Talk:Makruk

Spelling

I added the thai spelling of makruk. Really, I don't think the explaination of the tones is neccessary, it doesn't mean much to an english speaker, it should probably be deleted. The thai spelling should be sufficient. --203.143.208.34 02:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the part about the etymology of รุก (ruk). It’s doesn’t point to any reference and is in disagreement with the etymology in Wiktionary (via the entry for หมากรุก). Dr. G. von D. (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

King's move

I have removed "the king can move like a knight on the first move". This is not true. I will update the page with the names of the pieces in Thai (transliterated) and the equivalent of the chess 50-move rule at the weekend (these rules are quite complicated). MJA

Perhaps it should be mentioned in passing. The Chess in Cambodia link mentions that it and the Queen's leap are "old-fashioned rules". -- Nautilator 09 Jun 06

Counting Rules

I have updated the rules for moving pieces and added the 'counting rules'. To the best of my knowledge these rules are correct for tournament play in Thailand. There may be different variants currently played (e.g., in Cambodia). Do any Thai native speakers know the origin of khoon (โคน). I have been told by one speaker that it is an old word for elephant, but I haven't been able to confirm this. MJA

The count values seem to be correct, but according to ishipress.com/makrook.htm this page and Ancient Chess, the initial value you start counting from is the same as the number of pieces on the board, so I added that in. -- Nautilator 09 Jun 06

I've checked with the Southern Thailand Makruk champion over the weekend. The counting rules are now correct. Thanks for making the change. MJA

The Makruk description at chessvariants.com gives slightly different counting rules (in the comments, posted by someone with a Thai-sounding name). In fact the latter look more credible than what we write here. The Wikipedia text implies that KBNNQK would get 44 - 6 = 38 moves, (1 Bishop, no Rooks) and KNNQK would get 32 - 5 = 27 moves (2 Knights, no Rooks or Bishops). It makes no sense that having an extra Bishop would give you more moves. The chessvariats.org text claims that 2 Knights has priority over 1 Bishop, so that KBNNQK would be 32 - 6 = 26 moves. So it seems that the rules for a Knight pair and that for a single Bishop should be changed to:

Two Knights, no Rooks and at most one Bishop: 32 moves

One Bishop, no Rooks and at most one Knight: 44 moves

H.G.Muller (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Images?

I noticed that there's not a single image of the Cambodian varient on this page. I have a good image that would help the page visually, licensed under the creative commons non-commercial. The link is http://www.flickr.com/photos/ethancrowley/3350837635/. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.81.187.11 (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-commercial licenses are deprecated on Wikipedia, and only allowed in somewhat limited uses. AnonMoos (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant it's creative commons, share alike. No non commercial. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barang (talk • contribs) 04:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

On the last section.

I do not believe a "Mak Horse" section is needed, I want some editors to decide on whether to remove the section entirely or create a new section named "Thai Checkers" and move the poorly written section there. -Iamthenoob100 (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC) , September 9, 2015

Sut Ma

The sentence written for this alternative rule is not understandable: First, move the Pawn which is a Knight's move from the Knight forward; then move the Knight to the blank square the Knight has just vacated. Could you please revise it? I understand moving, for example, pawn a3 or c3 one square (to a4 or c4), then move the Knight (b1) to the square the PAWN has just vacated. Am I correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cazaux (talk • contribs) 18:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it is not understandable. I think it should be fixed as <"First, move forward one of the pawns which are defended by a knight; then move the knight to the blank square the pawn has just vacated.">. I feel like the whole "Variants" section needs some rework. --Little bishop (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

RTGS

Gryffindor, the RTGS uses word boundaries to determine the inclusion of spaces. Since หมากรุก is a compound word that appears in the dictionary, it would be makruk according to the RTGS. As this also appears to be the spelling used by most English sources, there doesn't seem to be any reason to use mak ruk. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Paul. Please check this version of the article, which was before my edits [1]. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the mistake was added back in 2012.[2] It's a mistake nontheless. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Well in that case it's been on there for six years now with no issue. Could you please add a source to your claim? What about this one Mak kep? Gryffindor (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Gryffindor, read WP:COMMONNAME and stop violating Wikipedia policy. If you persist in these out-of-process page moves I'm going to request administrator intervention. Quale (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The source is of course the official documentation of the RTGS itself, and the Royal Institute Dictionary. Do you have any sources for your claim, other than that no one's noticed the mistake before (which isn't a valid reason anyway)? --Paul_012 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add the source in the inline citation Paul. Merely claiming it is that way is not enough, especially since the separated RTGS version has been standing in the article for six years. Gryffindor (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Lao chess / Mak huk

How come there's a lack of information on any traditional chess variant of Laoland?

Here's the name in Lao: ໝາກຮຸກ, romanized: māk huk. --Apisite (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious about how popular ໝາກຮຸກ is in Laos, particularly compared to Western or Chinese chess. A Google search doesn't return many results.

Also, has ໝາກຮຸກ the same meaning as หมากรุก in Thai, where it means any chess game, while หมากรุกไทย (makruk thai) refers to this variant in particular? Dr. G. von D. (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Game origin

It would be nice to substantiate the claim about Persian traders introducing the game in Thailand. The comparison between how met and ferz move is not conclusive as chaturanga’s mantri moves the same way. Checking what Murray has to say, I don’t see anything pointing to that direction in Chapter VI. --Dr. G. von D. (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, Murray (Ch. VI, p. 108) reiterates his conviction the game came from India:

"I have already shown that the Burmese and Annamese [Cambodian?] names for their forms of chess both go back ultimately to the Skr. chaturanga, and thus point to the Indian ancestry of both games."

I assume he's referring to Ch. I, p. 27. He goes on to confirm makruk is the same as Annamese chess:

"Although the Siamese name for chess is of different origin, the names of the pieces show a closer connexion between Siamese and Annamese chess than between either of these games and Burmese chess."

To finally conclude:

"[...] but it seems most probable that chess, which has always been in attendance on great missionary movements, reached Further India with Buddhism, and spread over the peninsula with that religion." Dr. G. von D. (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I will add that the note about the khon's movement (Ch. VI, p. 108), when comparing sittuyin to makruk (emphasis mine):

"[...] (a) the fivefold move of the Elephant, which al-Bērūnī recorded as existing in India in his day, occurs in each game".

Remember that the pil/alfil from shatranj has never been documented to move that way.

All this certainly weakens the Persian origin hypothesis of makruk, especially since there's no evidence given for the latter. I plan on editing the article accordingly. Dr. G. von D. (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)