This review continues a series of reviews of the tafl games which not only explains why these are great abstract games, from the view-point of a veteran player and admitted fan, but also informally discusses the history of these games and when taken in order presents a series of lessons on how to play the games. Nonetheless, this is a stand-alone review as well. Since the tone is informal, no formal citations are given, but I am trying to keep as thorough and historically accurate as possible, while preferentially choosing those scholarly opinions that provide the maximum number of games for purely gaming reasons.

This is a review of the Irish tafl game Fidchell, of which name alternate spellings abound due to the non-standardizaion of ancient Irish (or other) Gaelic spelling. One should note that this name, spelled usually as Ficheall, means simply Chess in modern Irish Gaelic. (The relationship of this game to both Brandubh and Gwyddbwyll and the occasional use of dice have been discussed in the previous review article.) Pronunciation follows the usual practice of Irish Gaelic in that the initial f, being adjacent to the vowel i, becomes slender or palatalized, roughly as though one is pronouncing a y (like English yes) simultaneously with the f. The d (sometimes a t) is similarly palatalized in principle but is most often absorbed into the sound of the ch, which is itself like the ch of Scottish loch. In a very few dialects, the blending with the slender t or d would result in a ch like English cheek but not in most dialects. The doubling of the final l indicates that it too is palatalized, in spite of the fact that is it sometimes written as adjacent to an a rather than an e. The i is pronounced as in English machine, the a (where it occurs) like the flat a of cat; where the a occurs the e indicates only a slender consonant and has no sound of its own. Where the e is alone as a vowel in the second syllable, it is in principle pronounced like the e in continental languages (like Spanish) but it tends to soften almost to the e of get.

The fact that in modern Irish the name of this game and in modern Welsh Gwyddbwyll both have come to mean simply Chess is less surprising than might at first seem to be the case. The connection was briefly alluded to in the prefatory review of this series. Chess, in the form of Shatranj, entered medieval Europe primarily through Roman, i.e., Byzantine, contact with the Middle East to which it had come via Middle Eastern contact with India. In southern Europe, where the game Lantruculorum-- specifically the variety in which the object became to capture the dux-- had persisted from ancient times, Chess was viewed as a variant of Lantruculorum which it quickly replaced. This is why European chess uses an 8x8 board of spaces; that was the board used in the early medieval period for Lantruculorum which Chess came quickly to replace. Yet in northern Europe the tafl games persisted for much longer. Indeed, in Scotland and Ireland especially, they are still played today.

For historical reasons, one refers to this family of games by the Germanic name tafl, from the word for table. Yet, the origin of the games as previously discussed is quite certainly Gaelic rather than Germanic. For that reason, holding onto these games along with other Gaelic aspects of culture took on nationalistic aspects in Ireland, Scotland and to a lesser expect Wales. When Chess did enter northern Europe, especially where it entirely supplanted local tafl games, it was viewed as a variant of tafl with two defending sides and modified piece-movement. This radical variance and the fact the game was placed in spaces rather than on points (like Go) were seen as products of the fact Chess was a foreign game from the "weak" southern Europeans-- at least in the minds of northern Europeans both Gaelic and Germanic, among the latter of whom Vikings were later included. Tafl games by contrast and to an extent in reaction to this view of Chess became almost exaggeratedly a "warrior's game". Quarrels over such games were not uncommon, even when gambling was not involved, because a man who did not play tafl games well became somehow less of a warrior and thus less "manly". Yet, as recorded in the Norse sagas, women also played; this was not considered unfeminine but rather was seen to highlight the role of "warrior women" as less weak and helpless than medieval northern European cultures imagined southern European cultures of the time to be. I love Chess myself but am rather amused that in medieval northern Europe, players of that game were to an extent looked down upon while tafl gamers (if I may so characterize them) were seen as "strong" and even "manly". Such personal views of the games in the end however were less important than nationalistic ones. To Catholic Christians, southern European culture was associated with "civilization" and certainly Christianity. Thus, outside of the British isles, the vanishing of tafl games-- viewed as part of pagan culture-- can be definitely associated with the Christianization of northern Europe. In Britain and Ireland, the transition to a Christian national culture had no effect on the playing of tafl games because the transition was more internally than externally imposed. Nationalism here played the role in both supplanting and preserving tafl games. The Saxon tafl game Alea evangelii is only known from Church documents and so is hardly unchristian, but it was purely a Saxon game-- and like all aspects of Saxon culture effectively suppressed by the Normans. Likewise, the English where and when they could suppressed these games in Wales, Ireland and Scotland. Notably, the tafl games persist mostly in the less readily accessible regions of these countries, precisely where the Gaelic languages persist in spite of English persecution and prosecution of use of these languages.

2. Rules

Yet, as previously discussed and for reasons mentioned above as well, the specific rules of Fidchell bth varied widely to begin with and are now much disputed among scholars. The rules presented here are therefore those which are both historically attested and which make of this a distinct, playable game.

As usual, attackers move first in this game and have twice as many pieces as the defenders, apart from the king. The board consists of a 7x7 grid of points, with the center specically marked as the "king's place", a position which only the king can occupy or pass over; this center point is also the starting position of the king. The image below is correct in showing the pieces' initial positions and by using a grid of points, but the marking of corners is not appropriate to this specific game because the defender wins by moving the king to any edge position. The peg-board style ofthis game is however historically well-attested. For an empty board, the illustration is more useful. The marked center space is the "king's place", i.e., the king's initial position and a position through or onto which only the king can move, and the marked outermost rectangle of spaces indicate the positions the king may occupy to win the game for the defending player. A clear depiction of starting positions is , in which 16 attackers initially start on the edge of the board and 8 defenders start in a cruciform pattern about the king. The fact that four of the attackers begin in the corners emphasizes that the corner play no special role in this game.

All pieces, in cluding the king, move like rooks in chess. Specifically, a piece can move as far as desired in a straight unobstructed line horizontally or vertically (not diagonally) without either changing direction or jumping over another piece. No two pieces can occupy the same position.

All pieces save the king are captured custodially, i.e., by moving a second piece into a position adjacent to an enemy piece (in Go-terms into one of the enemy piece's liberties) when a first piece occupies the position (or liberty) immediately adjacent to the enemy piece's other side. A piece must be moved to make a capture, but multiple captures are possible if the capturing piece is moved into a position next to more than one enemy piece with a friendly piece on the other side. Because corners play no special role in this game, no against the corner capture is possible in this game. Capture of an enemy piece (other than the king) with the king's place-- if empty-- in lieu of a second friendly piece is possible, and this type of capture can be done by either player. Capture of the king, which causes a win for the attacking player, occurs only if either attackers occupy all four of the king's liberties or if the king's place is used in lieu of a fourth attacker. This is a sort of simultaneous "double custodial capture" of the king.

In principle either side, but in practice usually only the attackers (for obvious reasons), can also win by creating a situation in which the opponent has no legal move.

3. Game-play

Compared to the games previously reviewed, this game increases in complexity due to the larger number of pieces in play on both sides. This makes the attackers' job easier, but that fact is balanced by the fact that the defenders' job is made easier in that the king need only reach an edge. In this game as in all tafl games, the novice will perceive the advantage in play to the defenders, but the veteran player will see the advantage as to the attackers. In this game, the attackers have to more aggressively hem in and block the defenders to prevent the king's escape to the edge. The defenders must also counter-block the attackers to keep them from interfering with the king's escape.

Yet, in a very real sense, attackers begin the game well along the way to surrounding the defenders, let alone the king who cannot move until a defender is moved out of his way. Attackers must impede defenders' ability to do precisely this. Yet one must be wary of depending too much on the defender being blocked by his own pieces, because those same pieces can also if allowed be moved to both open a path for the king and block attackers from closing it off.

Defenders can more afford than in previous games reviewed in this series to exchange pieces. This is counter-intuitive to modern players who are raised on games such as Chess or Checkers. Position must always be taken into account in any instance, because any exchange which leaves the king relatively alone among attackers is bad unless the king can immediately escape. Yet in general, random exchanges favor the attacker by increasing the relative proportion of attackers to defenders, but cunning exchanges by defenders can create gaps the attackers cannot fill. Defenders will have to take pieces to force an opening to an edge or better yet to two or more edges. Attackers must be ruthless in preventing this and in surrounding and isolating the king amidst a ring of attackers with nowhere to run.

The result is very much a brain-burner type abstract game of simple elegance. Yet, this is not a slow comtemplative game, as most detractors (and even some adherents) style Go. This is an edge of the seat "win or lose at any moment" type of game that will get one's blood pumping with excitement. Better yet, the game is relatively quick and so one can readily play several times in a row, switching sides if desired.