Hnefatafl_by_Sten_Helmfrid.pdf

Hnefatafl—the Strategic Board Game of the Vikings

An overview of rules and variations of the game by Sten Helmfrid

On Itha Plain met the mighty gods;

Shrines and temples they timbered high,

They founded forges to fashion gold,

Tongs they did shape and tools they made;

Played tafl in the court, and cheerful they were.

– Völuspá

Introduction

the book Chess in Iceland in 1905, but he finally

abandoned the problem as insoluble 1 . The only

conclusion he could make was that it was played

between two groups of "maids" with a "hnefi" on

one side. Hnefi is an Icelandic word and literally

means fist, but since the hnefi had a role corre-

sponding to the king in chess it is often translated

as king. The word hnefatafl itself is a compilation

of hnefa, genitive of hnefi, and tafl, which is the

Old Norse word for board (originally borrowed

from the Latin word tabula with the same mean-

ing).

The game remained a mystery until the British

chess historian Harold J. R. Murray connected the

description of a Saami 2 game, tablut, in the diary of

Swedish botanist Carl von Linné from his trip to

A century ago, many experts on ancient Scandina-

via were fascinated by a mysterious board game,

called hnefatafl or tafl, which was often mentioned

in the Sagas. Its reputation as intellectual pursuit

was equal to that of chess today, and Norse no-

blemen were often boasting about their skills in

tafl-play. In the early Middle Ages, when chess was

introduced in Scandinavia, the noble game of the

Vikings gradually became extinct and no explana-

tion of the rules survived for the scientists in the

19th century. One of the first persons who became

devoted to solving the puzzle of hnefatafl was

Willard Fiske, an American expert on languages.

He collected a lot of material that was published in

Lapland in 1732 with the descriptions of hnefatafl

in the Sagas. Murray’s hypothesis, that the Saami

game of tablut was identical with hnefatafl, was

put forward in his book History of Chess in 1913 3 .

Thirty-nine years later Murray published another

book called History of Board Games other than

Chess 4 . By that time, much more material that

supported his theory had been discovered, notably

a Welsh manuscript from 1587 by Robert ap Ifan

describing a game called tawl-bwrdd.

From the material that Murray presented in his

second book, we learn that tafl was known not

only in Scandinavia, but also in other regions that

were under influence by the Vikings: Ireland,

Wales, England and Lapland. Although rules and

size of the gaming board changed a little bit with

time, the basic idea remained intact for more than

a millennium. The game is played on a chequered

board, the number of squares in vertical direction

being odd and equal to the number of squares in

horizontal direction, so that there is a distinct

central square. It simulates a battle between two

unequal forces, a weaker force in the centre of the

board, surrounded and outnumbered by an attack-

ing force.

The surrounded side consists of a king ( hnefi )

and a number of mutually identical pieces called

defenders. All pieces on the attacker’s side are

identical, and they outnumber the defenders by

2:1. The king, who is larger than the other pieces

on the board, is initially placed on the central

square, the defenders are standing on the squares

next to him, and the attackers are placed on

squares in the outer parts of the board. The objec-

tive for the surrounded side is to break out and

escape with the king, whereas the attackers win if

they manage to capture the king. All pieces move

any number of vacant squares in vertical or hori-

zontal direction, like a rook in chess. A piece is

captured and removed from the board if it is

sandwiched between two enemy pieces, one on

each side in vertical or horizontal direction.

The basic rules presented here are fairly simple,

but the details are bound by nature to be more

complicated. Hnefatafl is a so-called asymmetrical

game, i.e. both sides have a different objective and

different forces at their disposal. According to

game theory, such games are always unbalanced

unless the correct outcome of the game is a draw 5 .

When two skilled opponents meet, one side will at

the end turn out to be easier to play and always

win the game.

The degree of imbalance can be adjusted by

changing the rules, for instance the inital arrange-

ment of pieces and the escape route for the king.

The most simple escape rule is for the king to

reach any square on the periphery of the board. It

turns out that for any reasonable initial arrange-

ment of the pieces, this gives a huge advantage for

the king’s side. Unfortunately, due to misinterpre-

tations of the original texts, it is a widespread mis-

conception that most tafl games used this simple

escape rule. If the escape area is shrinked to just

the four corner squares of the board, without any

further change of the rules, the attackers will al-

ways win as they can block the corners in only

four moves by putting pieces there.

It is obvious that the rules of any tafl game

have to be worked out with great care. A good

balance can be achieved by using the entire periph-

ery as escape area, but adding some further restric-

tions for the king’s escape, or by using the corner

squares as escape area, but adding some rules that

make it more difficult to block them. Further ad-

justments can be made by changing the initial ar-

rangement of pieces, by letting or not letting the

king take part in captures, by making it more or

less difficult to capture the king, or by adding

squares on the board that are restricted, i.e. squares

that can only be passed or occupied under certain

conditions. The latter arrangement reduces the

mobility of the pieces and in general favours the

attacking side. If restricted squares are used, they

must probably be made hostile to other pieces in

the sense that they can replace one of the attacking

pieces in a capture. Otherwise it will be too easy to

protect pieces by placing them next to restricted

squares.

Tablut—the best documented tafl game

The most extensive description of a descendant of

hnefatafl is the account of tablut in Linné’s diary 6 .

The word tablut in Saami, sometimes also written

as tablot or dablot , is a verb that literally means, "to

play dablo ". The noun, dablo , is used both for the

game and for the playing pieces, but curiously

enough the verbal form seems much more com-

mon when reference is made to the game.

Tablut does not only refer to this particular

version of hnefatafl, but is a generic name for

board games. Dablot prejjesne is another example

of a Saami board game. The Swedish ethnologist

Nils Keyland recorded the game in Frostviken,

Sweden, in 1921. It is related to checkers and

alquerque, and it has quite different principles for

capturing and moving pieces than hnefatafl 7 . The

word dablo is ancient, and was probably borrowed

from the Old Norse plural form of tafl, tablo ,

already during the Iron Age.

Linné’s account begins with a description of

the gaming board and pieces, along with some

drawings of these items. The squares where the

king and the attackers initially are placed are or-

namented and the squares where the defenders are

placed are shaded in the sketch of the gaming

board. All squares are designated by either a num-

ber or a letter. The defenders, called Swedes, are

white, whereas the attackers, Muscovites, are dark.

After the introductory presentation of the game

equipment, there is a section called laws with some

notes on observations made by Linné during play.

The observations are written down in fourteen

entries, often presented as examples of possible

moves. Apparently, Linné did not understand the

aboriginal Saami language.

In his reconstruction of the game, Murray as-

sumed that the king escaped if he reached any

square on the periphery. The escape rule was actu-

ally never formulated by Linné himself, but Mur-

ray derived it implicitly from one of the examples:

if the king goes from square b to square m (with

reference to the figure in the manuscript), the war

is over and the king’s side has won the battle.

Square m is located at the periphery.

Other examples in the text suggest that the

king could not escape to any of the ornamented

squares where the attackers are standing before

play begins 8 . Unfortunately, Murray did not con-

sider these subtle details in Linné’s notes. His

assumption that the king can escape anywhere

along the edge of the board and that tablut inher-

ently is unbalanced has been recycled as an undis-

putable fact in almost all later accounts of tablut 9 .

When Riksutställningar , the Swedish Travelling

Exhibitions, made an exhibition on Games and

Gambling in 1972, they reconstructed the game in,

what I believe, a much more accurate and a much

more balanced way 10 . Let us sum up the recon-

structed rules:

cording to Linné, the castle was called konokis

in Saami, but this word most likely refers to

the king himself. There is no special name re-

ported for the base camps.) The castle and the

base camps are all restricted areas, in which

special rules apply.

4. The objective for the Swedish side is to move

the king to any square on the periphery of the

board, which is not restricted. In that case, the

Swedish king has escaped and the Swedish side

wins. The Muscovite side wins if the attackers

can capture the king before he escapes.

5. The Swedish side moves first, and the game

then proceeds by alternate moves. All pieces

move any number of vacant squares along a

row or a column, like a rook in chess. How-

ever, it is forbidden to pass or enter a re-

stricted area. The Muscovites, who initially are

placed in the restricted base camps, may move

to other squares in the same camp and may

also pass squares in the camp on their way out,

but once a Muscovite has left its base camp it

may not return, nor enter or pass another re-

stricted area. When the king has left the castle,

no piece may pass or occupy the central squ-

are.

6. All pieces except the king are captured if they

are sandwiched between two enemy pieces

along a column or a row, either with the two

enemy pieces on the square above and below

or with the two enemy pieces on the square to

the left and to the right of the attacked piece,

respectively. A piece is only captured if the

trap is closed by a move of the opponent, and

it is, therefore, allowed to move in between

two enemy pieces. A captured piece is re-

moved from the board and is no longer active

in the play.

1. Two players may participate. One player plays

the white Swedish pieces, a king and eight dra-

bants, while the other player plays the sixteen

dark Muscovite pieces.

7. The king himself is captured if he is sur-

rounded with enemy pieces or restricted

squares in all four cardinal points, so that he

cannot move in any direction.

2. The game is played on a board with 9×9

squares (Fig. 1). Initially, the Swedish king is

placed on the central square with his eight dra-

bants on the two closest squares in each point

of the compass. The sixteen Muscovites are

placed in four T-shaped patterns along the

edges.

8. A drabant who is standing beside his king may

be captured by surrounding both pieces in a

combined trap. The Muscovite side must be

able to close a trap where the king is blocked

in the other three points of the compass, either

by Muscovites or by restricted squares, and

where a Muscovite occupies the square closest

to the drabant in the opposite direction as the

king. In that case, the drabant next to the king

3. The central square is called the castle and the

T-shaped regions where the Muscovites ini-

tially are placed are called the base camps. (Ac-

Fig. 1. Initial arrangement of the pieces in Tablut.

is captured and removed. (The king is not cap-

tured by this attack.)

gue that a riddle in Hervarar Saga indicates that the

king is weaponless and that a weaponless king

makes the game more balanced. Therefore, they

have added a rule that the king may not take part

in captures. To emphasise that the original text is

not clear on this point, the rule is described as

optional. I have omitted this rule, since I find the

riddle in Hervarar Saga too ambiguous to be useful

in this context. A few test games have also con-

vinced me that a weaponless king makes the game

unbalanced in favour of the attacking forces. Riks-

utställningar also present two of the rules concern-

ing the throne and the base camps as optional in

their reconstruction. The first one is the rule that

the Muscovites may move within the base camps

before they exit and the second one is a rule that I

also have omitted in the summary above. It says

that the castle is hostile to all pieces, not only to

the king, and it is based on an entry in Linné’s

account that is unclearly formulated and very hard

to translate.

Rule number 10 above is not in Linné’s diary,

but has been added to deal with situations where

eternal threats arise. Such threats may occur, for

instance, if the king can escape from a square

called A, and the escape can only be blocked by

moving a Muscovite from B to C. If the Swedish

king then can move to D and threaten to escape

over B, and if the escape can only be blocked by

the Muscovite at C, then we have an eternal threat

with the cycle Swede moves D to A, Muscovite B

9. When the king has one free way to the edge of

the board, the player on the Swedish side must

warn his opponent by saying raicki . When the

king has two free ways, he must say tuicku ,

which is the equivalent of checkmate 11 .

10. A threat that will lead to a sure victory may

not be repeated more than twice. After that,

the offensive side must make another move.

There are some gaps in Linné’s description that

have been filled in the reconstruction above. Linné

never says which side that makes the first move.

This can be resolved rather arbitrarily, as it doesn’t

affect the balance of the game that much. Accord-

ing to entry number nine in the original text, a

man is captured when he gets between two squares

occupied by his enemies. It is not clearly stated

whether it is allowed to move in between two en-

emy pieces without being captured. In ap Ifans

description it is allowed, and, since this is a fun-

damental feature of the game, the same rule proba-

bly applies for both versions.

"Enemy" in the capture rule above should apply

to any piece of the king’s forces when attackers are

being captured, but Linné never explicitly says that

the king himself may take part in captures. In the

game description from Riksutställningar, they ar-

to C, Swede A to D, Muscovite C to B, and so on.

I believe that experienced players will find it neces-

sary to add more sophisticated rules to deal with

eternal threats, and also to work out rules that deal

with situations where one side is blocked by the

other, and either cannot make a legal move or is

confined to a region from which it can never break

out.

It is generally assumed that the account from

1732 is the latest description of a surviving hnefa-

tafl game. In 1884, more than 150 years after

Linné’s journey, there was a book published in

Stockholm about Saami legends, folklore and tra-

ditions. In a chapter called Shrove Tuesday, we get

the following depiction about what happens when

the men get back from skiing 12 : "Now an old and

dirty card deck is taken out, and the men sit

around the table to play svälta räv , hund och kola ,

or some other game for their entertainment; they

rarely play about money, at the very most about a

few cups of coffee or drinks. If there are not cards

enough for everyone, it may happen that a few

men sit down and play a sort of chess, where the

pieces are called Russians and Swedes, and try to

defeat each other. Here intense battles are fought,

which easily can be observed on the players, who

sometimes are so absorbed that they cannot see or

hear anything else." We cannot be sure that the

chess-like game really is hnefatafl, as the Saami

played a lot of other board games with two armies

fighting each other, for instance the above men-

tioned game from Frostviken. However, it cer-

tainly is intriguing to imagine that hnefatafl may

have survived until just a bit more than a century

ago.

It is interesting to note that the defenders were

called Swedes and the attackers called Muscovites

by the Saami. The name Moscow first appeared in

1147, and Moscow became a significant centre of

power in the beginning of the 14th century. The

Viking Age in Sweden ended around 1060, with

the death of the king Emund, the last member of

the old Uppsala family on the throne. At that

time, the Viking raids deep into Russia gradually

were replaced by attempts to control the river

entrances along the Baltic coast by building forti-

fied castles. Often, these castles were under siege

by troops from Russian principalities. Therefore,

tablut may very well be a medieval Swedish varia-

tion of hnefatafl, inspired by the new strategic

situation for the Swedes on the Baltic coast. The

fact that the Saami have retained the original

names of the playing pieces suggests that they have

made little or no changes to the game since they

learned it from the Swedes.

Tawl-bwrdd, hnefatafl in Wales

The Celtic peoples seem to have been just as

adicted to board games as the Scandinavians. The

absence of music and tables is a sign of mourning,

Fir gun tàilisg gun cheòl; Gur bochd fulang mo sgeoil

éisdeachd , said Mary Macleod in her Gaelic

Songs 13 . Gaming boards were used as symbols of

wealth and prestige, and could be magnificent and

valuable pieces of workmanship. When admitted to

his office, a chancellor in Wales received a gold

ring, a harp and a gaming board from the king,

which he was expected to preserve for the rest of

his life. A judge of court received a gaming board

with playing pieces made of bone from sea-animals

from the king and a gold ring from the queen,

which he likewise was expected never to sell or

give away.

It is not surprising to find the only other

document that gives an fairly clear description of

the rules for a tafl game in the Welsh National

Library. On page 4 in the Peniarth Manuscript 158

from 1587, Robert ap Ifan gives an account of a

game called tawl-bwrdd . The English game expert

Robert C. Bell used it for a reconstruction, pre-

sented in his book Board and Table Games from

Many Civilisations 2 (1969) 14 . Unfortunately, it

seems that Bell has misinterpreted ap Ifan on some

points. In his book, Bell argues that since tawl

means throw in Welsh, dice were probably used. In

the reconstruction, the players throw the die alter-

nately and are allowed to make a move only if they

get an odd number. Many people, including my-

self, have questioned this conclusion. The use of a

die to decide the turn seems highly artifical, and

there are no other indications in the Celtic or An-

glo-Saxon material on tafl that dice ever were used.

The similarity between the Welsh word and the

Norse word for tafl is too big to be a coincidense.

Tawl-bwrdd must either have been taken from the

Medieval Latin tabula and the Saxon bord , which

means board and table, respectively, or more di-

rectly from the Old Norse word for gaming board,

taflborð 15,16 .

The escape rules of the game are worth some

attention. In Bell’s reconstruction, the king es-

capes if he reaches any square on the periphery.

According to our previous discussion, this would

make the game strongly biased in favour of the

king. It is hard to believe that such a prestigious

game would have been as unsophisticated as that.

The original manuscript explains the escape of the

king in the following way: "If the king can go

along the ---line that side wins the game". The "---"

denotes an indecipherable part of the text. The

missing part of the text may have explained which

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: