3. It is said that the chess game currently used was made by Niu Sengru in the Tang Dynasty. . Thirty-two chess pieces are carved from logs, teeth, and bones, half each for red and black. The red side has two commanders, two prime ministers, two cannons, and five soldiers. There are two chess pieces each, two elephants, two rooks, two horses, and five pawns. During the chess game, the two sides take turns to play chess, and the victory is determined by "checkmate" or "killing" the opponent's general (coach). Influenced by the Zhou Dynasty, the basic army organization "corps" was composed of 5 infantrymen, and the combat weapons were also composed of 5 types of bows, spears, spears, and halberds. This is the chess formation with 5 pawns on each side. Reason.
According to ancient cultural relics and documents, Chaturanka developed into Shatlands during the reign of Boskusilao I, was introduced to China via the Silk Road and became the Northern Zhou Xiang Opera, and became Baoying Xiangqi in the Tang Dynasty. , which was finally transformed into Chinese chess by the Chinese in the Song Dynasty. Some Soviet scholars published an article trying to refute the Indian origin theory. In 1972, the Yugoslav historian Bijiv concluded that chess first appeared in China in 569 AD. (Xiang Opera), and then gradually spread. But it was later proven that Bijiv’s theory was wrong, because the earliest chess game Chaturanga was recorded in Indian documents and unearthed objects three centuries ago. It was introduced to China during the Wei and Huang Dynasties of the Three Kingdoms. The form of chess is still dominated by Indian origins.
Go and Chinese culture
As the saying goes: A small world of chess, a big world.
In the Chinese chess world,
the most profound influences are Go and Xiangqi, which are typical Chinese cultures. Phenomenon, they use chessboards and chess pieces to form a microcosm of traditional Chinese society. The similarity is that the chessboards are criss-crossed and arranged in a grid; the chess pieces are of different colors and form two sides to fight against each other. Difference.
Let’s talk about Go first. Except for the black and white pieces, all the pieces have no difference in function. There is no difference in size or division of labor. They have the same performance and equal status. They win. The negative sign is the territory occupied, and there must be at least two "qi eyes".
The "qi eyes" refer to empty eyes, which means the space for activities, and the opponent is not allowed to invade, symbolizing the ancient Chinese city. It embodies an idea: if you want to survive and develop, you must have a territory, which is called a base area in today's popular language; and to have a base area, you must have room for maneuver. This is exactly the same as the way of thinking in my country's traditional agricultural society: want. To keep the territory, it is necessary to unite the territory; if you want to keep the territory, you must have a city as a support.
The isolated chess piece "person" is weak and has limited effect, so it is easy to be destroyed. Although the chess pieces have many "people" and are powerful, if they don't have a strong eye, they will never survive. Individual chess pieces are alone and insignificant, but together they are invincible and unstoppable. From the perspective of social development, in previous products, the power of groups is greater than that of individuals, and individuals unite to create power. If you occupy space, you will win, which reflects the early pursuit of goals and more egalitarian values ??of mankind.
This is not the case with chess. It divides chess pieces into 7 types: generals (commanders), soldiers (officials), elephants (lookers), horses, chariots, cannons, and soldiers (pawns). They have different functions, ranging from high to low. The victory or defeat depends only on the survival of the general. As long as the general is still alive, even if the entire army is annihilated, it is not considered a defeat; if the general encounters an unexpected event (is checkmate), even if he does not lose a son, it is still considered a failure. The other pieces also have different statuses and values ??due to different functions. Chariots can run rampant and be invincible; horses can leap forward and attack, galloping freely; cannons can use space to show off their power with ferocious firepower; soldiers and elephants follow every step, only advancing but not retreating. This leads to the great disparity in status among the disciples and their inability to be equal.
In terms of ability and lethality, the general is the most incompetent person in serving. Not only is it slow in movement and poor in lethality, and it cannot cross the lone city even half a step, but it requires all the chess pieces to defend it to the death, and even kill them all, no matter what. The rest of the pieces are also hierarchical, with distinctions between high and low; the rook is the most precious treasure in chess, and should never be abandoned, unless you are the supreme leader. The status of horses and cannons is roughly equal. At the beginning, cannons seem to be slightly better than horses, but in the endgame, horses are much better than cannons. The most tragic thing is the soldiers. They are numerous, so they are abandoned; their abilities are limited, so they are ineffective; they can only move forward, not retreat, so their prospects are bleak and their endings are tragic. Even if the chess piece is not killed or deliberately fed, or is sacrificed to protect other chess pieces (such as "losing the pawn to save the rook", etc.), it will become an "old pawn" when it reaches the bottom, which is almost useless. This is the most vivid and concentrated embodiment of hierarchical society, and it is the model and epitome of Chinese feudal society.
In this game with strict levels and cruel competition, the fate of each chess piece is different due to its artificially prescribed functions and functions. The rook is so beautiful, sweeping thousands of rooks, it is like entering a deserted land; or being killed by the opponent is like cutting the flesh and cramping, and the pain is extremely painful. In order to save his life, he will sacrifice many other chess pieces. Horses and artillery are considered worthy of their lives. They fight hard and serve on the battlefield. It is sad to throw them away. The most miserable people are the soldiers. They charge forward, are beaten by cannons, and trampled by horses. They often die in the middle of the battle, and they are in mourning before they even start. Even if the stars are shining, they are extremely lucky, they strive for self-improvement, and in the end they become useless. Generally speaking, crabs crawl on the bottom line, which is really sad and pitiful. This is a true portrayal of the lower class people in traditional society and a vivid manifestation of the Chinese traditional cultural system's contempt for the common people.
In contrast, although there are some pawns in chess, their abilities are greater than those in Chinese chess. Once they reach the bottom line, they will transform into the "rear" and have boundless power, giving the lower class people a Comfort and hope. Thinking of the tragic fate of Chinese prisoners of war after returning home and the crowds of flowers and flowers when Western prisoners of war returned home, the difference in philosophy between the two cultures is self-evident.
In terms of production time, Go must be earlier than Xiangqi. "Natural History" says: "Yao invented Go, and Danzhu was good at chess." Although it is not credible, there should be no objection that it originated before the formation of a strict hierarchical system. Its conception and design in which all children are equal and have the same opportunities is a concrete embodiment of the "people-oriented thinking" in Chinese pre-Qin culture. The rigid concept that the chess pieces are innate and cannot change their status differences and that they will sacrifice their lives to protect the commander-in-chief is the best interpretation of the autocratic system after the Qin Dynasty. With the "Chu River and Han Boundaries" as evidence, Its birth date and horoscope can probably be determined.
As far as players of the game are concerned, those who apply for a patent in Go have great subjective initiative and strong autonomy. It does not need to take great pains to preserve the commander-in-chief that has been set in advance. It only needs to make judgments based on the overall situation. The chess player is really miserable, having to endure the pain of breaking his horse, losing his cannon, and even losing his chariot just for the safety of the incompetent commander. Putting one person's survival above the safety of the group, and even requiring the player to be an outsider, this kind of game rule is the epitome of China's traditional social structure and rules, and is a reflection of typical Chinese authoritarian thinking.
From the perspective of game rules, the two are exactly the opposite. Go uses addition. At the beginning, there was no one, so lonely. As both sides make moves, there are more and more chess pieces, and eventually they are often crowded and there is almost no place to stay. Chess uses subtraction. At the beginning, the battle formation was strict and the soldiers were complete. As the two sides fought, the number of chess pieces became fewer and fewer. By the end of the game, all the pieces were withered and it was a mess. In the end, even the bare commander was left, trapped in the old city. There are really two feelings and two artistic conceptions.
The layout of chess is intuitive and fixed, and the situation is clear at a glance, so it is relatively easy to understand for beginners. There are many players who play chess, so there are many bad hands. Go is difficult to fathom, profound and unpredictable, calm as water on the surface, but suddenly murderous. Therefore, only those with higher IQs should not do it, otherwise it will only be humiliating and no fun at all.
In short, Go and Xiangqi reflect two different ways of thinking and values ??formed at different levels and stages in Chinese culture. The existence of Go shows that at least there is still a spirit of dissent and equality in the Chinese cultural system. The concept of chess shows the collective concept of ancestors who sacrificed their lives to save the country at all costs and the spirit of sacrifice. These two spirits and concepts complement each other and jointly support the spiritual building of the Chinese nation. Go and chess are the crystallization of these two spirits and concepts.