"Farm Chess" - assembled in pieces

The Scottish king came,
Ruthless to enemies
He drove the poor Picts
To the rocky shores.

Robert Lewis Stevenson " Heather Honey "

The best way to forget something is to put it in a prominent place. This also applies to board games - contemporaries do not bother to describe the rules, believing that it is foolish to spend time writing down what is already known to everyone. It takes some hundred years and the game is hopelessly lost. Ljubo , Petteya , Latrunkuli - all these games are not forgotten because they were unloved. On the contrary - they were played so enthusiastically that they did not bother to save for posterity!
')
We were very lucky that Karl Linney was interested, including board games. Otherwise, Hnefatafl would have joined the sad list of the now lost games. But, even in such happy cases, too many important details of the rules are lost. Something is forgotten to be written down, a part is lost when translating from one language to another. Reenactors are trying to recreate the rules, but the results of their labors are rarely successful. About one of the "partially" forgotten games and will be discussed today.

Gala (or "Farm Chess") is known to us, thanks to the works of the famous board game researcher Robert Bell . Like Ritmomachia , it was common in medieval Germany, but, unlike the latter, not among the intellectual elite, but among ordinary people. Like Ritmomachia, Gala is not directly related to Chess , being a completely independent game with very original rules.

I must say that, before the start of the search, I knew about Gala, but somehow superficially. In-depth study of the subject led to new issues. I started the search, of course, from Wikipedia , but after a brief reading, I began to realize that the game described there is not very believable. With the exception of the excessive brevity of the article, it was alarming the statement that “taking” figures could be “in the middle zone”. The figures, in this interpretation, are almost useless! With regard to the “long” move of the pawn, an obviously erroneous statement was also indicated ( Pawns can make the first move by 2 squares, but in order not to go into the middle zone ). The original source opened the covers over these riddles:

• Kings can only take when moving over a deflection line.
• Rooks can only take in moves where they move over a deflection line.
• Where do you go in the rookwise fashion.

The phrases were still vague, but, obviously, they had nothing to do with “taking in the middle zone”. In addition, it was clearly said that crossing the “line of refraction”, the figures continue to move, changing only its direction . It is also possible to combine these moves in one turn ). The Russian version completely ignored this important point. The pawns ambiguity has been fully clarified: ( i )


There was still some “gag” in the text: I decided to refer to another authoritative source . The description on this resource is repeated almost literally, of course, except for the ridiculous assumption that the figures are able to cross the "line of refraction" twice per turn. Figures capable of this would have turned out too strong for the game to remain interesting.

The unusual restraint on taking ( Kornas can only take in moves where they move over a deflection line ) is also caused, most likely, by the desire to weaken the initially strong figures. The figures in Gala - weapons only ranged! In order to take the opponent's piece, they must “cross the line” under their own power (and cannot do this twice in a turn). Within the limits of "their home" they are completely powerless! Their task is to carry out "cavalry attacks" from the middle zone to the houses (their own and the enemy), as well as attack the figures in the middle zone, from the territory of the "houses". The rider (Horsa) moving inside the houses diagonally has an additional limitation. Even "crossing the line" he cannot take the opponent's figure, moving only one field orthogonal (such a move is possible only when entering the "house").

Royal figures (Gala), these restrictions also apply. They can beat the enemy only by crossing the borders of houses, but, unlike the heavy pieces (Horsa and Korna), they can only walk on one field in any direction (like a king in chess). Such rules make them virtually defenseless. There is, however, an original move in their arsenal that allows you to escape to almost any place on the board. of those squares that contain a piece in the opening setup ), but initially, with him, too, everything was not clear.

Each player had a pair of royal pieces and lost, losing both (). At the same time (and this moment was incomprehensible), the loss of only one of the kings by each of the players led to a draw ( the game is a draw ). Being on one of the four central fields of the board, the king could jump briskly for the most part of the board, but without the possibility of fighting the pieces. From the description on chessvariants.org it was completely unclear why the king in general might need to move to the center of the board, if, staying in his house, he was in no less security?


A mean phrase on boardgamegeek.com gave a hint of possible motives: ( another goal in the middle of the board ). The details of the puzzle immediately formed! The main goal of the game was to move two royal pieces to the center of the board. Losing one of the kings, the player could not achieve his goal, but could interfere with the victory of the enemy, taking one of his kings. Losing two kings, the player suffered a complete defeat.

At the same time, the royal figures had a powerful incentive to reach the center of the board. Having entered the center, one king could expect another there, but if he himself was threatened with something, he could “jump back” to a safe place to start from the beginning. It's funny that the pawn (Kampa) turned out to be the strongest melee piece. After crossing the border of her house, she began to move like a king and had the opportunity to take pieces of the enemy, including inside his houses.


There was another source that added color to the description of the game. Initially, there was little confidence in him, since the description began with an erroneous arrangement of figures: ( Each player has the following: Two galas, four Kornas , six ) other sources: “ If you’ve been moving, you’ll be able to move around.” ).


In order to move (and take figures) in a strange house freely, a heavy figure, previously, had to come close to it, possibly getting under the blow of figures in the house. I found this idea interesting, but the remaining parts of the description looked strange: ( Kampa can not be taken ). It was a little like: ( Pawns only couldn’t have to go to the deflection line ).

Already completing the development of the game , I continued to look for confirmation of their assumptions. Searches ended in an unexpected place . Mats Winter , one of the most famous application developers for ZoG, has already published the game back in 2005. In addition to everything described above (it is pleasant that I was not mistaken in anything), he made several assumptions into the game:

• The course of heavy pieces is made composite (possibly in order not to break the animation of their movement in ZoG)
• There are no restrictions on taking (except in the case of a Horsa move per square orthogonal)
• Riders (Horsa), on the first turn, are allowed to move only one square (although I don’t know why!)
• The center of the board is declared a “sacred place”, only Gala and Kampa can stop on it (the latter only if one is in the center of one of the opponent’s pieces), the royal pieces being in the center cannot eat other pieces, heavy pieces can only pass through the center without dwelling on it
• Warriors (Kampa) are forbidden to take figures crossing the "line of refraction", the rules of the course from the border fields of "home" look strange and inconsistent

Explaining his own version of the rules, the author writes the following:

Personally, I’m like to see that there’s a significant similarity between the Gala game and the Viking game. It is a kinship with the games of the Viking age, even if it probably appeared later. Gala has the central square, as it is in Tablut (Hnefatafl), where you can enter. Like in Tablut, it is enough for a win. It has no leaping, unlike chess and shatranj, which have both knight and alfil (elephant). Moreover, Hnefatafl and Tablut boards also often have that fourfold partition, ie, a cross. In Tablut and Hnefatafl certain squares modify the capturing capability of the pieces. This is so also in Gala, but unknown in traditional chess. Close to the former Viking country.

In my opinion, the analogy is dubious. There is no information about the impact of the Tafl family games on “Farm Chess”. Yes, in these games, "ordinary figures" are forbidden to enter the central field (the "royal throne"), but they are also forbidden to pass through it! In Mats' Farm Chess, this is not forbidden (otherwise, moving heavy pieces would be extremely difficult). A rejection of the demand for crossing the line when taking is also looking doubtful. The figures become too strong and the game turns into a mutual slaughter.

Since the rules of my implementation of Gala differ significantly from the version of Mats, I sent it for publication in ZoG. In the near future, I plan to make adjustments to the Russian-language version of the article on Wikipedia (the disgrace that is there now can not be left).

Which of us is right? I do not know. Nobody knows.