Talk:Cox–Forbes theory

Credibility

Suggesting that The Oxford Companion to Chess is an unreliable source is rich. I have both Murray and Hooper & Whyld, and I can confirm that those references are accurately summarized in the article. Three pages of Hooper & Whyld are used as a reference for all the claims in one paragraph, and I will cite the statements with the individual page numbers to make the supporting reference more clear. Quale (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Quale No one said that the source isn't credible, but where in whole book it mentions any word like rejected[1] or purana[2], or 1500 AD[3]?? Because this is how you are trying to assert it, but you should not. Even if it's a minor edit, it's wrong, because this book "Chess History and Reminiscences", mentions those theories, so no way they are being denied either. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to communicate. The Cox-Forbes theory was refuted before 1900, and Forbes' dating of his sources was incorrect. I think the article accurately reflects the reliable sources on the subject. Quale (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Why you are inserting a false source? For proving a false information? I have removed it once again for good, stop inserting until you have a correct source, because the book you presented doesn't include even a single word that would support any of your claim. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As per this source[4] :- "It was the monumental 1913 work of HJR Muray which finally disposed of the four handed origin thesis. For the reasons indicated above, the idea that chess originated as a four handed game is now rejected by historians." "The most acceptable conclusion seems to be this: chess was originally a two-handed game, and a four handed variety was an early derivative.." This is the actual phrase, but it doesn't seem to support your claim. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Specifically which claim are you talking about? None of them are my claims, they are all directly from the cited sources. I don't sense that you actually have any knowledge of or interest in the history of chess. Your concern seems to be a dating dispute under discussion at WT:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Bhavishya Purana and Talk:Bhavishya Purana#3000 BC dating. I'll let others resolve that, but I want this article to remain accurate and as complete as possible.

And you're just wrong about what Murray 1913 says. That isn't surprising since I don't think you have looked at it. It's a very long book and many pages refute Forbes theory, but the article cites page 48 which says in part:

... when Weber showed the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence in support of the statement that the Indian text was derived from a Purāna, scholars abandoned the theory altogether. In any case the 5,000 years of Forbes would have to be reduced greatly in view of the fact that modern scholarship does not place the Purāna earlier than 500–550 B.C.

In short, Forbes' evidence isn't present in the text he claimed, and his claimed extremely ancient date for that text was known to be false more than a century ago. (I believe Forbes actually based his theory on two texts, and the other was even more recent dating to around 1500.) If you continue to remove cited text from the article I may ask an administrator to step in. I would hate to do that, as Wikipedia works better when administrators don't have to get involved in disputes. Quale (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

In page 48, or anywhere in the whole book such comments doesn't exists. It can be easily searched like it did before. Quale, remember, 1500 AD means 15th Century. Chess(2 hand) originated in India in 5th Century, this source sounds official/reliable[5]. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

So once again, stop adding false information & false sources for pushing your own made up opinion. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems you're immune to reason and to WP:RS. You probably won't have a very good time here. The best evidence suggests that chess originated in India in the 6th century. Forbes said chess originated in India around 3000 BCE, but he was wrong. One of the two texts that he claimed was 5000 years old actually dates to around 500 BCE, the other to about 1500 CE. But not only did he get the dating wrong, neither text supports his claims anyway. Quale (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see, that who supports your claim about the dating, except yourself, because Forbes was talking about the "four hand chess" at most, not about the "2 hand chess", his theories were rejected only that the four hand chess is real chess, not that the dating of Bhavishya purana is "not 3000 BC". That's what these 2 reliable sources prove. While your sources are simply misused by you. As explained above:-

"but where in whole book it mentions any word like rejected[6] or purana[7], or 1500 AD[8]?? }} Bladesmulti (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"In page 48, or anywhere in the whole book such comments doesn't exists." Bladesmulti, you appear to be searching The Oxford Companion to Chess for the quotation given by Quale. Quale clearly says that the quotation is from "Murray 1913", that is to say H J R Murray's A History of Chess, Oxford University Press, 1913. Here is the passage, on page 48: [9] [10]. Please read carefully. By not doing so, you have made unsubstantiated accusations for which you should apologise. Paul B (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"but where in whole book it mentions any word like rejected[11] or purana[12], or 1500 AD[13]??" Your search appears to repeat your challenge to the sentence "Van der Linde also found that the actual text around which Forbes had built his entire theory (Tithitattva of Raghunandana) was actually from around AD 1500, rather than 3000 BC as claimed by Forbes". This is sourced to p.227 of the Oxford Companion, which states, "He had followed Forbes until he discovered that the British writer was dating as 3000BC a text published in 1500, and constructing a whole theory based on that dating. Believing that Forbes had deliberately lied, Linde was furious..." [14]. The only passage not directly supported by this source is the inserted bracketed reference to the Tithitattva as the text in question, but that appears to be correct, and so, if challenged, should simply be sourced, which can easily be done [15]. Paul B (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Paul B, I agree with what you have wrote, but still, "bhavishya purana" doesn't fits anywhere in whole summary. Since whole summary doesn't add any of the explanation towards the book, or that the theory of forbes is "rejected by all serious chess historians".. Rest of the sentences would be correct, except the first source that has been given in the leading paragraph, but it can be replaced, and the line of "bhavishya purana" can be replaced too, with this:-

"The 1913 work of H.J.R Muray disposed the idea of four handed origin thesis. The idea that chess originated as a four handed game is now rejected by historians. It is further added that chess was a two-handed game, originally, and four-handed variety was an ancient derivative." Bladesmulti (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't really follow you. There is no doubt, is there, that Forbes claimed to find this reference in the BP? That can easily be sourced. In fact scholars say there is no such reference in the BP; it comes from the Tithitattva. This was either a mistake on Forbes' part, or deliberate misrepresentation of sources. This might, at the moment be expressed less than clearly in the text, but the solution is to clarify the wording, not to eliminate references to the BP, which clearly formed part of Forbes' argument. Paul B (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you agree, that the theories he made, were backed by multiple references including persians? IF we are about Indian sources, then still Not just BP, but also the some Tithitattva(Raghunandana), as well "chatrang namak" at page 281. Indeed, none of these would be denied, including BP, but can we add them? Or just write them as "the theories he presented..." like that, and then add "such theories are assigned to date of 550 BC", but simply they are not rejected by the historians. That's how. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I am having some difficulty understanding what you are trying to say. Are you saying we should have more detail on Forbes' claims and his sources for them? Paul B (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. And indeed, this would be a good idea, that's what i meant too. As the point of the story is, that the historians wanted to prove, that chess is not a 4 handed game, but a 2 handed game, explained in this link[16], it can be also seen in External sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Criticism vs. Refutation

I don't think we'd have a "Criticism" section for Phlogiston theory, and this theory is really in the same category. It's completely debunked. Quale (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)