Talk:Lewis chessmen

The berzerk rook

As the photo I added doesn't show a berzerk rook (just the usual anxious-looking ones) here's a link to a photo in the British Museum's collection, showing him (he's the toothy guy on the right) [1]. Hmm, we curously don't seem to have an article either on berzerk (not the video game) or berzerker. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:15, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We have an article on berserker (Viking), though. Marnanel 14:19, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"So-called ..."

Reverted to original version. Anyone who reads the article past the first sentence will see why they received the designation "Lewis Chessmen'. The article goes on to describe where they were found. The added text was moreover inserted at the wrong place in the first sentence, almost making it sound as if all the surviving sets were found on the Isle of Lewis! Eilthireach 18:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's true, but... many people don't really want to read past the first paragraph. Although not perfectly worded, the edit was well founded in suggesting that the lead paragraph could be better in summarising the key points of the article. See for example Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Lead_section. -- Solipsist 19:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Have inserted slight explication -- will be interested to see how long it lasts until reversion by the cabal -- Simon Cursitor 08:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

reproduction

Should it be mentioned that reproductions of these pieces are available, or not, since that is a commercial site? Bubba73 (talk), 16:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

inconsistencies

In the third paragraph, it states that "The 93 pieces form parts of..." and then states how many of each type but they don't add up to 93. In addition, 19 pawns is not enough for two complete sets: each side has 8 pawns initially in the modern game.

Agreed. The numbers seem to be simply copied from http://history.chess.free.fr/lewis.htm with no regard to their accuracy, nor a citation. The "93" number comes from including the checker/disc pieces and the belt buckle mentioned on that site: "They are 93 pieces forming parts of four or five sets, two complete. 82 are in the British Museum in London and 11 are in the National Museums of Scotland in Edinburgh. They are 8 Kings, 8 Queens, 16 Bishops, 15 Knights, 12 Warders (Rooks) and 19 Pawns. In addition, they are 14 plain disks for Tabula game (Backgammon ancestor) and 1 belt-buckle." If someone has an authoritative source for these it should be updated. Tofof 11:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I fixed this. Ecphora (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As of 2019 = 1 warder. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Chessmaster

I deleted this sentence:

A 3D computer simulation of chess with the Isle of Lewis chessmen can be played in the 10th edition of the chess software Chessmaster.

And replaced it with this:

The Isle of Lewis chessmen are one of the optional themed chess piece designs available for use in the more recent editions of the computer chess series Chessmaster.

The reason for this is that I own Chessmaster 9000, which also features the Lewis chessmen, so I know they were available before 10th Edition. I wrote "the more recent editions" instead of saying they became available starting with 9000, though, because 9000 is the first Chessmaster I've owned and I have no idea when the series began using the Lewis chessmen.

Numbers

The numbers for the different types of pieces add up to 78, i think it was, but anyway not 93. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed this.Ecphora (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Under "Controversy" is still written "while the other 82 remain in the British Museum in London". But the total number is 78 isn't it? --Thomas Wozniak (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That includes the 14 tablemen and apparently the belt buckle; I have clarified it. Ecphora (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit needs checking

This anon edit needs to be checked. 24.177.121.141 (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

reverted. Rod is right. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Chess" pieces?

Since these pieces predate the modern rules of chess, would they be more accurately described as "shatranj" pieces? --GCarty (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is no chessboard associated with the discovery, could the items actually be fortune telling devices or talismans? Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a possibility. But several books with chess history think that they are chess pieces. Also they seem to correspond to chess pieces, both in type and relative number. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Medieval chess boards?

Are there also any know medieval chess boards that have survived? If so, and if there are Wikipedia articles on one or more of them, it might make sense to link them from this article. Thank you. -- 217.190.216.15 (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Cloisters Exhibition

They're currently in NYC (well, a selection of them is) and the curatorship and display cases are magnificent. I'm wondering if some reference to their travels is appropriate.96.237.240.126 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, add a couple of lines to the end of the lead, with dates. After the close it should go down to a lower section. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

a complete set? 2 sets? no complete sets?

The lede says "they may constitute some of the few complete, surviving medieval chess sets, although it is not clear if a set as originally made can be assembled from the pieces." I guess to me that would read more clearly as something like "They may constitute some of the few ... sets, although this is not clear". And then the talk page in the 'inconsistencies' section has a citation which says they form 2 complete sets. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This is an old comment - I just happened to be given a reproduction of the set and read this article - yes, the lede is still odd - can a chess set be made from what was fond - I think not actually, but would need to take the effort to research it - it currently reades "they may constitute some of the few complete, surviving medieval chess sets, although it is not clear if a period-accurate set can be assembled from the pieces. When found, the hoard contained 93 artifacts: 78 chess pieces, 14 tablemen and one belt buckle. Today, 82 pieces are owned and usually exhibited by the British Museum in London, and the remaining 11 are at the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh. Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 20:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

does this relate?

regards gangLeri ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 10:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

how many pieces?

the current page says there are 67+11 pieces [11 in Edinburgh], but the British Museum website says there are 82+11 pieces. One of the earlier posts on the talk page refers to 93 pieces, so I guess somebody has changed the numbers. Does the British Museum actually lie? 163.1.88.5 (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC) don knuth [stanford], typing this from borrowed computer while in the UK 163.1.88.5 (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The difference lies in the 14 non-chess gaming pieces, plus a "buckle" for the bag seems to be counted in. so 67+14+1 = 82 in BM, + 11 in MoS = 93. Amended the article. Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Margret the Adroit

The abovementioned recently created article about a 13th century Icelandic artists includes a claim that she is the creator of these pieces, but this article does not mention it - it only refers to a general claim of an Icelandic origin. Should this more specific claim be added to this article? In any case I believe at least a "See also" link to the Margret the Adroit article should be added. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

rules

Since the modern chess rules did not exist yet and also other rules varied, is it known (approximately) what rules these pieces were played with? --2A03:1B20:3:F011:0:0:0:9D (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a good question. If we can find a reliable source relating specifically to the Lewis chessman that describes the rules of the game when the pieces were made we can add it to this article. See Rules_of_chess#History for a brief description how the rules of chess have changed. Quale (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The chess rules at the time would probably have been pretty recognizable, with the exception that the queen would not yet have had both unlimited rook and bishop movement powers (that piece might not have even been usually called "queen")... AnonMoos (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Another piece found

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-48494885 92.3.51.249 (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Museum Nan Eilean

The museum has been open for some time, and has some of the chessmen on permanent display (long-term loan from the British Museum).

The main page should really be updated to reflect this - it still talks about the project in the future tense.

https://www.cne-siar.gov.uk/leisure-sport-and-culture/museum-nan-eilean/museum-nan-eilean-stornoway/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samdeane (talk • contribs) 12:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Rooks

Hello,

Back when the Lewis chessmen were made, they used the Old Norse word hrókr for that piece, which meant a hero or warrior. That's why the rooks among the Lewis chessmen, and other medieval Scandinavian rooks, are depicted the way they are. When they are figurative they are warriors. When chess came to Europe, Old Norse was the only European language that had a word similar to rook and actually meant something that gave a meaning in a war game like chess. It wasn't before the 17th century they started to import alternative terms from Central Europe, like tower instead of rook and runner instead of bishop. I know that many refer to the rooks among the Lewis chessmen as warders. They never were. People just use the term Madden invented for these pieces, as he thought they looked like warders. We write an encyclopedia and shouldn't spread this misconception by just copying what Sotheby's and others have copied. Please, just write that the newly discovered piece is a rook. That would be a neutral term, and actually more correct. Alternatively we have to write warrior, but not warder. I suggest just rook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hastein (talk • contribs) 22:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Copied from another article

Thincat (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Warder Piece Current Ownership

The Warder Chesspiece that was sold on auction by Sotheby's in 2019 [2], has emerged in the Neue Galerie special exhibit on Ronald Lauder's Private Collection [3], which confirms current ownership of this particular piece. NeverBeGameOver (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)