Awithlaknakwe

Awithlaknakwe, aka,  The Stone Warriors, is a traditional board game played by the Zuni in the area of New Mexico. The game was mentioned by Stewart Culin in his book about traditional games from Native American tribes [1].

The game is played on this 12x12 board, with extra slots to place the player's six pieces (for two or four players):

The rules, as described by Culin, are not completely specified:

• Pieces move one step diagonally forward
  
• Captures are custodian: if a piece moves into a square, forming a line of friend-enemy-friend pieces, the enemy piece is captured [the capture is not said to be diagonally, orthogonally, or both]
  
• In the first capture, the player replaces the captured piece by a 'priest', i.e., a piece that moves like the Chess-king (except it still cannot move backwards)
  
•  Wins the player that first moves his [remaining?] pieces to the adversary home

Some reconstructions also include the number of captured pieces (by adding some scoring into the winning condition). However, it seems to be enough to consider the race element. Letting a piece be captured can be seen as a sacrifice to gain tempo, by having less pieces to move into the enemy's home base.

[1] Stewart Culin, Games of the North American Indians, University of California Libraries (1907)

Fox Games: part 2

Fox games are not only from Europe. There are board games with asymmetrical forces in other places.

A well-known traditional game is  Baghchal from Nepal,

As BGG reviews:

At the start of the game, there are four tigers on the board while there are no goats. The goat player places his/her pieces on the board one by one wherever they choose, with the tiger player getting a move between each placing. Once all the goats are on the board, the two players take turns moving one of their pieces one space. A tiger can alternatively capture a single goat by jumping over it in a line to an empty space. The tigers win if they can capture five goats. The goal for the goats (who cannot make captures) is to hem the tigers in, giving them no opportunity to move or jump.

Other traditional examples are

• Diviyan Keliya (Leopards and Cows) played in India and Sri Lanka
  
• The medieval Cercar la Liebre (Catch the Hare) played in Spain, which derived to Coyote played in Mexico c.19th century

• Len Choa (Len Cua Kin Ngoa) from Thailand [1]
• Komikan (El Leoncito) from Chile with a first known reference from 1787 [2]
  

This ludeme is just too simple and attractive and continues to be used in modern games.

One example is 1975's Buffalo Chess (aka Bison) from Alex Randolph.

Ludii description:

Buffalos move one step forward to a free space. Dogs move like a chess queen but cannot capture. The villager moves like a chess king, and can capture buffalos. Dogs and the villager cannot enter the top or bottom rows of the board. Buffalos start, and win by reaching the top row. They lose if they cannot move anymore.

Another (less well-known) example is 1970 Carapace (aka Revanche):

The board is, in essence, hexagonal. The asymmetry here is more pronounced, where one player will win for sure. The adversary goal is resistance. A game consists of two matches, where players switch sides. Some spaces have extra value (check the number of dots in the previous board) that are used for scoring. Wins the player with the better score.

Steve Sisk wrote the next rules:

A modern variant -- in fact, more a puzzle than a game -- is the 2001's Wild Goose Chase by Dan Troyka:

 

The tame geese move one step orthogonally, while the wild goose is unable to capture, but moves like a Queen and is also able to fly to the adversary's first row. The geese have 15 turns to capture it. There's a ZRF to play it.

[1] Captain James Low, On Siamese Literature, Asiatic Researches vol.20[2] (1839)
[2] Thierry Depaulis, Inca Dice and Board Games, Board Games Studies 1 (1998)

Fox Games: part 1

Fox Games is a term to refer to classic games based on the idea of asymmetric forces. One side needs to encircle/block the adversary, while the other needs to escape or capture all enemy pieces.

Perhaps the oldest game in this family is Hnefatafl played in medieval Scandinavia, where one player with the central player tries to escape to the edge of the board.

The Ballinderry Halatafl-Board

Alea evangelii (Game of the Gospels) in a 11th century manuscript

A more well-known modern game is Fox and Geese where, instead of escaping the board, the Fox needs to capture all the Geese (by jumping over one piece at a time, checkers-like), while these can only try to block the Fox. The next board uses one fox against 13 geese (or hens, in this case),

Nouveau Jeu du Renard (The New Game of the Fox)
board from Collection de Jeux Anciens

Another variant is The Game of Assault (Le Jeu de Assaut), with more pieces, making the board more crowded: there are two defenders against 24 besiegers:

Collection de Jeux Anciens

This previous board, c.1860, is from the game The Siege of Sebastopol (Jeu de l'Assaut de Sébastopol). The theme is based in the War of the Crimea

 

Assault games had several war motives over the 19th century; check the excellent blog Collection de Jeux Anciens for more examples. 

 

Here's another expanded version of the same game, Grand Jeu d'Assaut:

 

Histoire en Jeux
 

The next board is older, c.1814, again with a (rather abstract) military theme,

Two other games with foxes (renards in French),

 

 

patricia m, Flickr

This one has a sports-based theme:

 

A simpler version of this family was mathematically analyzed at Winning Ways, the bible of Combinatorial Game Theory (chapter 20 is dedicated to Fox Games),

This more abstract setup is older than Winning Ways, since it appears in 1938, published by Spear Spiele, and named 4 Gegen 1 (1 against 4).

 

An older version of this game is the La Chasse au Loup (The Wolf Hunt) published by Mauclair Dacier, c.1900:

There was a general alarm in the countryside: the wolf was seen coming out of the woods and, driven by hunger, wandering around the farms in search of prey. So the inhabitants, armed with guns, sickles, and pitchforks, tracked him, trying to drive him against a wall near the forest in order to kill him more easily.

In our game, the wolf is represented by a black piece or button, and the hunters by five pieces of a different kind. The Wolf is placed on a black square at a position of his choosing; the hunters are placed in a straight line along the lower edge of the board. The Wolf begins to play. He moves from one black point to another black point—right, left, forward, or backward—but never more than one step at a time. The hunters move only one step at a time and always forward; they may not move backward.

If the wolf manages to cross the hunters’ line, he wins. But if the hunters surround the wolf within their ranks, or drive him to one of the sides or corners of the board, the player controlling the hunters wins.

In 1940 in Germany a related game, this time on a larger 22x22 board, uses two asymmetrical armies in a naval context of U-boats and destroyers, 1940's Das U-Boot-Spiel:

The map is based on the actions of German U-boat Captain Gunther Prien, 
who sunk the British battleship ‘Royal Oak’ in Scapa Flow, Scotland, in 1939 

One player has four destroyers and one taker (that start at the marked squares at the top rows), and the U-boat either at A or B. 

The original rules:

The rules are not too specific of how the pieces should move (automated translation):

Four destroyers (each represented by four stones of the same color) take their positions on the dotted squares, and the steamship on the square marked with “T”. The submarine surfaces either at “A” or “B”, whichever the attacker chooses for their first move. The destroyers must bring the steamer safely into the harbor, traveling around the island. The submarine tries to stop them, by surfacing in front of or behind the steamer, or by passing alongside it.

It moves only on brown squares, usually one square at a time. Contrary to the steamer, which moves diagonally forward only, the submarine may also move backward.  To make the game more difficult, some squares can be marked as minefields. If the steamer enters one of these marked squares, it is considered destroyed. If the steamer reaches the harbor safely, it is rescued; if not, it is sunk. How the battle unfolds is left to the intelligence of the players.

Diu Fang

Diu Fang is a Chinese traditional game, apparently from the Central Asia region. In China it is known as square chess, game of squares, or playing squares (fang means square).

The game is played on a board with 7x7 or 7x8 intersections (but there are other sizes depending on the region),

The rules as stated by Olli Salmi:

• Each player has enough stones to fill half the intersections.
• The board starts empty and each player, in his turn, drops one friendly piece on an empty intersection. 
• When a player has four pieces making the corners of a square, he captures an enemy piece from the board. However, any piece forming a square cannot be captured.
• When all pieces are placed, pieces start moving to any adjacent empty intersection. Moves are mandatory, even if it means unmaking a square.
  
• Wins the player that captures all enemy pieces.

A Chinese text translation (from the previous link) states:

[...] The goal is to form a "fang" (square) by occupying one square of the board, which allows the player to capture one of the opponent's pieces. [...] Once all the pieces are placed, each player removes one of the opponent's pieces and begins moving their pieces. The objective remains to form squares and capture the opponent's pieces. Players can also dismantle and reform their existing squares to capture more pieces. The game ends when one player loses all their pieces, resulting in a loss.

"Diu Fang" has two variations: "Wei Fang" (aggressive strategy) and "Tian Fang" (peaceful strategy). In Tian Fang, players agree not to aggressively encircle the opponent's pieces, making the gameplay less confrontational and more harmonious compared to Wei Fang, which is more competitive and intense.

It is not stated if it is possible to form squares with 45º or other angles.

The game is reminiscent of Nine Men Morris and Alquerque (some boards have diagonal connections). It seems to have the same «win strategy», as in Morris, that allows the alternate movement of making and unmaking a square, thus capturing a piece in every two consecutive turns.

Details about this game (or family of games) are also described by Shimizu et al. in [1].

it is possible to note the diagonal lines at the board's middle

The authors state, besides the previous rules:

• The first stone must be placed at the middle (assuming a 7x7 board)
• "The players take turns in placing stones on the points of intersection of the lines, with the aim of creating a square around a field, while at the same time preventing their opponent from doing so."
  
• "The players take turns in taking a stone of the opponent which is not part of a square off the board and then moving one stone vertically or horizontally from a neighbouring point to the point left vacant by the removed stone. When a player manages to create a square of four pieces of his own he is allowed to remove an opponent’s piece from the board. This is repeated again and again. So a player aims to create squares himself, as squares of four stones are safe and no stone can be taken from it." This paragraph seems to mix two different rules. Each piece move means unconditionally removing an enemy piece. Then, an extra capture is possible after a new square if made. This would make for a much faster game.
  

The Ludii portal has some reconstructions that can be played (search for Fang).

In the main Fang variant, Ludii ruleset mainly follows [1]:

• 7x7 board, with diagonals in the square formed by the central 3x3 lines. 24 pieces per player. 
• Black plays first. Players alternate turns placing a piece on one of the empty spots on the board. 
• The first stone must be placed in the central spot. 
• They attempt to orthogonally surround an empty point with four of their pieces, making a square. 
• When all of the pieces are placed, players alternate turns removing one of their opponent's pieces from the board. They then move one of their pieces along the lines of the board to the place left vacant by the piece they removed. 
• When a player makes a new square, they may remove another of the opponent's pieces from the board. Pieces that are in a square around an empty point may not be captured, and captures are not made in the placement phase. 
• The player who captures all of the opponent's pieces wins.

This surrounding of an empty intersection does not appear at [1], which just says creating a square around a field. Anyway, this rule implies 45º angle squares. And this ruleset does not refer to any other type of square. So perhaps Salmi's description skips this detail, which seems probable to me. Using different shapes of squares feels too modern, and more typical of commercial games like Hip, Quarto, Quartetto, Squares, Quadrature, Squaryd, 4 Eyes, Quirk, Quod, Corral, Mondagro, Lattice, or Diamonds (yes, there are lots!).

[1] Shimizu et al., Game boards in the Longmen Caves and the game Fang, BGS 5.

[addendum] I found this Chinese site which says (using automatic translation):

Rules for the Game "Fangqi" (方棋)

Introduction. Fangqi is a collective term for traditional two-player board games popular in northern China. The capture method resembles that of Zhizi, where forming specific patterns allows the capture of opponents' pieces. Rules, board designs, and names vary slightly across regions.

Game Phases: 

1. Placing Phase: Players alternate placing one piece at a time on an empty intersection of the board until all pieces are placed.
2. Biqi Phase (Removal Phase): If the board is filled, each player selects one opponent's piece to remove. On odd-lined boards, the second player selects first, and on even-lined boards, the first player selects first.
3. Moving Phase: Players take turns moving one piece along a line to an adjacent empty spot.

Capturing Pieces:

• Captures occur when a specific pattern is formed (e.g., a square or rectangle). The capturing player removes a specified number of opponent's pieces, prioritizing unprotected pieces.
• Common patterns:
• Square: Four pieces forming a square remove one opponent's piece.
• Rectangle: Six pieces forming a rectangle remove two opponent's pieces.
• Victory is achieved by reducing the opponent's pieces to a number insufficient for forming capture patterns.

Movement Rules:

• Generally, players can only move one piece to an adjacent empty intersection.
• In some digital implementations, a player who cannot move loses; others allow returning to the Biqi Phase to remove additional pieces.

Regional Variations and Specific Rules:

1. Daxing District (Beijing)  
   - Placing Rules: Pieces cannot be placed at the four corners.
   - Capture Patterns:
     - Dragon: Five pieces in a straight line (horizontal or vertical) capture three opponent's pieces.
     - Square: Four pieces forming a square capture one opponent's piece.

 2. Guan County (Hebei)  
   - Placing Rules: Same as Daxing.  
   - Capture Patterns:
     - Dragon: Five pieces in a straight line add two pieces in the placing phase or capture two in the moving phase.
     - Square: Four pieces forming a square add one piece in the placing phase or capture one in the moving phase.

 3. Qinghai  
   - Unique Rules: Pieces are returned to the opponent instead of being removed.
   - Capture Patterns:
     - Bar (杠): Five pieces in a line remove three opponent pieces, with the line marked as unusable for further captures.
     - Square: Four pieces forming a square remove one opponent piece and mark the square unusable.

 4. Shandong Variations (Wugunqi, etc.)  
   - Capture occurs during the placing phase, but pieces are marked and removed before the moving phase begins.
   - Unique terms like "Five Tigers" and "Three Diagonals" describe specific formations.

 5. Northeast China (Manchu)  
   - Similar to Shandong, with unique formations such as "Big Tiger Claw" and "Sky Bar".

Summary. Fangqi incorporates a rich variety of rules that adapt to regional preferences. Core elements such as strategic placement, capture through pattern formation, and movement across intersecting lines remain consistent. Each regional variant adds unique strategies, fostering a diverse gaming experience.

Board Games in Oriental Exposition

From an oriental art and culture exposition at Lisbon (it was a surprise visit, so I only had the camera from my cell phone)

There was a Xiang Qi:

A board of Makruk, the Thai Chess:

And what is possible a Mancala board, together with another game (at the top):

Ancient Board Games @ The Louvre

Here are some nice examples of race games from Ancient Egypt:

This was the text related to this game:

The obscure Mehen:

And the more known Senet (at least the text said it was Senet, it seems a version, half-way to the game of Ur):

And finally some old, old dice:

 

(photos taken in April 2010)