Ming mang (game)

Last updated September 14, 2024

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Starting positions for Ming mang

Ming mang (Tibetan : མིག་མངས, Wylie : mig mangs) is a two-player abstract strategy board game from Tibet. Ming mang is also a general term for the word "boardgame" in Tibet. The correct name and spelling of the game may actually be Mig mang(s) (or Mig-Mang(s)),^[1]^[2] but pronounced Ming mang or Mi Mang.^[2] The term mig mang is also applied to Tibetan go^[1] with both games using exactly the same board which is a 17 x 17 square board, and black and white pieces.^[2]^[3] Mig is in reference to the chart (the pattern of horizontal and vertical lines) of the board, and Mangs refers to the notion that the more charts are used on the board, the more pieces are needed to play the game,^[4] but some state that it means "many eyes".^[1]^[2] The game may also be known as Gundru (or Gun-dru).^[5] The game was popular among some Tibetan monks before the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1950, and the uprising in 1959,^[6] and among aristocratic families.^[2]

Mig mang utilizes custodian capture of enemy pieces or a line of enemy pieces, and the captured pieces are replaced with the pieces of the player performing the capture(s); it thus resembles the games of Reversi and Othello in these respects. Each player's pieces are initially situated on two adjacent sides of the board (see diagram), and move orthogonally any number of unoccupied spaces like the rook in chess. It is an elimination game, as the objective is to capture all of the opponent's pieces. As such the game resembles jul-gonu, hasami shogi, dai hasami shogi, mak-yek, apit-sodok, rek, seega, ludus latrunculorum, and petteia. The game also bears some resemblance to Go, baduk, and weiqi since mig mang uses the same 17 x 17 square board as Tibetan go which is related to the other three games, and mig mang is often played with Go's 19 x 19 square board (although other board sizes are also used); custodian capture is somewhat related to the capture method in Go, as both methods surround or outflank enemy pieces in capturing them. Other games that might be comparable are ataxx and its variant hexxagōn, as these two games capture enemy pieces by placing pieces adjacent to them and converting them into their own pieces.

A work by a Tibetan woman, Rin-chen Lha-mo, We Tibetans (1926) describes a possible variation of the mig mang rules which have been interpreted to include captures of a piece or a group of pieces that turn perpendicularly such as around corners of the board, which are generally difficult to capture using the regular custodian method; moreover, she states that when one of the players has only one piece left, it develops the additional power to leap over the other player's pieces and capture them as in draughts or Alquerque.^[1]^[5]

Setup

The game is played on an n x n square board, but traditionally it was played on a 17×17 square board. But varying board sizes are played with including the 8×8 square board depicted in the diagram, and it's this 8×8 square board that will be described here-in-forth with respect to the setup and rules. To start the game, each player needs 14 pieces on the board. However, each player has an additional 14 pieces in order to replace captured enemy pieces on the board. One player plays the white pieces and the other plays the black pieces, however, any two colors are appropriate.

Instead of an additional 14 pieces per player, pieces with one side white and the other side black can be used similar to those used in Reversi and Othello, that way captured pieces are simply turned over to the colors of the player who performed the capture.

Players decide what colored pieces to play, and who will start first.

The game starts with each player's 14 pieces lined up on two adjacent sides of the board as depicted on the diagram. Each player's remaining 14 pieces are set beside the board as their respective stockpile.

Rules

Players alternate their turns. Each player moves only one piece per turn.
A piece is moved orthogonally any number of unoccupied spaces. The moves are identical to the rook in chess or the pieces in tafl.
A player is not allowed to move a piece that brings the game back to a previous position.
Capture of an enemy piece or a line of enemy pieces is done by the custodian method (also known as interception), and this must be created by the player performing the capture on his or her turn. The player's piece moves adjacently next to an enemy piece or line of enemy pieces that are already flanked on the other side by a friendly piece. All these pieces must be in the same row or column with no vacant space between any of them.
Captured enemy pieces are removed at the end of the turn, each immediately replaced by one of the captor's pieces from their stock pile.
A player is allowed to move a piece between two of the enemy's pieces on a row or column (with no vacant space between any of them) without being captured, since the enemy did not create the custodian capture on their turn. One of the enemy pieces must move away, and then return to the same position to capture the sandwiched piece if the opportunity is still available.
- Similarly, a player is allowed to move a piece next to a line of friendly pieces which together as a group are flanked on two opposite sides by enemy pieces on a row or column (with no vacant space between any of them) without any of them being captured, since the enemy did not create the custodian capture on their turn. One of the enemy pieces must move away, and then return to the same position to capture the sandwiched pieces if the opportunity is still available.
Multiple custodian captures can be performed in one turn. There are three general cases that exist:
- A player moves their piece between two enemy pieces (or between two lines of enemy pieces) which are flanked on their respective opposite sides by a friendly piece (all of these pieces being on the same row or column with no space between any of them), this is cause for the capture of the enemy pieces. In this case, two custodian captures were performed but on one row or column only.
- A player moves their piece between two enemy pieces (or between two lines of enemy pieces) in such a way that one of the enemy pieces (or one of the lines of enemy pieces) is on the same row, and the other enemy piece (or the other line of enemy pieces) is on the same column, and that each enemy piece (or each of the two lines of enemy pieces) is flanked on the other side by a friendly piece of the same row or column respectively (with no vacant space between any of them), this is cause for the capture of the two enemy pieces (or of the two lines of enemy pieces). In this case, two custodian captures were performed but one was on a row, and the other was on a column.
- A player moves their piece between three enemy pieces (or between three lines of enemy pieces) in such a way that two of the enemy pieces (or two lines of enemy pieces) are on the same row (or column), and the third enemy piece (or third line of enemy pieces) is on the same column (or row), and that each enemy piece (each of the three lines of enemy pieces) is flanked on the other side by a friendly piece of the same row or column respectively (with no vacant space between any of them), this is cause for the capture of the three enemy pieces (or of the three lines of enemy pieces). In this case, three custodian captures were performed but two were on a row (or column), and the other was on a column (or row).
A player wins if he or she captures all of their opponent's pieces, or stalemates their opponent's pieces by not allowing them to move on their turn.

Other rules

In Rin-chen Lha-mo's work We Tibetans (1926), she states that "The longer the sequence you can [capture] . . . the better and the sequence is not broken by going around a corner, thus:".^[1] This has been interpreted to mean that it may be possible to capture a corner piece, or a line(s) of pieces that occupy a portion of two adjacent sides of the board (hence at most one corner piece) by flanking them on two opposite ends provided there is no vacant space between any of the pieces, and Rin-cen Lha-mo actually provides an illustration showing just that. This rule is useful because it's generally difficult to perform these types of captures using the regular custodian method. However, some critics have debated whether this rule can be applied to any position on the board, or just with corner pieces. Rin-chen Lha-mo does however specifically state "...going around a corner...", and provides an illustrative example of pieces strictly going around a corner of the board. Lastly, Rin-chen Lha-mo does not specify whether or not the two pieces used to flank the captured pieces must occupy the same two adjacent sides that the captured pieces are occupying, although based upon the illustrative example she gave, she may have been attempting to suggest that. For example, in the beginning of the game, can one player attempt to capture the other player's 14 pieces as it is initially laid out using this modified custodian method? She also does not specify if (any of) the two pieces can be corner pieces (but opposite one another on the board if both are corner pieces) since these two corner pieces would not only occupy the same adjacent sides of the captured pieces, but also the remaining two other sides.
Rin-chen Lha-mo also states that when a player has only one piece left, then ". . . this acquires the additional power of taking pieces by hopping as in draughts, so that, to prevent this, it has to be closed in on each side by two pieces instead of one: it is thus possible to win, even when reduced to this desperate position, but of course most unlikely."^[1] The piece likely can perform captures using the short leap along an orthogonal direction, although she does not clarify if captures are compulsory or if multiple leaps and captures can be performed in a single turn.

Strategy and concepts

As a player continues to capture more enemy pieces, he or she is also amassing more pieces (that he or she can use) since captured enemy pieces are replaced with the player's pieces from their stockpile.

External links

Related Research Articles

Xiangqi, commonly known as Chinese chess or elephant chess, is a strategy board game for two players. It is the most popular board game in China. Xiangqi is in the same family of games as shogi, janggi, Western chess, chaturanga, and Indian chess. Besides China and areas with significant ethnic Chinese communities, this game is also a popular pastime in Vietnam, where it is known as cờ tướng, literally 'General's chess'.

Mak-yek is a two-player abstract strategy board game played in Thailand and Myanmar. Players move their pieces as in the rook in chess and attempt to capture their opponent's pieces through custodian and intervention capture. The game may have been first described in literature by Captain James Low a writing contributor in the 1839 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, Second Part of the Twentieth Volume in which he wrote chapter X On Siamese Literature and documented the game as Maak yék. Another early description of the game is by H.J.R. Murray in his 1913 work A History of Chess, and the game was written as Maak-yek.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Janggi</span> Chess variant native to Korea

Janggi, sometimes called Korean chess, is a strategy board game popular on the Korean Peninsula. The game was derived from xiangqi, and is very similar to it, including the starting position of some of the pieces, and the 9×10 gameboard, but without the xiangqi "river" dividing the board horizontally in the middle.

Ludus latrunculorum, latrunculi, or simply latrones was a two-player strategy board game played throughout the Roman Empire. It is said to resemble chess or draughts, as it is generally accepted to be a game of military tactics. Because of the scarcity of sources, reconstruction of the game's rules and basic structure is difficult, and therefore there are multiple interpretations of the available evidence.

Yari shogi is a modern variant of shogi ; however, it is not Japanese. It was invented in 1981 by Christian Freeling of the Netherlands. This game accentuates shogi’s intrinsically forward range of direction by giving most of the pieces the ability to move any number of free squares orthogonally forward like a shogi lance. The opposite is true of promoted pieces which can move backward with the same power.

Hasami shogi is a variant of shogi. The game has two main variants, and all Hasami variants, unlike other shogi variants, use only one type of piece, and the winning objective is not checkmate. One main variant involves capturing all but one of the opponent's men; the other involves building an unbroken vertical or horizontal chain of five-in-a-row.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Banqi</span>

Banqi or Half Chess, also known as Dark Chess (暗棋) or Blind Chess (盲棋), is a two-player Chinese board game played on a 4×8 grid, or half of the xiangqi board. Most games last between ten and twenty minutes, but advanced games can last for an hour or more. Banqi is a social game, usually played for fun rather than serious competition. A more formal version of Banqi may have evolved into the games Jungle and modern Luzhanqi.

The Game of the Generals, also called GG or GOG or simply The Generals, is an educational war game invented in the Philippines by Sofronio H. Pasola Jr. in 1970. Its Filipino name is "Salpakan." It can be played within twenty to thirty minutes. It is designed for two players, each controlling an army, and a neutral arbiter to decide the results of "challenges" between opposing playing pieces that have their identities hidden from the opponent.

Russian draughts is a variant of draughts (checkers) played in Russia and some parts of the former USSR, as well as parts of Eastern Europe and Israel.

Awithlaknakwe is a strategy board game from the Zuni Native American Indians of the American Southwest. The board contains 168 squares with diagonal grids. Two or four may play, with players identified as North, West, South, and East.

Bizingo is a two-player strategy board game created sometime in the 1850s in the United States. Two opposing armies on a triangular grid face off against one another. The game seems unrelated to any other, except perhaps to the traditional Zuni game Awithlaknakwe.

Pasang is a two-player abstract strategy board game from Brunei. The game is often referred to as Pasang Emas which is actually a software implementation of the traditional board game. The object of this game is to acquire the most points by capturing black and white tokens on the board. Black tokens are worth 1 point, and white tokens are worth 2 points. The board is initially laid out with all 120 black and white tokens in one of over 30 traditional patterns. Players choose a piece called a "ka" which is used to capture the tokens on the board. Each player's "ka" moves around the board capturing as many tokens as possible As a note, the "kas" are the only mobile pieces in the game. The other pieces are stationary, and are captured by the "kas". Players must capture token(s) during their turn, or lose the game. When all tokens have been captured from the board, the player with the most points is the winner. However, if there are any tokens left on the board, and none can be captured on a player's turn, then that player loses the game, and the other player is the winner.

Jul-gonu is a two-player abstract strategy board game from Korea. It is one of many gonu games. The game has a relatively small board, and yet offers a challenge at different levels. The game could be played on a larger board, however, it tends to be tiresome. Jul means "lines", and the lines of the board are often drawn on the ground. The game is also referred to as "ne-jul-gonu", i.e. "four-lines gonu", referring to the four lines in each direction.

Kharbaga is a two-player abstract strategy game from North Africa. In a way, it is a miniature version of Zamma; however, there are more diagonal lines per square on the board as compared to Zamma. The game is considered part of the Zamma family. The game is also similar to Alquerque and draughts. The board is essentially an Alquerque board with twice the number of diagonal lines or segments allowing for greater freedom of movement. The initial setup is also similar to Alquerque, where every space on the board is filled with each player's pieces except for the middle point of the board. Moreover, each player's pieces are also set up on each player's half of the board. The game specifically resembles draughts in that pieces must move in the forward directions until they are crowned "Mullah" which is the equivalent of the King in draughts. The Mullah can move in any direction.

Cinc camins is a two-player abstract strategy game from northern China. Although played by children, there is a complexity and uniqueness to the game that adults can appreciate. The game may be related to the gonu (kono) games of Korea. These games use small boards, and have unique capturing rules.

Brax is a two-player abstract strategy board game. It was invented in 1889 in America by Frederic B. Denham of New York City. The board design is unique. The players move their pieces along paths on the square board; each path is one of two colors. A piece can move one or two spaces in a turn depending upon whether it matches the color of the path. Players attempt to capture each other's pieces.

Tûkvnanawöpi is a two-player abstract strategy board game played by the Hopi native American Indians of Arizona, United States. The game was traditionally played on a slab of stone, and the board pattern etched on it. Tukvnanawopi resembles draughts and Alquerque. Each player attempts to capture each other's pieces by hopping over them. It is unknown how old the game is; however, the game was published as early as 1907 in Stewart Culin's book "Games of the North American Indians Volume 2: Games of Skill".

Awithlaknannai Mosona is a two-player strategy board game from the Zuni Native American Indian tribe of New Mexico, United States. It is unknown how old the game is. The game was described by Stewart Culin in his book "Games of the North American Indians Volume 2: Games of Skill" (1907). In this book, it was named Awithlaknan Mosona. Awithlaknannai Mosona resembles another Zuni board game called Kolowis Awithlaknannai with few minor differences. The former having a smaller board, and depending upon the variant, it also has less lines joining the intersection points. The rules are the same. Awithlaknannai Mosona belongs to the draughts and alquerque family of games as pieces hop over one another when capturing. It is actually more related to Alquerque, since the board is made up of intersection points and lines connecting them. It is thought that the Spanish had brought Alquerque to the American Southwest, and Awithlaknannai Mosona may have been an evolution from Alquerque. However, in Stewart Culin's 1907 book, the Zunis claim that they had adopted a hunt game from Mexico similar to catch the hare and the fox games of Europe, and transformed it into Awithlaknannai Mosona. In these games, one player has more pieces over the other, however, the other player's piece has more powers. The Zuni's equalized the numbers of pieces and their powers, and also may have transformed the board making its length far exceed its width. Diagonal lines also replaced orthogonal lines altogether. However, the hunt game from Mexico may have used an alquerque board even though the game mechanics of their new game, Awithlaknannai Mosona, were completely different.

Dala is a two-player abstract strategy board game from Sudan, and played especially by the Baggara tribes. The game is also called Herding the Cows. It is an alignment game with captures similar to that of the game Dara. Players first drop their pieces onto the board, and then move them orthogonally in an attempt to form 3 in-a-rows which allows a player to capture any of their opponent's piece on the board.

This glossary of board games explains commonly used terms in board games, in alphabetical order. For a list of board games, see List of board games; for terms specific to chess, see Glossary of chess; for terms specific to chess problems, see Glossary of chess problems.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 Shotwell, Peter. A Form of Tibetan Mig-Mang From the West?. Archived from the original on 6 September 2015. Retrieved 12 July 2016.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
1 2 3 4 5 West, Andrew (4 March 2006). "Tibetan Go". BabelStone Blog. Archived from the original on 11 September 2016. Retrieved 12 July 2016.
1 2 3 Walker, Damian. "Ming mang (Leaflet #55)". Cyningstan Traditional Board Games. Retrieved 12 July 2016.
↑ Bue, Erberto F. Lo (2011). Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar of the IATS, 2003. Volume 13: Art in Tibet Issues in Traditional Tibetan Art From the Seventh to Twentieth Century. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV. p. 146. ISBN 9789004155190.
1 2 Winther, Mats. "Tibetan Gundru". Board games. Retrieved 12 July 2016.
1 2 Botermans, Jack (2008). The Book of Games: Strategy, Tactics & History (1st. ed.). New York, NY / London: Sterling Publishing Co., Inc. pp. 619–626. ISBN 978-1-4027-4221-7 . Retrieved 12 July 2016.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[ShotwellMigMang-1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 Shotwell, Peter. A Form of Tibetan Mig-Mang From the West?. Archived from the original on 6 September 2015. Retrieved 12 July 2016.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)

[WestMigMang-2] 1 2 3 4 5 West, Andrew (4 March 2006). "Tibetan Go". BabelStone Blog. Archived from the original on 11 September 2016. Retrieved 12 July 2016.

[WalkerMigMang-3] 1 2 3 Walker, Damian. "Ming mang (Leaflet #55)". Cyningstan Traditional Board Games. Retrieved 12 July 2016.

[BueMigMang-4] Bue, Erberto F. Lo (2011). Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar of the IATS, 2003. Volume 13: Art in Tibet Issues in Traditional Tibetan Art From the Seventh to Twentieth Century. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV. p. 146. ISBN 9789004155190.

[WintherGundru-5] 1 2 Winther, Mats. "Tibetan Gundru". Board games. Retrieved 12 July 2016.

[BotermansMigMang-6] 1 2 Botermans, Jack (2008). The Book of Games: Strategy, Tactics & History (1st. ed.). New York, NY / London: Sterling Publishing Co., Inc. pp. 619–626. ISBN 978-1-4027-4221-7 . Retrieved 12 July 2016.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]