Abstract Games Issue 16 Winter 2003
|
|
|
|
 ablut is the best-documented representative
of a group generally referred to as Tafl games. Very little is definitely known about any Tafl game apart from Tablut,
and even in the case of Tablut what is known is under dispute. Tablut is a game of the Sami, nomadic reindeer herders
of northern Scandinavia and the Kola peninsula. It was first described by a non-Sami observer in 1732 when Carl von
Linne (Linnaeus) recorded the rules of play in his diary while on a botanical excursion in the mountains of Sweden.
Previous to this the most recent known record of a Tafl game is that of the Welsh game Tawlbrwdd, mentioned by
Robert ap Ifan in 1587. In ap Ifan and all earlier references knowledge of the game is assumed in the reader so
insufficient detail of the rules is given. How these games were played was purely a matter of conjecture until
1913 when Murray in his History of Chess tied Linnaeus' description of Tablut in with the earlier references.
However, while I acknowledge a connection between these games, the assumption that all Tafl games, including
Tablut, employed the same rules with only the size of board varying has no evidence to support it. My view is
that Tafl games other than Tablut can be considered to be lost.
Tafl games have four distinctive features: the playing boards are square in terms of number of cells (or in one
case points); the boards have symmetrical patterns of specially marked cells; the outer forces utilize twice
the number of pieces as do the inner; and the player conducting the inner forces has one extra piece, which
begins the game on the central cell/point.
The initial layout of pieces in Tablut is shown in Diagram 1. In line with written records of the Vikings the
central piece is normally called the King. There has been a tendency to call the outer forces "attackers" and the
inner "defenders," but as this is often at variance to the psychological and strategic approaches required by
actual play, I will use the terms Black and White. However, be aware that in all Tafl games other than Tablut
the inner forces were Black and the outer were White.
For the purposes of this article I will be using the rules of Tablut as it is played on the BrainKing at
www.brainking.com. The main reason is that these rules encompass and maintain the spirit of those in Linnaeus'
original description, but also BrainKing has plenty of keen players who are familiar with these rules, thus providing
a supply of experienced opponents for those wishing to explore the game in practice.
BrainKing is run by Filip Rachunek from Prague in the Czech Republic. Aside from providing a wide range of games
Filip aims for membership involvement. For example, paying members can define and manage tournaments, and various
members form a customer service corps. This gives the site a family feel.
The rules are very simple, all three types of piece can move along any adjoining orthogonal as far as desired, but
can neither capture nor pass obstructing pieces of any variety. An opponent's piece is captured when a player's
piece finishes its move such that it orthogonally sandwiches the opponent's piece between itself and another
friendly piece. For example, from Diagram 1 if White moves 1.d5d2 there is a threat to capture e2 next move
by 2.f5f2. Instead of defending this threat Black could opt to capture c5 by 1....d9d5 or d2 by 1....d9d3.
The King cannot take part in captures, while Black, in order to capture the King, must surround it on all four
sides. Black wins the game by capturing the King; White wins the game by moving the King to the perimeter of
the board. Naturally, also, if a player has no further move that player loses the game.
Once the King has left the central square no piece, including the King, may occupy that square, although any
piece may freely pass over it. As a consequence of this restriction, it is possible for Black to capture the
King by surrounding it on three sides if on the fourth side the adjacent square is the center.
Captures must be made actively, so, a piece may safely move to a square between two opposing pieces, and the
King may move from or across the central square to the adjacent square even if that square is surrounded by
Blacks on all three available sides.
As Tablut is a game of unequal forces it is natural that there should be a degree of bias in favor of one side
or the other. I do not see this as a problem. After all, Chess is considered to be a satisfactory game, yet
is heavily biased in White's favor. However, some investigators have taken the view that Tablut in the form
recorded by Linnaeus is excessively biased and have introduced various rules in an attempt to remedy this.
In fact, the bias is more apparent than real. If we compare the difference in performance with Black and
White displayed by those players at BrainKing with established ratings, we find a reduction in disparity with
an increase in rating. This suggests that the bias is caused by the relative ease with which play of the
conflicting sides can be conducted. This is to be expected as Black has twice as many pieces and normally
about twice as many available moves, so twice the likelihood of making a mistake. Further to this, Black
wins are usually longer than White wins, which means that Black must play precisely for longer than White must.
In the early part of the game, at least, Black is reacting to White's ideas and often needs to find obscure
and difficult moves to survive. My personal view is that in an ideally played game Black has the advantage,
but at my level White's practical advantage is enough to produce games that are difficult for both sides.
In fact at BrainKing a preference for playing Black is slightly more common than for White.
Tafl boards generally have certain specially marked squares. This has lead some observers to propose that
these squares are off limits and that they function for capturing pieces in the same manner as the central
square, but extended to all pieces not just the King. The main objection I have to the game in this form is
that the play becomes very localized, wasting the potential mobility of the pieces and limiting the strategic
and tactical possibilities. The idea to some extent depends on the assumption that Tafl games evolved from the
Roman game Ludus Latrunculorum, which has unmarked squares. However, there is no evidence for such an evolution,
and I am inclined to regard this as a conclusion based on laziness and preconception.
I am not saying that Tafl games other than Tablut did not include this concept, just that as it was not mentioned
by Linnaeus there is no reason to think it applied to Tablut. In fact, Linnaeus' Sami hosts presented him with
a board made of reindeer skin. The squares were unmarked except for those occupied at the game's outset, and
these were marked in three styles indicating which pieces begin the game on which squares. If we consider the
alternative possibility that Tafl games evolved from Tablut or a proto-Tablut of the Arctic-rim nomads, we need
no special explanation for the markings as they have not appeared as a later development. Suggestively, the
design represents a typical Sami cosmological motif of the Sun (King) reaching the Earth's four corners.
Tafl, pronounced "tabl," is taken to be a loan word from Latin, which is also mentioned in support of the
Roman connection. However, "tablut" is independently a Sami word, a verb meaning "to play board games," so
we could equally conjecture that the Vikings adopted the term "tafl" as a familiar compromise of Tablut.
There are many interesting questions left to be answered about Tablut. For example, Linnaeus records the
Sami calling the Black pieces Muscovites and the White Swedes yet, at the time of Ivan the Great's unification
of Russia under Moscow, Tafl games appear to have been extinct everywhere else but the Celtic stronghold of
Wales. Even more intriguing is the fact that the Black pieces had two heads. The two-headed eagle of Moscow
springs to mind, but again the timing seems wrong. Tablut is assumed to be extinct among the Sami, but as the
most recent mention of it as a living game dates from 1884, I still hope to be able to locate Sami members who
can clear up these questions. Although I am pursuing enquiries into these matters, all I can offer at the moment
is speculation, so I will draw a close to the general discussion and examine some aspects of play in four sample
games played at BrainKing.
Game 1
1.e4f4 (Although there are only seven available first moves for White they all break the symmetry and to some extent
define the strategic tone. White's choice here aims for a slow game.)
1....b5b3 (Black by contrast has 79 possible
replies. The move chosen also aims for a slow game; with 1....a4e4 Black could attempt to set a faster tempo. As
mentioned earlier, Black's wins tend to be longer than White's so as a general principle it might seem natural
for Black to aim for a longer game. On the other hand, a longer game means more possibility to go wrong. Also,
if White prefers a slow game there is something to be said for denying that preference.)
2.d5d6 b3c3 (A very
dubious move; it opens the b-line for no reason and generally pays no attention to White's plan.)
3.f5f8 e8b8,
4.e6h6 (White has achieved the shape aimed at, and it already looks as if Black will have problems trying to
defend the i9 sector.) 4....a4e4:e3 (diagram)
(Defending h5 would be to continue playing White's game. The move chosen attempts to involve the lower e-pieces
and c3 in the fight. It also presents White with the question of whether to continue with the original plan or
to change objective with f4h4:h5.)
5.e7e8 i6i7, 6.e5e7 (White elects for the original plan. As f4h4:h5 allows the
participation of f1, it does not fit with this idea.)
6....a6a7, 7.e7g7 (Here and on the next two moves White could
force a draw by e7b7 followed by a perpetual attack on the a-edge. This is the only point of dissatisfaction that
I have with these rules. A draw implies equality, but in Tablut only White can force the draw. As this is clearly
an inequality it needs to be dealt with. The two natural suggestions are that repeating loses for White or that,
rather than it being a draw, the game is replayed with reversed colors. The question for philosophers is: If the
rules of a game of skill allow no possibility of a draw does this imply that one side must have a forced win?)
7....f9g9, 8.f8i8 i7h7:h6, 9.f4f9 a7e7:e8 (Prevents the possibility of a draw and lets b8 into the fight.)
10.i8h8
(diagram)
(Attacks both g9 and h7 while threatening g7g8 leaving Black no defense to the threat h8h9:g9 and g8g9.)
10....b8g8, 11.f9f8:g8 (It looks better to capture h7 first: 11.d6h6:h7 i5i7, 12.f9f8:g8 e9f9, 13.h6i6 h5h7,
14.g5h5, and White's attack has succeeded. Notice how the success of this attack depends on Black having no
pieces on the 6-line.)
11....i5i8 (Black now has an extra piece for the defense and can meet 12.d6h6:h7 with
i4i7.)
12.d6d7 i4i6, 13.f8f7:e7 g9g8:h8, 14.g5f5 (Over the last few moves White has switched attention towards
the low letters, giving Black time to consolidate. After this move Black has the King surrounded on three sides.
Given the number of remaining pieces and their positions this should be decisive.)
14....i6g6, 15.f7f8 e4e7,
16.f5f7:e7 e2e7, 17.d7d6 e9e8:f8, 18.f7f2 e7f7 wins.
Game 2
1.e6h6 (Here White aims for a quick game. Black accepts the challenge and makes a quick-tempo reply. 1....i4h4
is probably the most solid.)
1....a6g6:h6, 2.e7g7:g6 e8e6 (This looks very loose but is in keeping with Black's
fast strategy. 2....f9f7 is an appealing alternative if Black does not mind allowing White the opportunity to draw.)
3.d5d6 d1d5:c5, 4.f5f6:e6 e9e6 (Already we have a knife-edged position. If it were Black to play, d9d7:d6 would
consolidate the grip on d5 and e6, making things very difficult for White.) 5.e5f5 f9f7 (diagram)
(Black creates another target, letting White conduct attacks in three directions simultaneously.
Instead 5....d9d7:d6, 6.f6h6 f9f6, 7.e4h4:h5 would restrict the fighting to the high letters.)
6.e4d4:d5 b5d5,
7.d6d7 i6g6:f6, 8.d7d6:d5 a5d5, 9.d6d7 (The double attacks by this piece give Black no time effectively to
bring in any other pieces, so it would have been better to capture it on move 5 when there was a chance.)
9....e1c1, 10.d7e7:f7 e6f6, 11.e3e6 (diagram)
(By clearing the 3-line White gains time to add another piece to the attack. Black can no longer defend against
the combined attacks on the low letters and numbers.) 11....f1f4, 12.e6d6:d5 c1c5, 13.d4c4 e2d2, 14.f5d5 a4a5,
15.d5d3 wins.
Game 3
1.c5c8 b5c5 (An interesting and double-edged move. Black immediately sets about directly restraining the King
by a central rather than a peripheral strategy. On the negative side, it makes contact, and the piece is
unsupported, making it an easy object of attack.) 2.e6c6 a4c4, 3.d5d2 (White opens a new front of battle.
On this occasion it might be better, at least for the moment, to further pursue the existing attack. e7b7
is attractive, although getting the balance right is difficult. From the technical stance e7b7 has two
positive points: it continues the attack, and it further opens the King's front. But it also has two negatives:
it blocks the b-line, and it frees Black's upper e-pieces. Nevertheless, it looks promising, and for example
3.e7b7 a6b6, 4.e5e7 f9f7, 5.e7c7 maintains various threats.) 3....i6e6:e7, 4.f5f2:e2 a5a3 (The position is
already difficult. If instead Black comes in with the capture of g5 by f9f5:g5, White will get a very strong
attack: e.g., 4....f9f5:g5, 5.e5d5 d9d7, 6.d5d3 c4c3, 7.e4c4:c5 a5c5:c4, 8.e3e4 f5f3:f2, 9.e4c4:c5.)
5.e5f5 (diagram)
5....f9f6 (A subtle but significant mistake. f9f7 is much better as it closes the 7-line and does not
interfere with the mobility of e6. As White cannot achieve anything with f5f6 Black had no need to come right in.)
6.f5f3 h5h3 (As it gives White more chance to advantageously open the g-line at some point this move might look
suspect, but i4i3 would give White the chance to step up the attack on the lines of 7.f3h3 f1h1, 8.e4i4 h1h2,
9.h3f3, with winning threats.) 7.f2h2 i4g4, 8.f3g3 f1g1, 9.e3f3 e1f1, 10.g3g2 g4g3 (diagram)
(White has been trying hard to keep up the threats in the face of Black's persistent defense, but now Black
loses patience and makes the decisive mistake. Superficially, the following exchange looks good for Black
as White's king is further surrounded and one of the closest defenders is removed, but it overlooks the consequences
of White's twelfth move. It is difficult to say what would be best, after the natural sequence 10....f6g6:g5,
11.g2e2 f1e1, 12.h2h1 i5i2, 13.f3f1:g1. White still has threats. Notice the f-line is open at the end of this
variation. Had Black chosen 5....f9f7, then 10....e6g6:g5 would have been possible, keeping both the f-line and
the 7-line closed, considerably reducing White's chances of escape.) 11.e4h4:h3 a3e3:f3, 12.h2i2 g3h3, 13.g2h2 wins.
Game 4
1.e6d6 i6e6:e7 (As in Game 1 White adopts a deliberate approach, but on this occasion Black responds by trying
to switch to a fast game.) 2.f5f6:e6 f9f7, 3.e3f3 a6c6, 4.d6d7 (White's previous move not only defended the
threat of a double capture by f1f5, but by strengthening White's position on the f-line prepared an attack on
the low numbered pieces. d5d2 would therefore have been the consistent continuation here. White needs to
react to the fast tempo set by Black and fight back.) 4....a4c4:c5, 5.g5g7 h5f5:f6, 6.d7e7:f7 c6e6:e7, 7.g7g6
(diagram)
(The game has reaches its crisis. As Black has moved in so quickly there are lots of open lines left beyond
the two blockading pieces. White can set up several attacks.) 7....d9d7, 8.e4f4 e2e4, 9.g6f6:f5 i5f5,
10.f4g4 d7f7:f6, 11.g4g6 f7g7 (diagram)
(Black has managed to set up a three-point surround and White has insufficient pieces to challenge it. The
finish is fairly straightforward.) 12.g6g2 d1d3, 13.g2c2 e9d9, 14.c2c3 b5b3:c3, 15.f3h3 d9d6 wins.
It can be seen that Tablut games tend to be of fairly short duration, as might be expected of a game
with unequal forces, but because of the size of the board and mobility of the pieces games quickly take
on their individual character and present their own particular problems. If there are any readers who
prefer an alternative interpretation of the rules, I would be interested in
their experiences.
|
|
|
