Customer Reviews

History of Chess

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is a reprint of Murrays monumental work, first published in 1913. Murray is a scientist, and his writing shows this: we have discussions about legibility of manuscripts, theories of the spreading of chess, etc.

What we find in all this is a thorough and precise account of how chess came into existence, and has spread over the world. Where many books on the history of chess are best in describing the modern history, this book is best in telling about the roots. Also, we find hunderds of historic chess puzzles. If you really want to know how the origins of the best game there is are, then read this book.

"H. J. Murray's" "HISTORY OF CHESS" is considered by all serious chess historians to be the classic work covering the early development and progression of chess. It is a very extensive and scholarly written work. This book is not intended to entertain the reader with "odd, but true" stories or myths about chess. It is an informative guide and reference book for the serious chess historian. The most extensive work on a more modern history of chess (1800s onward) is "THE CHESS KINGS" by Calvin Olson. However, in addition to being scholarly and accurate, it contains annotated games of historical importance while making the history of the world championship level chess entertaining. Together these books form comprehensive coverage of chess history from its beginnings traced back to around 600 a.d. to the turn of the 21st century.

Murray has written a truly monumental description of the evolution of chess, filled with descriptions of ancient and oriental variations on the theme of chess. It can be a hard read in places, but it's well worth the effort. The section on Shogi (Japanese Chess) gives an introduction to a game every bit as deep and satisfying as Western Chess.

Published in 1913, this book is the definite work on chess history from its Indian origins up to 1900. Murray spared no effort to get directly to the actual sources, even if they were written in Arabic, Persian, or Sanskrit (naturally, he knew all major European languages, as well, and quotes all sources in those languages too).

It includes, for example (not at all exhaustive): the history of variants of chess in India; a discourse on Chinese and Japanese chess (Shogi); Chess in Persia in the 7th and 8th century; Arabic chess (Shatranj) in the Islamic world of the early middle ages; how it moved to Christendom and how the rules of the game changed; the early didatric chess literature; the medieval chess problem; "From Lopez to Greco" (on how chess supremacy passed from Spain to Italy in the 15th-16th century); and so on, up to the Berlin "Pleiades", Stuanton, Steinitz, and Morphy.

The book is full of hidden treasures. For example, Murray doesn't merely tell us that chess was played with different rules under the Arabs. He gives dozens of chess problems (mansubats) created by Arab authors. Many people heard of Ruy Lopez and Greco, but how many can name any other player from that period? Murray names at least a dozen as he describes the period. Perhaps you've heard of a 15th century writer named Lucena, who wrote one of the earliest European chess books. Murray gives 150 chess problems from that book.

True, Murray is silent about 20th century chess, due to the date of publication. This, however, is less a handicap than is usually assumed. Most (though not all) so-called "up-to-date" histories of chess on the market rely so heavily on Murray for anything before 1900, that it makes them in effect Bowdlerized versions of Murray, with some additional material about post-1900 chess. Why not just go to the source?

Instead of one of those "general" but superficial chess histories, get Murray for your pre-1900 chess knowledge, and rely on competent modern writers (e.g., Edward Winter, Richard Forster, and a few others) for learning about the 20th century's chess. It might cost a bit more; but the competences, erudition, and seriousness of the authors is no comparison. Much better to get two Rolce-Royces than one Edsel...