Mak-yek

Mak-yek (Template:Lang-th, RTGS: mak yaek) is a board game played in Thailand (formerly called Siam) and Myanmar (formerly called Burma). The game may have been first described in literature by G.H. Huttmann in his 1836 work "Asiatic Researches; or, Transactions of the Society, Instituted in Bengal, For Inquiring into The History, The Antiquities, The Arts and Sciences, and Literature of Asian, Volume 20" and was referred to as Maak yék. Another early description of the game is by H.J.R. Murray in his 1913 work "A History of Chess", and refers to it as Maak-yek. Both Huttmann and Murray describe two versions of the game that are unrelated to one another.

In the first version of the game, Murray states that the game is played on a chess board which would suggest an 8 x 8 square board perhaps even checkered. Huttmann doesn't mention a square board much less a chess board, and only mentions that it is "a game somewhat resembling draft" (draft being the game of draughts or checkers) which might suggest that the game is played on a draughts board which are square and generally checkered (although of unknown dimensions as he doesn't mention the specific draughts variant in mind), but fails to explicitly describe it as a square board much less a checkered one. But Huttmann does mention that "The pieces do move in squares in all directions, the number not being limited", and this suggest a board consisting of squares which might suggest a square board. But Huttmann somewhat contradicts himself and alludes to a square grid instead of a square board when he writes "It is played with thirty-two men--sixteen of a side--and arranged respectively on their first and third lines". His use of the word "lines" instead of row or rank suggest that pieces are played on the intersection points and move along the lines as oppose to pieces being played within the squares as in orthodox chess, or that that lines could be interpreted as a row or rank of squares and that Huttmann chose an unfortunately vague term for them. Murray confirms Huttmann's account on the the movement of the pieces though, i.e., pieces can move any number of spaces in one direction. What is somewhat vague is that the pieces can move in all directions which suggest not only orthogonal movements but also diagonal movements, however most modern incarnations of this game only use orthogonal movements. But both Huttmann and Murray describe the second version of the game (which will be described in more detail later) as being limited to only orthogonal movements as they both specifically rule out diagonal movements, which suggest that the first version may indeed include diagonal movements otherwise they would both have specifically ruled it out. Furthermore, neither authors mention about not having to move through other pieces (friend or foe) that obstruct the path of movement, but in most modern versions of the game, a piece cannot move through another piece along its path of movement which is comparable to the limitations of the rook (or bishop if diagonal movements are allowed) in chess. Both authors agree that each of the two players have 16 pieces each, and are initially laid out on the first and third rank nearest each of them similar to the initial setup of Makruk (or Thai Chess). Huttmann describes a game with both custodian and intervention capture. Murray only describes intervention capture, but both agree that only two enemy pieces may be captured through intervention capture. Huttmann elaborates that more than one enemy piece can be captured through custodian capture as long as there is no empty space between any of the pieces involved. Huttmann writes "The object is to get one or more of the adversaries' pieces betwixt two of the players' ones, which, if there be no intervals between any of the confined and confining pieces, are taken...". In most modern versions of the game, only one enemy piece may be sandwiched between two adjacent friendly pieces and be captured, however, the number of enemy pieces that can be captured in a single move is not limited to one. In a player's move two or three single enemy pieces may additionally be sandwiched (with the help of other adjacent friendly pieces) and thus all be captured. Huttmann does not specify if this is the type of multiple capture of enemy pieces that he had in mind. The other type is capturing a line of two or more enemy pieces with two adjacent friendly pieces, one on each side of the line of enemy pieces. This may have been actually what Huttmann had in mind especially since this is the more simpler example of multiple capturing, but he fails to differentiate between the two multiple capturing methods,.

In the second version of the game, both Huttmann and Murray describe what appears to be a hunt game where one player possesses only one piece, and goes against another player with sixteen pieces. The player with one piece can move in any direction except diagonally (therefore it's limited to orthogonal movements), and capture a single enemy piece as long as there is an empty square behind it. Both authors do not mention that either player's pieces are limited to moving one square (or one intersection point) at a time in a single turn which would suggest that both player's pieces can move any number of unobstructed squares or spaces as in the first version of the game. Both authors also do not mention if the piece performing the capture must be adjacent to the enemy piece, and if there is no such restriction then this would suggest that the piece performing the capture resembles the capturing movement of a flying king in draughts. Furthermore, both authors only mention that an empty square must be behind the captured piece, but does not specify any number of empty squares behind the captured piece that the piece performing the capture can land on. Both authors also don't mention if the player with sixteen pieces can perform a capture, although it may be assumed otherwise they would have mentioned it; moreover, in most hunt games the player with more pieces cannot capture. Both authors do not specify if the player with 16 pieces is limited only to orthogonal movements (as in the case of the single piece played by the opposing player), or if it's allowed to perform diagonal movements as well, but since such a restriction is not explicitly stated (as in the case of the opposing player), this might suggest that diagonal movements are permissible. Lastly, Huttmann writes "...and takes by leaping over one piece at a time.." which might suggest that in a single turn the player with the single piece may perform multiple jumps (and therefore multiple captures) as long as the player leaps (and captures) one enemy piece at a time. Murray does not necessarily preclude multiple jumps (and therefore multiple captures), but the way he describes the capturing rule suggest the he does not strongly support it as compared to Huttmann.

The game is played on an 8 by 8 square board by two players each having sixteen pieces or "men." A Malaysian variant called Apit-sodok is closely related.

Men are laid out on the first and third row from the player as in Makruk (also known as Thai Chess). There is no special way of deciding who starts the game. Players take turns moving their men horizontally or vertically like the rook in chess (i.e. not through pieces), capturing the opponent's pieces through custodian capture and intervention capture.

Intervention capture is the opposite of custodian. If a stone moves between two enemy stones, it captures both stones.

The first player with no pieces left loses.

A similar game is also played in Cambodia called Rek where both custodian and intervention captures are also featured, however each player has an additional piece which is a king, and the objective of each player is to capture the other player's king thus resembling chess. A variant of Rek called Min Rek Chanh is also similarly related.

Mak-yek, Apit-sodok, Rek, and Min Rek Chanh exhibit intervention capture in addition to custodian capture and orthogonal movement of pieces as in the rook in chess. Therefore, they form a subgroup within the group of games that includes only custodian capture and orthogonal movement of pieces such as Jul-Gonu, Hasami shogi, Dai hasami shogi, Ming Mang, Gundru, Seega, Ludus latrunculorum, Petteia, and Firdawsi’s Nard. They are also related to the Tafl games for the same reasons except that the Tafl games are asymmetrical in the number and type of pieces each player possess; furthermore, the objective in Tafl games is for one player to move their king to the edge of the board, and the objective of the other player is to capture that king. It may also be distantly related to Agon, Awithlaknakwe, Bizingo, Reversi, Othello, Wei-chi, Baduk, and Go as all of these games exhibit custodian capture or some form of it (as in the case of Wei-chi, Baduk, and Go).

Bibliography

• H. J. R. Murray: History of Board Games other than Chess (1952)