History of Chess

The precursors of chess originated in India during the Gupta Empire,[2][3][4][5] where its early form in the 6th century was known as chatura? ga, which translates as â€Å"four divisions (of the military)†: infantry, cavalry, elephantry, and chariotry, represented by the pieces that would evolve into the modern pawn, knight, bishop, and rook, respectively. [6] Chess was introduced to Persia from India and became a part of the princely or courtly education of Persian nobility. 7] In Sassanid Persia around 600 the name became chatrang, which subsequently evolved to shatranj, due to Arab Muslim’s lack of ch and ng native sounds,[8] and the rules were developed further. Players started calling â€Å"Shah! † (Persian for â€Å"King! â€Å") when attacking the opponent's king, and â€Å"Shah Mat! † (Persian for â€Å"the king is helpless† – see checkmate) when the king was attacked and could not escape from attack.These exclamations persisted in chess as it traveled to other lands. The game was taken up by the Muslim world after the Islamic conquest of Persia, with the pieces largely keeping their Persian names. The Moors of North Africa rendered Persian â€Å"shatranj† as sha? erej, which gave rise to the Spanish acedrex, axedrez and ajedrez; in Portuguese it became xadrez, and in Greek zatrikion, but in the rest of Europe it was replaced by versions of the Persian shah (â€Å"king†).Thus, the game came to be called ludus scacchorum or scacc(h)i in Latin, scacchi in Italian, escacs in Catalan, echecs in French (Old French eschecs); schaken in Dutch, Schach in German, szachy in Polish, sahs in Latvian, skak in Danish, sjakk in Norwegian, schack in Swedish, sakki in Finnish, sah in South Slavic languages, sakk in Hungarian and sah in Romanian; there are two theories about why this change happened: 1. From the exclamation â€Å"check† or â€Å"checkmate† as it was pronounced in various languages. 2.From the first chessmen known of in Western Europe (except Iberia and Greece) being ornamental chess kings brought in as curios by Muslim traders. The Mongols call the game shatar, and in Ethiopia it is called senterej, both evidently derived from shatranj. Chess spread directly from the Middle East to Russia, where chess became known as (shakhmaty, treated as a plural). The game reached Western Europe and Russia by at least three routes, the earliest being in the 9th century. By the year 1000 it had spread throughout Europe. [9] Introduced into the IberianPeninsula by the Moors in the 10th century, it was described in a famous 13th century manuscript covering shatranj, backgammon and dice named the Libro de los juegos. Chess spread throughout the world and many variants of the game soon began taking shape. [10] Buddhist pilgrims, Silk Road traders and others carried it to the Far East where it was transformed and assimilated into a game often played on the intersection of the li nes of the board rather than within the squares. [10][11] Chaturanga reached Europe through Persia, the Byzantine empire and the expanding Arabian empire. 12] Muslims carried chess to North Africa, Sicily, and Iberia by the 10th century. [10] The game was developed extensively in Europe, and by the late 15th century, it had survived a series of prohibitions and Christian Church sanctions to almost take the shape of the modern game. [13] Modern history saw reliable reference works,[14] competitive chess tournaments[15] and exciting new variants which added to the game's popularity,[15] further bolstered by reliable timing mechanisms (first introduced in 1861), effective rules[15] and charismatic players. [16]

Scaffold in Scarlet Letter Symbolism essays

Scaffold in Scarlet Letter Symbolism essays The framework of that instrument of discipline, so fashioned as to confine the human head in its tight grasp, and thus hold it up to the public gaze (9). These words help describe the ominous place known as the scaffold. Throughout the Scarlet Letter, the scaffold is a reoccurring symbol that symbolizes human nature throughout the course of the book. In addition to being a symbol of shame and guilt, the scaffold is a form of public punishment and humiliation. Furthermore, the scaffold reveals the development of the story and character involvement with the sin of adultery. The scaffold symbolizes many aspects of human nature throughout the course of the book. The scaffold symbolizes the shame and guilt of sin along with love and punishment. For example, when Hester committed adultery with Dimmesdale, the sin was committed out of love. Hester followed her human nature and heart when she committed the sin. After Hester is convicted of adultery, she is portrayed as an outcast of society. When Hester is seen on the scaffold, she hides her scarlet letter because the letter is viewed as a symbol of sin, shame, guilt, and punishment. Hesters guilt and shame are shown by the way that she stands on the scaffold. She doesnt hold herself in a high manner; however, she slouches and tries to hide from the crowd. While standing on the scaffold, Hester feels alone, isolated, and as if the world is out to get her. Thousands of emotions and thoughts run through Hesters head while she is on the scaffold. In addition to being a symbol of shame and guilt, the scaffold is a form of public punishment and humiliation. Hester is forced to stand in front of her peers and be harassed for the sin she has committed out of love. Hawthorne described how Hester felt as she headed towards the scaffold: She perchance underwent an agony from every footstep of those that thronged to see her, as if her heart had been flung into t...

Universalism,impartialism, & utilitarianism Essay

Universalism,impartialism, & utilitarianism - Essay Example Two of the most powerful theories that have affected and are still affecting how people shape their mindset, goals, and life would be Universalist and Impartialist theories. Universalism is a theory that hinges on a central belief that all people are saved. Universalism is a theory that hinges on a central belief that all people are saved. This salvation has been paid in the most expensive and precious price of the body and blood of Jesus Christ that was shed on the cross. A lot of people ask why it was necessary for Jesus’ sacrifice and Universalists believe that it is the only way for sinful humans to be reconciled to God again after being separated from him because of sin. This salvation applies to all human beings whether they accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior or not because this redemption would be achieved in one’s lifetime or the afterlife where God will bring people to repentance. This reconciliation does not exclude evil beings. An example of a Universali st point of view would be a mind set wherein one does not depend on one's regularity in church attendance every Sunday because based on this view no amount of good works could save one from eternal death except for Jesus' death on the cross. Another would be the belief that there are no levels of sin. When one chooses to do bad, it displeases the Lord. However, this does not mean that one could be cut off from the love of God. On the other hand, Impartialist theory believes that Impartialism which means choosing something over the other is not necessarily a negative or a positive thing. Being impartial is not closely linked to morality (Hsieh, D., n,d.). This is because of the fact that one can be impartial, choosing another option based on rational qualifications without meaning any harm to the other party. One example of which would be to choose to not go to your friends beach party and yet attend your other friend’s house party because of the fact that you cannot swim. Fur thermore, a person could be impartial in a way that affects his or her action’s morality when one chooses something over the other based on personal motive or gain. A good example of which would be to choose to hire a friend you know is not totally capable of the job just because you can get a wide range of connection from that person and putting off an unfamiliar applicant who is clearly equipped for the job because you don’t see any obvious personal benefits from doing so. Based on the definitions of Impartialist and Universalist theory, both are strongly interconnected with Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a philosophy that was first developed by English philosophers John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. It was based on the experiences of women who were forced into slavery. From this, these philosophers developed the belief that criminals need not only be punished, instead reformed where every being is brought to their utmost positive potential. Thus, Utilitarianism in its entirety is a theory that puts premium on the value of happiness which is achieved in the absences of pain and where pleasure is the ultimate goal (Utilitarianism, n.d.). Impartialism is strongly applied in the theory of Utilitarianism because as Impartialism puts significance in welcoming impartial decisions or actions just as long as it is in line with moral ethics – not having ill motives, which is correlational to Utilitarianism which puts utmost importance on man’s happiness achieved through activities, social acceptance, success, power, luxury, and etc. If one successfully abides in the Impartialist theory, Utilitarianism is achieved as man can reach ultimate happiness. Aside from that, the Impartialist point of view is backed up by what ethics, morality, and at the same time natural law teaches us. Natural law which is the foundation of it all holds the universal law of humans’ right to live, have a decent home, be fed, be nurtured and cared for, be loved, be educated and etc

Article Review Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 14

Review - Article Example However, today it is asserted by researchers that orbitofrontal cortex plays a role in value-based decisions only. Here, it can be clearly observed that researchers have not provided any logical reason for them not to agree that orbitofrontal cortex can also contribute as the brain makes decisions based on prior experiences or habits. Researchers have simply stated that if the value is cached or pre-computed like experiences or habits, then orbitofrontal cortex is not needed to participate in the decision making process. But, how this change in the functioning or responsibility of the brain area took place has not been discussed in this study (Science Daily). In this study, researchers have shown a unique side of learning behavior, which refers to a persons learning through unexpected outcomes. Generally it is believed that a person learns through his experiences; however, in the article researchers have highlighted another form of true learning, but they have not provided evidence to prove that a person can learn through unexpected outcomes (Science Daily). Furthermore, a conflict in statements of researchers can be observed as initially they have agreed that orbitofrontal cortex has nothing to do with the decisions based on experiences or habits. But, on another occasion this article quotes statement of postdoctoral researcher Joshua Jones, who said that "Our research showed that damage to the orbitofrontal cortex may decrease a persons ability to use prior experience to make good decisions on the fly". Here, it can be observed that researchers have contradictory statements in the same article, which are undoubtedly confusing and difficult to understand (Science Daily). Serious side-effects of drug addiction particularly use of cocaine have been highlighted in the article to indicate that drugs coerce the brain system and hijack