To: Multiple recipients of list WELSH-L In-Reply-To: <199404131930.MAA02484@uclink.berkeley.edu> No, nobody blinked and missed them. I was waiting for the author to provide me with ascii graphics for them and when he didn't it had to wait until I had time (hah!). So when I was moping around the house, miserable with the flu, yesterday I got around to it. For those who are interested, I highly recommend looking up the article by Lewis, cited below, from which much of the practical information was drawn. Heather Rose Jones ____________________________________________________ [excerpted from "A Brief Look at Some Welsh Games" by Earl P. Jones, appearing in _Y_Camamseriad_ vol.2 (1993) copyright c 1993 Early P. Jones, all rights reserved posted by express permission of the author] Gwyddbwyll is mentioned in the Mabinogion (more precisely, in three of the tales sometimes included with the four branches of the Mabinogion: the Dream of Macsen Wledig, the Dream of Rhonabwy and Peredur Son of Efrawg.[1]) From these references we learn only that gwyddbwyll is a game played with men on a board (typically in the stories the board is silver and the men gold.) In modern Welsh the term gwyddbwyll is used to refer to chess,[2] but it seems well- accepted that chess is not the game referred to in the stories (for one thing, there is no evidence that chess was known in Wales at the time the stories are set in.) Several sources (though not all independently) identify gwyddbwyll with the Irish fidchell, translated literally as "wood-sense", but the only hint towards more information regarding the latter is a reference by Bromwich[3] to E. Mac White's article "Early Irish Board-Games" (_~igse: A Journal of Irish Studies_, V, pp.25ff, which I have not yet seen). There is some speculation that gwyddbwyll and towlbwrdd may be related if not identical, but that opinion is difficult to reconcile with the playing of them constituting two separate supreme feats. [This is a reference to an omitted part of the original article; Earl prefers to be overly cautious and treat gwyddbwyll and towlbwrdd as separate games -- I think there is good reason to belive they are the same. -Heather Rose Jones] Concerning towlbwrdd there is actually some firm information which admits a possible identification with better-known games. The _Law of Hywel Dda_ specifies the value of a towlbwrdd which shall be provided to various members of a king's court (and which they may neither sell nor give away) as well as the value of the king's towlbwrdd; the latter "is worth six score pence, and that is shared thus: sixty pence for the white forces, and ... thirty pence for the king, and ... three pence and three farthings for every man".[4] These totals imply that towlbwrdd is played with a king and eight men against sixteen men. Immediately we see that this version of towlbwrdd cannot possibly be chess, though there is apparently some later confusion of the games as with gwyddbwyll. (Possibly later translators identified every board game with chess.) Lewis cites a manuscript written in 1587 by Robert ap Ifan[5] which provides a sketch of the towlbwrdd board (similar to a chessboard but having 11x11 squares) and a description of the setup and play which is, unfortunately, inconsistent with the previous information in that it places a king and twelve men against twenty-four men (though at least it is consistent in balancing the king against half of the opposing men.) The setup calls for the king to be placed in the center of the board with his own men in the squares nearest to him and the opposing men in the middle of each side, an ambiguous description at best. As best I can determine from an incomplete translation, the description of play states that a man caught between two opposing men is removed from the game, that the king is taken if he cannot move at all, and that the king wins if he reaches the border. Lewis gives two possible starting arrangements, but neither places the king's men on what I would consider the squares closest to the king; I have illustrated these (figures 1 & 2) as well as my own hypothesis regarding the meaning (figure 3). 0 = attacking man X = defending man # = king Figure 1 (Lewis) _____________________ |_|_|_|_|0|0|0|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|0|0|0|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_|X|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_|X|_|_|_|_|_| |0|0|_|_|_|X|_|_|_|0|0| |0|0|X|X|X|#|X|X|X|0|0| |0|0|_|_|_|X|_|_|_|0|0| |_|_|_|_|_|X|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_|X|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|0|0|0|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|0|0|0|_|_|_|_| Figure 2 (Lewis) _____________________ |_|_|_|0|0|0|0|0|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_|0|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_|X|_|_|_|_|_| |0|_|_|_|_|X|_|_|_|_|0| |0|_|_|_|_|X|_|_|_|_|0| |0|0|X|X|X|#|X|X|X|0|0| |0|0|_|_|_|X|_|_|_|0|0| |_|_|_|_|_|X|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_|X|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_|0|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|0|0|0|0|0|_|_|_| Figure 3 _____________________ |_|_|_|0|0|0|0|0|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_|0|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_| |0|_|_|_|_|X|_|_|_|_|0| |0|_|_|_|X|X|X|_|_|_|0| |0|0|_|X|X|#|X|X|_|0|0| |0|0|_|_|X|X|X|_|_|0|0| |_|_|_|_|_|X|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_|0|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|0|0|0|0|0|_|_|_| Taking the pieces as described in the _Law of Hywel Dda_ and the method of play described by Robert ap Ifan now yields a game with a strong similarity to the game of tablut described by Lewis,[6] quoting H. J. R. Murray's _History of Chess_ with references to the writings of Linnaeus in 1732. This game is played on a 9x9 board with the pieces set up as shown below (figure 4), Figure 4 _________________ |_|_|_|0|0|0|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|0|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|X|_|_|_|_| |0|_|_|_|X|_|_|_|0| |0|0|X|X|#|X|X|0|0| |0|_|_|_|X|_|_|_|0| |_|_|_|_|X|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|0|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|0|0|0|_|_|_| or alternatively can be played on a standard chessboard by using the lines between the squares for play rather than the squares themselves. The rules described for this game are as follows: All pieces move like the rook in chess, i.e. in straight lines vertically or horizontally without jumping any intervening pieces. Captures are not made as in chess, so the square moved to must also be vacant. Only the king may occupy the center square (but there is no statement that other men may not cross over the center square if it is vacant.) Play is by alternate moves (but there is no mention of who has the first move.) A man other than the king is captured and removed from the board when two of the opponent's men occupy adjacent squares in a straight line with it, i.e. if it is sandwiched between two opposing men. Due to the ambiguity of the term "men" it is not clear whether the king can participate in captures. It is also not specified whether a man can be moved into a square between two of the opponent's men without being captured. The player with the king wins if the king reaches any edge square. The other player wins by "confin[ing] him so that he has no power of moving." The ambiguity of the term "him" makes it unclear whether it is only the king which must be confined or whether the player must have no legal move with any piece. If the former, then presumably the king must be enclosed by four of the opponent's men occupying the adjacent squares, since the king is enclosed by his own men at the start of the game. It seems likely to me that the Welsh game of towlbwrdd was at least similar to tablut and may have been played in several variants with different numbers of men (Lewis also cites the Game of the Gospel, which has a king and 24 men against 48 men on a 19x19 board and may also be played in a similar way.[7]) While I have not tested the hypothesis yet, I suspect that the game is more equal if the ambiguities above are resolved against the player with the king, i.e. he moves second, the king cannot participate in captures, and only the king must be enclosed for the other player to win. If anyone cares to keep records of large numbers of games played by certain variants of these rules, I would like to see the data; if enough is collected it will give me a better idea of which rules make for the fairest game. Enough talk already. Go out and play a few games! BIBLIOGRAPHY Bromwich, Rachel, Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Welsh Triads, University of Wales Press, Cardiff, 1978. Jenkins, Dafydd, The Law of Hywel Dda, The Gomer Press, Llandysul, 1986. Jones, Gwyn, and Jones, Thomas, The Mabinogion, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., Charles E. Tuttle Co. Inc., Rutland, Vermont, 1989. Lewis, Frank, Gwerin Ffristial a Thawlbwrdd, Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, Session 1941, London, 1943. Owen, G. Dyfnallt, Elizabethan Wales, University of Wales Press, Cardiff, 1964. Peate, Iorwerth C., Tradition and Folk Life, Faber and Faber Ltd, London, 1972. Thomas, R. J. et. al., Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru, Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru, Caerdydd, 1950-1987. "GPC" Williams, Ifor, Pedeir Keinc y Mabinogi, Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru, Caerdydd, 1982. NOTES 1. Jones & Jones, pp.80, 145 & 224 2. GPC, II, p.1754 3. Bromwich, p.246 4. Jenkins, p.191 5. Lewis, pp.193-194 6. Lewis, pp.196-197 7. Lewis, p.197 FURTHER NOTES BY THE EDITOR Some questions that have come up during play-testing are: - Can you move a piece to be between two opponents if you are not, in the process, taking at least one of those opponents? - Since only the king can stand on the center square, how do you capture a man who is standing _next_to_ the center square? Earl would be very interested in hearing feedback on the playability of these rules. You can send him messages via me: Heather Rose Jones hrjones@uclink.berkeley.edu