The strange history of chess

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2024-01-16 18:34

In 1575, as history testifies, the first international chess tournament was held at the court of the Spanish king Philip II. Ruy Lopez, Alfonso Seron and Italian masters Giovanni Leonardo and Paulo Boya competed. Won by Leonardo, winning back against Lopez for the defeat in Rome in 1559.

The fact that some event in the history of chess is linked to the king cannot but rejoice for one reason. After all, we know much more about kings than about chess players. True, with the kings of that time, everything is not always clear. Further I will refer to the book by Vyacheslav Lopatin "Scaliger's Matrix", which shows many "royal" oddities. The stories of not all kings look strange, but Philip II was "lucky."

I will try to briefly explain to the reader the essence of the magnificent and mathematically substantiated work of Vyacheslav Lopatin.

The historical chronology was built by the medieval numerologist Scaliger and his followers, not on the basis of real facts of the past, which it was already impossible to collect, but by applying a kabbalistic matrix to the events known to them, in which, for some reason difficult to understand, great importance was attached to the numerological sum 9. The numerological sum is obtained, if all the numbers that make up the number are added all the way to the stop. For instance:

1575 = 1+5+7+5=18=1+8=9…

It is unlikely that Scaliger was interested in the dates of chess tournaments - he had more important things to do, namely, the entire chronology of the entire history of mankind. But with emperors, kings and even Russian tsars and Turkish sultans, we get a common misfortune. Many of those close to us in the past have natural counterparts who start campaigns, sit on the throne, marry, divorce, kill their sons, go to monasteries, abdicate the throne, die and so on - in sync with the "prototype", and why almost always with intervals, the numerological sum of which is equal to that very nine. To appreciate the full scale of this catastrophic falsification of what we are accustomed to considering as real history, one must read Lopatin himself, and not my short retelling. This is impressive, especially since the author takes all the data in history books.

So the sponsor of the first chess tournament in the history of mankind, the Spanish king Philip II turns out to be a "double" with a prototype in the future. That is, Philip II most likely never existed in history at all, and his "biography" was simply invented by some court historians who extended the history of the Spanish state back into the centuries according to the schemes of Scaliger and his followers, based on the life of the really ruling monarch. How this is done is shown literally hundreds of times in Lopatin.

This does not mean that in that 1575 year, people did not live on the territory of Spain, and there was no king. Of course, something was there, maybe there was even King Philip, but what happened to him and with him was not what historians tell us. And we will never know the truth, since then no one was particularly documenting anything, because humanity still did not really need history, but what was concocted at a later time and is presented as documents of past eras … You know, it comes to ridiculousness … In Neustadt's book Chess before Steinitz, literally the following is written:

Interestingly, these people who famously assign the age of a thousand years to a document made of paper - have they at least held old newspapers in their hands at least once in their lives? Have you seen what has been done with paper in fifty years? All the same, historians … For a thousand years the manuscript lay, found in the repository (accidentally discovered), and it is intact!

Let's compare the two Philippi. Vyacheslav Lopatin gives the following table:

Year	Event	Year	Event	Difference	Count
1700	Philip V becomes King of Spain	1556	Philip II becomes King of Spain	144	1+4+4=9
1714	Philip marries Duchess Elizabeth Farnese	1560	Philip marries Elizabeth of France	153	1+5+3=9
1718	Philip dismisses Minister Alberoni	1572	Philip dismisses the governor of the Netherlands, the Duke of Alba	144	1+4+4=9
1724	Philip Abdicates Power	1598	Death of Philip II	126	1+2+6=9
1724	Philip becomes King of Spain again	1598	Philip III (son of Philip II) becomes king of Spain	126	1+2+6=9
1746	Death of Philip	1621	Death of Philip III	126	1+2+6=9

How do you like this option for a tournament date, such as 1719? Seems wild? Why exactly? We will talk about the continuity of chess knowledge later, but for now, think about this. That in the XVI century, that in the XVIII there is no television, no radio, no Internet. Well, let's say some people played chess at the king's court. Played and played. You never know what happens every day at the courts of their majesties of all kinds? Who and when will learn about this event in Madrid in London, Paris, Rome? And will they know at all? Online games cannot be shown; no one publishes anything about chess in newspapers either, although there are already newspapers in the 18th century.

It was from the middle of the 18th century that the leading European countries were puzzled by the compilation of their own "history". Russia was somewhat late in this, but not much. In any case, the order for Russian history came from Empress Catherine II, and it was completed after her death by the writer (!) Karamzin in 1818, when, according to A. S. Pushkin, discovered ancient Russia, like Columbus America.

In the case of the Spanish chess tournament, it could be that some historian who compiled the "history" of Spain, having discovered (much later than the death of the real King Philip V) a note that someone played chess here, sent this tournament along with by all chess players in the 16th century. Why not, if this note seemed very ancient to him? Moreover, he also needed to saturate the life of the never existed Philip II with historical facts.

And this is still divine, and not so as to send the manuscript found in 1951 for a whole thousand years in the past …

And already in the 19th century (when the finds of old chess books began), even in Spain, even where it was certainly not the same that 1719, that 1575 was a long time ago, there are no living witnesses. And by the way: Luigi Missini painted the painting "Chess Tournament at the Court of the King of Spain" in 1886. That is, more than three hundred years later …

The whole history of chess, and not just that picture, was written in the 19th century.

1813 year. Sarrat published in London a collection of works by Damiano, Lopez and Salvio.

1822 year. Lewis translated Carrera into English.

1873 year. Linde published the work of Polerio (1548-1612), which (this is no longer even funny) until that very year 1873 remained unknown. And by the way, Polerio is not only a powerful chess writer, but also a contemporary of chess players - participants in a tournament at the court of some Philip (the devil will take them apart), moreover, he is a student of a participant in that tournament, Leonardo, who wrote down the games from that competition. Ha! Almost two centuries have passed, and finally Polerio's grandiose work has surfaced …

Pay attention: by no means hundreds of chess books were published even in the 19th century. Each was an event. They can really be counted on one hand. And we already have one allegedly lost forever (I'm talking about Vincent's book), and three discovered after a long oblivion. The rest of the antiquities, I guess, are also known in the translations of chess historians of the 19th century, and then the dates on the covers are not worth a lot …

The following versions are possible. First, the Madrid tournament took place 144 years later. Second: no one at all at the court of the Spanish king (neither in 1575, nor in 1719) played, the whole tournament is an artistic fiction. Third: everything was as historians say, despite the coincidence of the stories of the two Philip with the numerological nine. Although this is very … um … doubtful.

Vyacheslav Lopatin gives a complete register of historical counterparts of different times, countries and peoples who simultaneously do the same thing, and the sum of the numbers of the difference in years stubbornly falls into the number 9. For those who are especially meticulous, at the end of his book it is described in detail what the Pearson criterion is, and what it is has to do with all this, but here I will not write about it. However, given that I am writing for a Russian-speaking audience, I will allow myself such a table from the book of Vyacheslav Lopatin, already about our kings and princes, and not about the Spanish Philippi.

The central column shows the interval in years between the dates of the beginning of the reign:

Ivan IV the Terrible	459	Vladimir Monomakh
Fedor Ivanovich	459	Mstislav I Vladimirovich
Boris Godunov	459	Vsevolod II Olgovich
Fedor Godunov	459	Igor Olgovich
False Dmitry I	459	Izyaslav II
False Dmitry II	450	Izyaslav III
Vladislav	459	Vyacheslav Vladimirovich
Mikhail Fedorovich	459	Rostislav Mstislavovich
Fedor-Filaret	450	Mstislav II Izyaslavovich
Mikhail Fedorovich	459	Svyatoslav II Vsevolodovich
Fedor Alekseevich	441	Yaroslav II Vsevolodovich
Peter I	450	Alexander Nevskiy

You can check: the sum of the digits in the intervals is invariably nine.

This is written by Jean Boden in 1566, at the same time that Lopez's book is dated (1561), and later than Damiano's book. If these "researchers of dates" do not agree on when the world was created, then on the question of when Christ was born (in what year) they also disagree with each other, do they?

According to the official historical scale, Pope Gregory XVIII did not even become a pontiff at that moment, and it was under him that the Gregorian calendar was introduced. And does anyone really think that on the book of the same Damiano it is written as we are now used to - 1512. Yes, if there is a date there, then it is from the Creation of the world - which if it was, then it is not known when.

In those years, the chronology was created - so that all significant dates and all periods were entirely in numerological nines. And those who later placed significant historical characters on the timeline adhered to the same rules. For example, the dates of the life of Nostradamus (allegedly died just in 1566) are calculated numerologically:

Born 1503 1 + 5 + 0 + 3 = 9.

Died 1566 1 + 5 + 6 + 6 = 18; 1 + 8 = 9.

And the interval, of course, according to the laws of the same mathematics: lived 63 years, and 6 + 3 = 9.

Chess players are by no means significant persons for historians. They were pushed around the centuries for some other reason. Maybe to fill the voids; maybe to raise the prestige of a particular country. There is no doubt that Philidor made the first edition of his book in 1749. In all other cases - sorry. Book of Damiano - 1512; Lucena's book - 1561; Salvio's book - 1604; the dates of the life of Joaquino Greco - 1600-1634 … We know this from a good, probably, man named Sarrat, who published these works at the beginning of the 19th century. Very good. How did he find out the dates of publication of these books and the dates of birth and death of these chess players?..

Another argument in favor of the correctness of those who argue that humanity has gone too far with the antiquity of its history - and even the history of chess testifies to this - these are hundred-cell checkers. Unlike chess, the date of their creation is known in hundred-cell checkers: the first quarter of the 18th century. So that's it. Less than three centuries were enough for mankind to thoroughly learn this game, and come to a situation where in the world championship match all games ended in a draw. Yes, chess is more complex in its capabilities, but, firstly, checkers are also not tic and toe on a three by three board, and secondly, fewer people in different countries did it than chess. And the score, as they say, is on the scoreboard.

So, if modern chess rules appeared in the second half of the 17th century and, accordingly, at the same time, the first studies of them, mankind by now would have received this game as well mastered at the proper level. According to modern history, it turns out that people studied chess for an unacceptably long time and with huge interruptions, sometimes falling into intellectual hibernation, and then waking up, but progress was minimal.

Take a look at this link how, according to history, strong chess players are distributed over the centuries:

Famous chess players of the past
XV century	Vicente, Francesc
XV century - XVI century	Vida, Mark Jerome | Damiano, Pedro | Lucena, Luis Ramirez
XVI century	Fights, Paolo | Leonardo, Giovanni di Bona | Lopez, Rui
XVI century - XVII century	Salvio, Alessandro | Polerio, Giulio Cesare
17th century	Greco, Joaquino
XVII century - XVIII century	Lolly, Jambatista
XVIII century	Cozio, Carlo | Legal de Kermyur | Ponziani, Domenico Lorenzo | Stamma, Philip | Philidor, François-André Danican
XVIII century - XIX century	Alexander, Aaron | Allgayer, Johann Baptist | Labourdonnais, Louis Charles de | McDonnell, Alexander | Petrov, Alexander Dmitrievich | Sarrat, Jacob Henry | Stein, Elias | Ercole del Rio | Evans, William Davis
19th century	Andersen, Adolf | Dubois, Serafino | Kizeritsky, Lionel Adalbert | Kolish, Ignatius | Lange, Max | Linde, Antonius van der | Morphy, Paul Charles | Sen, Jozsef | Staunton, Howard | Urusov, Sergey Semyonovich | Heidebrand und der Laza, Tassilo background | Zukertort, Johann | Shumov, Ilya Stepanovich | Erkel, Ferenc | Yanish, Karl Andreevich

And here's what happens graphically:

Don't you think this is unnatural? After all, the closer events are to us in time, the more we need to know. This is common logic. And as people's lives improve, there should be more of those same people who can afford not to take care of their daily bread, but to play or study the game. In other words, there should be a pyramid, but here it turned out … It seems that it looks like a chess piece - well, just mysticism - don't you think?

Alexander Kalyonov, fragment of the article