fil. Hence, also, the French name for the piece Fou, or the fool, a natural perversion of the original, when we consider that, at the time it was made, the court fool was a usual attendant on the King and Queen: or, as Mr. Barrington observes, "This piece, standing on the sides of the king and queen, some wag of the times, from this circumstance, styled it The Fool, because anciently royal personages were commonly thus attended, from want of other means of amusing themselves."

"No one came into the plain unnoticed by Láeg and yet he used to win every second game of búanbach from Cú Chulainn."

"Good," says Guaire, "Let's play fidchell."
"How are the men slain?" says Cummaine.
"Not hard, a black pair of mine about one white man of yours on the same line, disputing the approach on the far side (?)"
"My conscience, indeed!" said Cummaine, "I cannot do the other thing (?), but I shall not slay (your men), you will not slay my men."
For a whole day Guaire was pursuing him and he could not slay one of his men.
"That is champion-like, o cleric," said Guaire.

"'King,' branan is the term for a piece in the game brannumh...It is common as the epithet for a chief...The word seems usually to denote the chief piece, but cf bhranain uaisle 'his noble champions'...The meaning 'chief piece,' 'king', is supported by the following citations..."

"However, in fact, the subsequent Europeans and many other Races may use the name derived in a certain way from the Orient. From this reckoning, however, the Irish are the exception, who not from others did they receive in return but from the birth of this Game itself (as it is seen by them). The name having been selected while inventing and adopting for themselves, they applied that name for this Game into their usage. The birth, or the ingenuity and nature, of Chess having been considered (which, it is plain, may be difficult and sometimes torments the mind) from that, joined together with it, they imposed the name which in their letters is called 'brandub'."

"I include fidhchell and brannaimh as the same game (unlike Eoin MacWhite and P W Joyce) in this article because I think most of the available entries use them interchangeably like this, as you can see for example in the dictionary entries listed in chapter two. It seems that some entries explicitly state that the two games are different (see e.g. under Joyce in the Appendix), and some entries are pretty explicit in saying they are the same (for this see under Knott in the Appendix), and in any case it is unlikely to be that fidhchell is the chess like game and brannaimh not (as MacWhite and Joyce make it) because Keating and Hyde use brannaimh to explicitly denote chess. No doubt over the whole course of the use of chess in Irish history its probable that some variation of chess was meant at times for these words, or indeed across different parts of Ireland, but in general I think brannaimh and fidhchell are just two words with the same meaning, which is very often the case in Irish vocabulary."

by Brian Mon Feb 01, 2010 04:27

donkylemore
"Are we sure about the battle of Moytura or is some fanciful piece of folklore.?"
Maybe the basic rule of thumb might be that anything mentioned before say 350 AD in the Irish sources is subject to some errors and confusion but that still there is likely to be quite an element of truth in all the early Irish stuff. But in this case it doesn't matter anyway because I am only referring to O'Clery's gloss, thats the only bit that is important for the article and that is certainly historical. We know a lot about the O'Clery family and the origin of that manuscript (see for example Flower's catalogue of Irish mss. in the British Museum) so we can believe that it is dated to the very early 16th century (at least) and that it does make this link between fidhcheall and Troy. One thing to bear in mind is that none of those early Irish tales etc are some kind of made up Victorian or late Irish inventions, the old tales are nearly all referred to in very old Irish manuscripts or texts that can be accurately dated. So whatever is the truth about Moytura etc it certainly isn't that some later Irish seanachie just made the whole thing up someday, its way older than that and must have some real life origin.
If indeed we did discover chess, who were we ?
Well Irish sources are not lacking in detail on that! You might like to read the Book of Invasions and Ogygia etc. Btw that Algerian woman with the brooches was probably Berber and it has always been held that the Irish might have had some connection to the Berbers, e.g. you can see some old documentaries on it on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Q6S-cgs2s .

Pete
Some would say that but I must say I don't agree. I think if you look carefully at the picture of the backs of the chessmen above - if you click on it you will get a higher resolution - and compare that to the designs on the book of Kells or the High Crosses at Monasterboice etc I think you can definitely see a comparison. It really looks like the usual Celtic knot design which you can see everywhere in Irish art at the time.
"That particular chess set is a well known Norwegian set."
It is said to come from Lewis, there is no real evidence at all that it came from Norway although it is often claimed to come from there I admit.

Many thanks for all the comments anyways and I thought I might as well add here all this stuff that I dug up recently

Old Irish Manuscript Dictionaries
Just thought I'd update the list of lexicographical references from some early dictionaries that only exist in manuscript. I apologise for the lack of a translation but some of the words are difficult to make out in the manuscripts anyway. In any case the overall point is that 'fithcheall' was used to describe chess in 1662, and 'brannaigh' and 'fithcheall' in 1712-30. The italics part is the Irish and its from the works of Fr Richard Plunkett OFM, Fr Francis Walsh, Tadhg O'Neachtain and Peter O'Connell respectively:

1662
"Alveolus et alveus. lugsatus [?]. beartrach m.c. cálr [mistake for 'clár'?] imerthe .i.[e.] fithcheall nó táiblithe.
Latrunculus. mg. miontothaire. fo robaire. tothaire nó robaire beag. vide furunculus: fós fear foirne a ttáiplisg de: latrunculis ludere d'imirt ar ar [mistaken repeat?] tháiplisg de."(1)

1712 and 1730
"Latrunculus -i (m.) ...[English words too faint to make out]...mionghaidrighe. mionshladinóm. item: Fir Foirne. fear brannaigh.
Latrunculorum Alveolus .i.[e.] Alveolus. a chess man. Fsiren [?]. fsirenn bhrannaigh. clár branna; nó clár an bhranna. branna. fithcheall.
Latrunculum Rex. the king of chess. rígh na foirne."(2)

1725-9
"fithchioll - a pair of tables
fithchille - of ye tables
fithchiol. foach fithchioll - a coat of mail" (3)

1826
"fithcheall - a backgammon table, chess table, draught table. fear fithcile - a draughtsman. N.B. This word means nothing else but what is meant by it here vide fidhcheall.
fidhcheall - a pair of backgammon tables, a draughts board or chess board. Thus Cormac writes the word and perhaps better than fithcheall, the usual way. W[elsh] gwydhbwyll and gwydhbwlh of the same signification here assigned." (4)

Comments by Chess Historians
Updating the Appendix by adding in much more from the writings of Dr Thomas Hyde, and also Richard Twiss, who was another early English chess historian interested in the Irish references.

Thomas Hyde (1689-94)
"Cambro-Britanni et Scoti, Britanniae Magnae partes non ignobiles, hoc Ludo impense delectantur, cumque frequenter exercent. Eique adeo addicti fuere veteres Hiberni, tantique aestimarunt, ut optimae aliqando Haereditates ab ejus Exercitio pependerint et adhuc pendeant: e.g. duae quaedam Nobilies Familiae (ut reliquas taceam) quas nominare possem, Terras suas tenent eo tenore, ut quotannis harum altera alteram hoc Ludo vincere conetur et aggrediatur; eo quidem pacto ut quaecunque tandem vicerit, alterius Terras occupatura et possessura fit. Harum itaque Familiarum Haeredes (ut a fide dignis accepi) rem inter se prudenter gerentes, semel forte singulis annis proposito Scaccario ad ludendum conveniunt; et altero motionem unam faciente, alter dicit, Cogitabo quomodo reponam tibi sequente anno. Hoc facto, Notarius aliquis publicus Scachorum situm fideliter notat et eundem scripto committit. Quo quidem modo unum Lusum, quo neuter hactenus alterum vicerit, per aliquot centenos annos prorogarunt, et adhuc prorogabunt. Et tempore Cahir-more Regis Hiberniae circa annum Chr. 177, Shahiludium (si eorum Chronicis fides) in frequente usu fuit apud Hibernos, adeo ut dictus Rex multa Scaccaria filio suo legaverit, ut alibi plenius narravi. Et tunc apud Nobiliores Hibernos (qui omnis generis Officiarios, ut Genealogistam, Poetam, Musicum, etc. in quamvis Familia alebant,) mos erat habere generalem alquem Ludorum Praefectum, penes quem esset inter ludentes ordinem servare, et omnes eorum lites dirimere.
...
Quamvis vero reliqui Europaei et pleraeque aliae Gentes adhibeant nomen ex Oriente quodammodo derivatum, ex hoc tamen censu excipiendi sunt Hiberni, qui non ab aliis mutuo acceperunt, sed ab ipsa huius Ludi natura (ut eis videbatur) desumptum vocabulum sibi consingentes et adoptantes, id huic Ludo in suum usum aptarunt. Shahiludii enim naturam seu ingenium ac indolem intuentes (quod sc. difficile esset, et aliquando mentem torqueret) inde aptum ei imposuerunt nomen quod eorum literis scribitur brandub Brandubh: sed cum [illegible word, 'roig'?] d and b superscribi debeat punctum quod quiescentiae nota, pronuntiatur tantum Bránnuh, id est, Visceribus nigrum; nam Bran est Viscera ventris, et dubh est nigrum: q.d. id quod visceribus et cordi grave ac taediosum est. Sunt ex Hibernis qui scribunt Brandabh, et pronuntiant Brannaw. Aliis quibusdam hic Ludus simpliciter dicitur Bran Bran, seu Brain Brain, quod liquet ex Proverbio Hibernico, Ni braise Fear brain na é, i.e. Non est agilior Scachus quam ille; sc. propter celerem Scachorum motionem de loco in locum, et quasi agilitatem in transiliendo Areolas Scaccarii, quam in transcurrendo Lacustria imitari et aequare videbatur ille Hibernus de quo cusum est Proverbium, ut et alii omnes de quibus usurpari solet. Nam Fear brain est Vir Scaccarii, ut Anglice dicimus Chess-man. Nec tantum Reges Hiberniae, sed et veteres Reges Angliae Scaccaria servasse constat. De hoc D. du Fresne ...
...
[Arabic word] Exercitus Albus, aut [Arabic word] Exercitus Niger. Hibernis Foipionn [misprint for 'Foirionn'?], i.e. Societas. In aliquo Parliamenti Parisiensis Arresto vocantur Familia, sc Regis. Hibernice Scachus est Bran seu Brain, sive Fear Brain i.e Chess-man. Nam 'fear' plane factum est ex Lat. Vir: et Brain videtur esse ex Britannico Bren, i.e. Rex. Nam ut Scachus origine Regem denotans, transfertur ad significandum quemvis Militem; sic et Brain origine Regem, sed usu communi quemvis in hoc Ludo Militem notat;
...
Sed si Hibernorum Chronicis fides adhibenda esset, illorumque evidentia probaretur, major adhuc antiquitas Shahiludio tribueretur. Nam in Chronico Regum Hiberniae ab anno Mundi 3596 ad annum Christi 332, memoriae proditum est, Quod Cahir mór, (al. Cathir mór) i.e. Cahir seu Cathir magnus (qui obiit anno Christi 177) inter alia multa, Rotsio Falcio filio suo et aliquot Nobilibus legavit quinque Tabulas lusorias dictas Fitcell (Fichell) et quinque Scacchiae Alveolos dictos Branndab (Brannaw.) Et Crinthanno filio suo, inter alia, legavit 10 Tabulas Lusorias insigni Arte tornatas, et duos Scacchiae Alveolos cum Scachis in varias formas distinctis: Et summam Ludorum praefecturam per Lagenam illi contulit. Macorbo filio Leogarii Binnbhuadhuch reliquit 50 Tabulas lusorias quibus ludunt Pugiles, et 50 Scacchiae Alveolos, cum aliis. Haec ex Codice Lecan in Biblioth. Dubl. qui continet Chronicon Regum Ulster qui regnarunt in Emania: sec. alios, Regum Lemovici seu Lemsteri: sed temporis computo desideratur fides. Haec olim amicissime mecum communicata sunt per Doctissimum et Reverendissimum in Christo Patrem D. Narcissum Marsh, Cashellensem hodie in Hibernia Archiespiscopum dignissimum.
...
Sunt apud Europaeos qui a sono sumptum generale nomen huic Ludo indiderunt Trictrac: quod tamen alii postea as peculiarem aliquem Tabulae Lusum traxerunt eique appropriarunt, ut infra dicetur. Sed ab ea aliarum Gentium denominatione discrepantissima est huius Ludi appellandi ratio apud Hibernos, qui eum jam olim in sua Lingua nominarunt Fitceall Fidhcheall, quod vulgari eorum pronuntiatione sonat Fichall seu Fikall, uti aliquando me docuit suae linguae callentissimus Hibernus D. Tully Conry, qui tunc erat Honoratissimi Ducis Ormondiae servus, et olim fuerat Nobilis alicuius Familiae Genealogista, et tandem Oxonii obiit. Hoc secundum vim vocis significat Ligneum-difficile intellectui: nam 'Fid' est Ligneum-intricatum quiddam seu Ligneum-difficile aliquid, nempe Intricatum quiddam ex ligno factum, et Ceall est intellectus: q.d. Ludus difficilis intellectui, cuius Instrumenta fiunt ex ligno. Quam male exasciatum nomen!
...
Quod enim alicubi in Anglia vocamus Tittac, alibi vocamus Irish, uti ex peritis Collusoribus Lusum suum conferentibus intellexi, vidique: nam utrumque apud nos nomen eundem Lusum notat secundum diversas Angliae Provincias rerum denominationes aliquantulum variantes. Ideo autem vocamus Irish, quia sc. est Tittac seu Trictrac Hibernorum.
...
Est autem alia forma Chinensibus dicta Chello, i.e. Loca sex, ut in praecendente Schemate hoc modo: Persis [word in farsi] Hugjure (ubi quisque habet 6 Calculos) Hibernis Cashlan gherra, quod Anglice Short-castle sonat; in Cumbria et Westmorlandia dictum Copped-Crown. Alias in Anglia plerumque format: solet cum rotundo Carcere in medio." (5)

[Suggested translation of the above:]
"The Cambro-Britons and Scots, not just the obscure parts of Britain, were delighted very much by this Game, and which they practised frequently. The old Irish were so greatly addicted to chess, that, amongst them, the possession of good estates hath been decided by it; and there are some estates at this very time, the property whereof doth still depend upon the issue of a game of chess. For example, the heirs of two certain noble Irish families, who we could name, (to say nothing of others) hold their lands upon this tenure, viz. that one of them shall encounter the other at chess, in this manner, that which ever of them should conquer, should seize and possess the estate of the other. Therefore, I have been told, they manage the affair prudently among themselves; once a year they meet by appointment to play at chess: one of them makes a move, and the other says, I will consider how to answer you next year. This being done a public notary commits to writing the situation of the game, by which method a game, which neither hath won, hath been, and will be continued for some hundreds of years. And at the time of Cahir-more, of the kingdom of Ireland, c. year of Christ 177, chess (if these Chronicles are faithful) was in frequent use among the Irish, so that the said King bequeathed many chess boards to his son, as elsewhere I narrated in full. And at that time among the Irish nobles (who were supporting as domestics all kinds of Officials, a Genealogist, a Poet, a Musician etc) the custom was to have some class of Prefect of Games, it may have been in the power of this Order to serve while playing, and to put an end to all disputes during these games.
...
However, in fact, the subsequent Europeans and many other Races may use the name [meaning chess under the name 'Shahiludus' or 'Mandragoria'] derived in a certain way from the Orient. From this reckoning, however, the Irish are the exception, who not from others did they receive in return but from the birth of this Game itself (as it is seen by them). The name having been selected while inventing and adopting for themselves, they applied that name for this Game into their usage. The birth, or the ingenuity and nature, of Chess having been considered (which, it is plain, may be difficult and sometimes torments the mind) from that, joined together with it, they imposed the name which in their letters is called 'brandub' Brandubh: but with a [unclear word, roig?], d and b must be super scripted with a dot which is silent [quiescentiae nota], pronounced Bránnuh, that is black with the entrails [visceribus]: for 'Bran' is the entrail of the stomach and 'dubh' is black: as if it is said that because with the entrail and heart it is grave and tedious. There are out of the Irish those who write Brandabh and pronounce it Brannaw: others of them this Game they call simply 'Brain' Brain, because it is clear from the Irish Proverb, 'Ni braise fear brain na é', .i.e. it is not more mobile a chessman [scachus] than that. It is plain that it is on account of the swift motion of the chess pieces from place to place, and as it were the agility in jumping across the spaces of the chessboard, that to be imitated and to equal in travelling across Lacustria as seen by the same Irish from which custom is the Proverb, and as it is generally adopted by all others [?]. For 'Fear brain' is the 'Vir Scaccarii', that in English we call Chess-Men. Not merely the Kings of Ireland, but also for the old Kings of England, the chessboard remained constant. [Then refers to du Fresne and the origins of the word 'Exchequer' in England.]
...
[Arabic word] the White Army, or [Arabic word] the Black Army. In Irish foipionn [recte foirionn] i.e. an association. In some judgement of the Parliament of Paris it is called the Family, evidently of the King. In Irish Scachus [Chess] is 'Bran' or 'Brain', or 'Fear Brain' .i.e. Chess-man. For 'fear' plainly is made from the Latin 'vir': and Brain it is seen to be from the British Bren, i.e. King. For, as Scachus originally denotes the King, however its meaning is now translated to the soldier; thus 'Brain' originally the King but however in common usage denotes the soldier in this game.
...
But if any faith may be placed in Hibernian Chronicles, the game of Chess is much more ancient [than was before mentioned]. For in the Chronicle of the Kings of Ireland, from the year of the world 3596, to that of Christ 332, is recorded that Cahir mór, or Cahir the great, who died in 177, among other legacies left five playing tables called Fichell, and five Chess squares or holes, [Scacchia Alveolos] called Brannaw. And to his son among other things he left ten playing tables turned with great art, and two Scacchiae Alveolos with Chesses [Men] of various distinct forms: and 50 more Brannaw's to another person. This is in the book of Lecan in the Library of Dublin, which contains the Chronicle of the Kings of Ulster who reigned in Eman; according to others, the Kingdom of Lemovici or Leinster: but I compute the time with the desired fidelity. For these [facts I received] through a most friendly communication from the most learned and most reverend father in Christ, Narcissus Marsh esq, now the most worthy Archbishop of Cashel in Ireland.
...
There are among the Europeans, who having taken the name of this from the general sound, those who introduced Trictrac: but nevertheless others meanwhile derived the Game from 'Tabulae' and from it made it their own for peculiar reasons, as it is said infra. But from this name of the other Races a large discrepancy is the calculated name for the same Game among the Irish, who sometime before nominated this in their language 'Fitceall' Fidhcheall, which to the common people of them sounds in pronunciation 'Fichall' or 'Fikall', as at one time the most experienced Irishman in his language, Mr Tully Conry,(6) taught to me, who then was a servant of the most honourable Duke of Ormond, and who afterwards died in Oxford. The force of this word secondly signifies Wood-difficult intellectually: [obviously a reference to Bishop Cormac's 'wood sense'.] For 'Fid' is Wood-intricate or something at all wood-difficult, or rather something intricate made from the wood; and 'ceall' is intellect: as if it is said that the Game is difficult intellectually, with Instruments which are from wood. A name very badly constructed!
...
[Describing backgammon type games:]
Because for instance somewhere in England they call it Tictac, in other places they call it Irish, I understand from the considerations of the experienced players of their game that I saw: whether among us the name denotes the same game [or] a second one, denominating slight variations of the thing across the different Provinces of England [I cannot say]. For this reason indeed we call it Irish, because plainly it is the Tictac or Trictac of the Irish.
...
Moreover, another form [describing a game like Blind Man's Morris] is called Chello by the Chinese, .i.e. six places, as in the form in the preceding diagram: in Persian [farsi word] Hugjuré (in which each have six draughtsmen [Calculos]), in Irish 'Cashlan gherra', which in English sounds like 'Short-Castle'; in Cumbria and Westmoreland called Copped-Crown. It often takes other forms in England; generally with a round jail in the middle." (7)

Richard Twiss (1789)
"The following is an extract from a Letter on this Subject, with which I was favoured by Mr O'Flanagan, Professor of the Irish language in the University of Dublin.

"The quotation from the Book of Lecan [which Twiss took from Hyde and sent to Flanagan] is just, if the words Fithcell and Foirn or Muintir mean Chess-boards and Chess; but it has been disputed whether by these words were meant draughts, Back-gammon, or Chess. The argument used against the meaning of those words to be Chess, is that the game is very uncommon in this kingdom at present, and that if it ever had been general, it would be preserved in as great a latitude, as the two other games are, which therefore are of ancient date here. Moreover, some people who never let slip an opportunity of gratifying a silly prejudice against every argument or fact that may reflect any degree of credit on the ancient Irish, insist that it was too noble a game for their barbarous state, and too complex for their weak comprehensions; and that also it would be admitting their having either in their origin or separate state, a communication with the East; which they affirm to be a barbarous fiction.
Cormac McCulnan, (who was King and Bishop of the South-half of Ireland, in the end of the 9th century,) in a glossary of his, which is still extant, at the word Fithcell speaks as follows:
"Fitchell or Fithcell, from Fath, reason, and Ciall, understanding, these qualifications being necessary for playing it: or Feith, sharp or quick, and Ciall, understanding. It is Oeathracair, square, or fourfold, with its Tithe, Spots, or Welts, are direct, straight or in direction, and marked with black and white; and the muintir or men, which take their alternate Tochell, movements, journeys, or victories upon it, are Sair, various or of different colours."
Whether this means Chess, I am not able to determine: but I should suppose that if this was the ancient name for Back-gammon it would still be retained among the Irish, which it is not; for the common name now for Back-gammon is Taiplis, with those even who speak no other Language than the Irish.

The Book of Lecan is not the only one that contains the record of Cahir's will; it is also preserved in many other collections, such as the "Ballimote, the Leinster, etc."

For the following communication I am obliged to Jos. C. Walker esq of Dublin, who has lately published, "Historical Essays on the Bards and the Dress of the Irish."

"Chess is not now a common game in Ireland; it is played at, and understood by very few. Yet it was a favourite game amongst the early Irish, and the amusement of the chiefs in their camps. It is called Fill, and sometimes Fitcill, to distinguish it from Fall, another game on the Tables which are called Taibhle-Fill."
[Most of this letter from Walker is the same as the text published in 1790] (8)

Etymology
Anyway despite all the confusing etymologies that are out there from 'wood sense' to Hyde's blood and guts!, a few facts are self evident I think:

Fidhcheall, which is certainly the same as the modern word 'ficheall' of course, seems to be derived from the word 'Phil', long since used as an old word involving chess. Its also related to the Welsh word, and game, 'gwyddbwyll' as Peter O'Connell first identified c.1812.

Brannaimh, derived from Bran, which Hyde is no doubt right in saying is related to an old word among the Britons called 'Bren', and means 'king' or 'noble'. Hence asking a person to play a game of brannaimh is like asking them if they would like to play a game of 'kings' or 'nobles', and is obviously then not a surprising name for chess.

Beartrach, which possibly means 'care' or 'heavy' or 'burden', as well as chess for some reason. I have no idea how that etymology developed but you see beartrach, or some version of it, turning up in the old glossaries in the context of chess. (9)

Táiplis, is clearly the Irish word for the family of games called 'tables' - derived from the Latin tabulae -, or some similar word in the various languages. This general family certainly includes backgammon, and this word was used for backgammon in Ireland, and probably draughts, which is also the meaning of táiplis in modern Irish. Some people would also link the tafl like games into this general family. Anyway the significant point is that this family is not the same as the chesslike games, which have a different origin, and as Prof O'Flanagan made clear in 1789, this word is not normally applied to chess in Ireland. Hence there is no real confusion in the Irish language between chess on the one hand, and backgammon and draughts on the other: when referring to the latter two games they do not normally use the words fidcheall or brannaimh but rather táiplis. Incidentally (and just to confuse matters!), the origins of backgammon in England and Scotland can be traced to a game called 'Irish', which was first mentioned in 1508. Hyde makes the reasonable point that this is so called because it is the Irish version of the game that is meant by this word, and which then evolved into backgammon. It doesn't seem unreasonable to speculate then that this game, as played in early modern England and hence as is now played internationally, derives at least in part from Ireland. In any case it is likely to have been an import into Ireland first, meaning that Ireland would have preserved a Roman game or maybe a Viking one and then brought it back into Britain and the Continent from whence it would have earlier died out. I say that because táiplis, the Irish word for backgammon, is so clearly an imported word, derived from the Latin tabulae. (10)

Thoughts on Hyde
In any case I guess the question is where does all that leave us. Well first of all its obvious that Thomas Hyde did a huge amount of work in this area of the Irish origins of chess, and you'd have to say that his insights into Irish sources and language are pretty incredible for an English writer of the 1680s and 90s. As you can see in his etymology of fithcheall he had the reference from Cormac's Glossary and in learning from Tuileagna O'Maolchonaire he was getting his information from a scion of one of the great bardic/historian families of Connaught. This then in turn adds greater credibility to that story of the land transaction based on a chess game, which does link the old Irish fondness for 'fidhcheall' back to a more modern love of chess. But it also adds again to the point about the omission of any reference to differences between the Irish game of fidhcheall and modern chess, he was bound to have made copious enquiries on this subject from O'Maolchonaire and his other sources and pretty obviously they never heard of any differences between it and modern chess. Remember this brings you quite a distance back into history because that O'Maolchonaire was well acquainted with all the great Irish sources when he locked horns with Micháel Ó'Cleirigh as long ago as 1638. In his work at that time he is quoting with confidence all the obscure old Irish brehon law tracts etc, sources which abound in references to fidhcheall. Bear in mind too that that is what Hyde's book is all about, describing all these old board games not just chess, hence if he felt that the Irish brannaimh or fidhcheall fell into a different category to modern chess he would definitely say so.

But while Hyde is clearly a truly awesome linguist, and an honest and painstaking researcher, these Irish references in his work do highlight some flaws in his methodology though. He seems to throw together some scattered references and doesn't bother gathering them together and giving us a global overall opinion. For example at one point brannaimh is the recognised Irish word for chess, at another point it is fidhcheall but he doesn't describe the two together in detail in the one paragraph, and he gives two completely different etymologies for brannaimh. Then when he goes to describe brannaimh among the Irish he gets tied in knots. Clearly his sources had told him that the Irish claimed to have invented brannaimh but at the same time the rest of his book is describing what he says is the Indian and Persian origins of chess so he has to reconcile that when he describes the Irish game. Basically he just fudges it and says that while the Irish originally invented their game they somehow simultaneously also drew on these Eastern influences. (I appreciate too that the above translation might seem somewhat ambiguous but the truth is that his Latin gets a bit ambiguous at that point!) In otherwords he his having his cake and eating it. He cannot say that the Irish invented chess, because that throws out these Eastern sources that he is very fond of translating, and yet he wants to be true to the facts that he had gathered about the Irish game, that it was a native invention.

I would speculate in fact that Hyde was fascinated with the challenge of translating all these exotic Eastern languages and ancient parchments and yet if he just said that the Irish invented chess then all those old Eastern sources he dug up would have been surplus to requirements and he would have had a much thinner and less exciting book! That I think is why he left it as it was and didn't face squarely the fact that the Irish were playing chess long before it could have come across from 8th century Persia or India, a fact that he acknowledges but doesn't take to its obvious conclusion which is that the Irish invented chess. I think basically he was a much better linguist than he was a thoughtful and assured historian but it is from him that we get the current establishment view that chess derives from India or Persia, a thin reed to rest the whole of modern chess historiography? (11)

Footnotes
1. Fr Richard Plunkett O.F.M, Vocabularium Latinum et Hibernum (Trim, 1662), available as Marsh's Library Ms Z 4.2.5 NLI M/F Pos 3065.

2. Half done by Fr Francis Walsh by 1712 and completed by Tadhg O'Neachtain by 1730, Dictionarium Latino-Anglo-Hibernicum (Dublin) Marsh's Library Z 3, 1, 13 NLI M/F Pos 1015.

3. Tadhg O'Neachtain, Dictionary (Dublin, 1725-9), TCD Ms 1361 (H 4.20) NLI M/F Pos 2824.

4. Peadar O'Connell, An Irish-English Dictionary (Limerick, 1826), Egerton 83 NLI M/F Pos. 252. For an interesting story about Peter O'Connell and this dictionary see: http://www.limerickcorp.ie/media/Media,4251,en.pdf . That first reference is obviously intended to correct the usual 'coat of mail' interpretation of fidhcheall. This was a highly regarded dictionary in which both O'Curry (and his elder brother) and O'Donovan (who prepared it for the press although it was never published) assisted with. Hence either of those two might have had a hand in the above note. But if it was by O'Donovan it was long before he published the 'Book of Rights', as this manuscript was in the possession of the British Library from an early date.

5. First published as Thomas Hyde, Historia Shahiludii (Oxford, 1689), Mandragorias or De Ludis Orientalibus (Oxford, 1694), and Historia Nerdiludii (Oxford, 1694), reprinted into one volume, edited by Gregory Sharpe, called Syntagma dissertationum quas olim auctor doctissimus Thomas Hyde STP seperatim edidit (1767, Oxford), p.7, 53, 68, 80, 219-220, 240, 363.

6. This is Bro. Tuileagna O'Maolchonaire OFM (he called himself Tully Conry in English) who was very well acquainted with the old histories and works of Ireland as you can read in his 1638 criticism of Bro. Michael O'Clery's work, published in Fr Paul Walsh, Genealogiae regum et sanctorum Hiberniae (Maynooth, 1918), p.147 et seq. In the 1650s he turns up in Spain and then later in Oxford. Incidentally the Bodleian in Oxford have some manuscripts signed by Tuileagna, which doubtless were acquired while Thomas Hyde was the librarian of the Bodleian ( http://www.celt.dias.ie/publications/cat/b/b2-10-1.pdf ). He translated into English part of the Annals of Ulster, accurately according to O'Donovan although the latter disliked his very literal old English (see O'Donovan's introduction to the AFM). The O'Maolchonaire's were a very proud old family of historians in Connaught.

7. The English translation starting at 'The old Irish' and going up to 'some hundreds of years' is from Charles Vallancey, A Grammar of the Hiberno-Celtic or Irish Language (Dublin, 1782), p.85, and the text from 'but if any faith may be' to 'Lecan in the Library of Dublin' is from Richard Twiss, Chess (London, 1789) vol ii, p.259. Otherwise its the present author's translation.

8. Richard Twiss, Chess (London, 1789) vol ii, p.259-262.

9. Searching under beartrach (and bearing in mind that 'nó' just means 'or') at http://www.asnc.cam.ac.uk/irishglossaries/ reveals:
"Bertrach .i.[e.] aire nó fidhchell"
(Dúil Dromna Cetta [dated to the 9th century, see Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, A New History of Ireland: Prehistoric and Early Ireland (Oxford, 2005), p.343], TCD Ms 1337 (H.3.18) p.633b.)
"Bertrach .i.[e.] oire tromm nó fichell."
(O'Mulconry's Glossary ["dated by Mac Neill to before the mid-8th century"], from the Yellow Book of Lecan TCD Ms 1318 (H.2.16)).

10. For a description of the history of these 'table' games see http://pagesperso-orange.fr/bckg/english/accueil.htm .

11. You can read a discussion of Hyde's methodology here: http://history.chess.free.fr/papers/Josten%20b.pdf .

by donkylemore Sun Jan 10, 2010 22:07

If indeed we did discover chess, who were we ?
This is such a well researched piece it is difficult for a non antiquarian or historian to grapple with.
Are we sure about the battle of Moytura or is some fanciful piece of folklore.?
I have read that it took place either near Headford or Moycullen Co Glaway.- see Wilde's Lough Corrib.

I once showed my Cladagh ring to an Arabic goldsmith , who had taken a keen interest in its construction. When I proudly told him it originated from my local City he shrugged .
No It came from Persia he insisted .
He showed me several sketches of Eastern ''promise rings'' which had a similar tradition to the Cladagh ring , but were even more complex in design, but as he hadn't any extant copies of same he asked to borrow mine .
He fashioned a few dozen of these rings , some of which had a '' swivel'' at the base of the shoulders and the hands could thus be made to couple around the heart - concealing it .
When the couple were married this swivel was then fixed with the heart ''closed '' , signifying that the heart was closed / committed..

They were quite magnificent . My only regret was that I never bought one.
His shop was blown up by the Israelis shorlly after his trade in Cladagh rings had picked up.
I was working with UNIFIL in Lebanon at the time .

But I digress.
This is a wonderfully written piece.

by but wait Wed Jan 06, 2010 15:04

your link says the arabs brought chess to spain in the 9th century.

the original link has finds speculating earlier dates of chess being play here. ireland wins. maybe in the fog of history we took it to arabia, the last picture of the arab woman with two tara broches in the first post suggests some link. boats were invented before chess we know that anyway, so not impossible.

by Pete. Wed Jan 06, 2010 14:00

No we did not invent Chess.

That particular chess set is a well known Norwegian set.

The pieces do not even look like Irish art.

The Norwegians did not invent chess either.

Chess as we know it came from Arabia.

Who knows where it came from before that?

Nobody knows.

Perhaps the Indians or Chinese gave it to Arabia.

The fog of history.

If you do not believe me see this link:

http://www.goddesschess.com/chessays/calvopieces.html

.

.

by Feudal castrato Wed Jan 06, 2010 06:26

I'd like to add my appreciation for your work in creating this interesting article. It's great to see substantial pieces like this published for all to enjoy on an open and free media site like indymedia. Go raibh maith agat a chairde.

by Brian Wed Jan 06, 2010 05:59

Go raibh míle maith agat in any case for all your kind comments and good points (and to O O'Connell:
If its only for a bit of a craft or art thing then go ahead, I hereby give you permission! It doesn't matter if you are making a small profit on it either, its only if maybe it was a major publishing venture that copyright would be an issue I'd say...) and I just thought I would throw in another bit:

The Clonard find versus the Lewis one, too alike to be a coincidence?
In any case I was just thinking about the comparison between the Lewis chess pieces and the Queen (it seems it is a Queen, O'Donovan was wrong to assume it was a King) found at Clonard. If you look at the photograph of two Lewis Queens and the du Noyer drawing of the Clonard piece together you surely would have to agree that this Queen comes from the same set. Clearly the artist has gone for a unique and distinctive expression on her face and the placing of her hand and how likely is it that this could be by two different artists at two different periods? Realistically its by the same craftsman and also note that with respect to the Lewis find: "Madden even mentions the colour of some of the pieces ‘Dark red or beetroot’ but that the action of salt water has removed most of the colour." (1) That colour matches exactly the photograph of the Clonard piece available here: http://homepage.tinet.ie/~clonardns/thechesspiece.htm . So in all the, I suppose, three or four centuries of modern archaeological excavations and discoveries in the UK and Ireland we end up with only two examples of Celtic chessmen, finds coming within ten years or so of one another, from radically different locations but yet with exactly the same artistry. Realistically these coincidences are too great, clearly the Irish Queen and the Lewis chessmen are from the same hoard that got separated at some point. Note too that O'Donovan stated that the Clonard Queen was found with a lot of other pieces that are since lost. I respectfully submit that the only logical explanation is that these lost pieces are in fact the Lewis chessmen. You see it has always been the case that the story behind the Lewis find was suspect:

The lack of data about the Lewis find
This is an extract from the minutes of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland of the 11th March 1833, relating to the chessmen:

"But it is evident, that to serve some purpose, contradictory statements were circulated by the persons who discovered or who afterwards obtained possession of these Chess-men, regarding the place where the discovery was actually made." (2)

"Is it a fairy tale; or perhaps something more sinister? The Lewis chessmen are one of the glories of our chess heritage. Their brooding magnificence has a universal appeal; The story of their resurrection is quite parochial.

Experts date them to the 12th century but they first became known on II April 1831, when they were shown in Edinburgh by Roderick Pirie, a merchant of Stornaway (or Captain Ryrie or Ririe - the uncertainty as to his name is typical of the whole story).

He told those present at the meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland that the carvings had been recently found in Uig bay, on the Isle of Lewis, buried under 15 feet of sand. A letter about the discovery was read.

Immediately a contradictory story was given, and the letter disappeared. In June 1831 a Scottish newspaper reported that the men were found by a peasant digging a sandbank.

CK Sharpe wrote in 1833 that they were found close to where a nunnery had stood, in a vaulted room about six feet long which had ashes on the floor.

In 1851 a different yarn was told. The spring tide of 1831 washed away part of a sandbank exposing something like an oven. A local peasant broke into it, and seeing what he thought to be a gathering of gnomes, fled in panic. His wife persuaded him to go back and collect the loot.

The final version appeared in 1967, in a publication about the folklore of Lewis. A herdsman saw one of his cows rubbing against a sand hill and pulling out some white objects with her horns.

In September 1990 Bob Meadley of Australia made the three-hour boat trip from the Scottish mainland to Lewis, and went to Uig bay to see for himself. He made a video there. The locals did not agree about the site of the hoard, dividing their votes between two sandy hills fairly near to the cemetery. Both are far from the sea, and at a high altitude. Otherwise Meadley found a reluctance to talk about the subject.

MYSTERY OF UIG BAY

All of the stories cannot be true, so why should we believe any one of them?

The constant factor is Uig bay, but anyone putting up a smoke screen would probably choose a remote spot on the furthest side of a Gaelic-speaking island that is itself difficult to reach. I suggest that the men were never in
the bay of Uig, and that is why the locals cannot be more forthcoming.

The chessmen are undoubtedly genuine, but the tale of their discovery seems to me to be completely false. Sometimes subterfuges are used to deter an invasion of trophy-seekers onto an archaeological site, but in those cases the truth emerges after a few years." (4)

"Sir Walter Scott came at two o'clock and stayed about an hour with me. I had the pleasure of looking over with him a set of very curious and ancient chessmen brought to the museum this morning for sale, by a dealer from Edinburgh named Forrest. They were discovered in a sand bank on the west coast of Scotland." (5)

"October 17.--The morning beautiful. To-day I go to look after the transcripts in the Museum and have a card to see a set of chessmen thrown up by the sea on the coast of Scotland, which were offered to sale for £100. The King, Queen, Knights, etc., were in the costume of the 14th century, the substance ivory or rather the tusk of the morse, somewhat injured by the salt water in which they had been immersed for some time."

"Add to that the intriguing fact that both Sharpe and Madden were friends of Sir Walter Scott, who was given a private viewing of the British Museum collection by Madden on the very day they turned up for sale there."(6)

"Dear Walter,—I take the opportunity of Charles Purdie going to Dublin to send you a letter. It is always good to save postage. Charles is going to be a gardener somewhere near the sweet town of Limerick to which you made your advances by that famous night march. He is a clever fellow and I hope will do. He has a book from me to give to the Head gardner at the Lodge who I suppose will have no objection to let him see the Gardens there. If you can give him quarters in your hotel- for the day or two he must stay at Dublin I am aware you will do it for old Toms sake. I also intend to give him the superintendence of a book containing some copper and bronze implements for Dr Tuke your neighbour in the square who has so beautiful a Museum. I promised to add one or two articles to it and now send these old rattle-traps as Capt. John would call them to make my word good. Will you be so good as pay for the carriage of the box if it has cost Purdie anything." (8)

"The museum of Dr. Tuke, a physician of some eminence in Dublin, which Scott visited about this time, afforded him more gratification than even that of the Royal Dublin Society. At the latter he had vainly looked for a national collection illustrative of Irish antiquities and history, and expressed much disappointment at finding the Museum rather poor in such remains; instead of which he was shown a fine arrangement of minerals, which, as he observed, he was already familiar with in other places; and it is not a little remarkable, that the Russian Archduke Michael, on visiting this museum, expressed a similar disappointment, and stated that he was himself possessed of a much finer and more extensive collection of the Antiquities of Ireland. At Dr. Tuke's house, on the contrary, Scott's anxiety to see some specimens of the weapons, ornaments, &c. of the ancient Irish, was abundantly gratified. He remained there some hours evidently much pleased, and, on his return to Scotland, he sent Dr. Tuke a present of two antique brazen vessels which had been found there, but yet bore considerable resemblance to some of this country, which he had seen in Dr. Tuke's collection." (9)

by O. O'Connell Mon Jan 04, 2010 21:10

A side question for you please, Mr. Nugent: if anybody (e.g. me) would like to reprint this - including in hardcopy - is there a way to contact you about it for permission/license (e.g. related to a possible for-profit art/craft project)?

by O. O'Connell Mon Jan 04, 2010 19:25

Now that's a beautiful, erudite, rare labour of love you did there. I don't even play chess, and that was fascinating. Thank you.

by Con Tue Dec 29, 2009 23:48

Such a good read, I read it twice!

Thanks

by Terawrizt Tue Dec 29, 2009 16:22

thoroughly enjoyable read, irish folklore is terribly under appreciated for the wealth of knowledge it bestowed upon the world
and how much of it was stolen from us and re-pre-sented back to us as if belonging to someone else

great research.. bravo!!

by Murphy Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:45

Well, you seem to know your stuff. Its all very interesting, thanks again (thanks for the links)

by Brian Mon Dec 28, 2009 16:13

As regards hnefatafl (or tafl) don't forget the reference from the Amra Colmcille:

FECHT AFOR NIA NEM .i. In tan noregad in tren-fer .i. Colum Cille; ar fit nia .i. tren-fer, ut dicitur:

Fidchell Cremthaind Niaid Náir
Nisbeir mac bec do leitáin:
Leth a foirne d'ór buide,
Al leith aile d'[f]indruine.
Oén-fer di a fairind namma
Nochrenad se chlánamna.

[Translated as:]

THE TIME WHEN THE CHAMPION WOULD REACH HEAVEN. .i.e. The time when the champion would come, that is, Colum Cille; for "nia" means, namely, a champion, as is said:

The chess-board of Cremthand Brave Champion
A small child carries it not by little elbow:
Half of its party of yellow gold,
The other half of findruine:
One man of its party alone
Would purchase six couples.
(J. O'Beirne Crowe, The Amra Cholum Chilli of Dallan Forgaill (Dublin, 1871), p.60-61, available at: http://www.archive.org/details/amracholuimchill00dall )

by Murphy Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:27

sorry, amazing story, thanks for posting it up, I hope you get a hnefatafl board

by Murphy Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:26

fair play for putting the effort in but, there was a board game played by the vikings called hnefatafl (pronounced - neff - ill - taff - ill).

This game was introduced to Ireland before chess was around and it seems that chess and many other board games actually derive from hnefatafl. Google it, get a board and discover one of the best board games in the world.

So, chess was first robbed off the Vikings!