Answers.Body: <p>In <a href="https://www.chessvariants.com/historic.dir/hindustani.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Indian Chess</a>, the game that was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_chess" rel="nofollow noreferrer">played</a> in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries in India (not to be confused with its ancestor <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaturanga" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chaturanga</a>), the rules allowed no castle, and double-step pawn moves were not allowed but:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>The king can make a knight's move once in a game, known as Indian castling.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>As a consequence, g3 followed by Kg2 for White or ...b6 followed by ...Kb7 (the black king stands on d8 at the beginning of the game in Indian chess) were very common moves in the opening, since it was the fastest way to bring the king towards the corner where it will usually find the most safety.</p>
  <p>Of course, playing g3, b3 or ...b6, ...g6 could also be followed by a &quot;normal&quot; fianchetto with the camel (our bishop).</p>
  <p>When Indian players started playing western chess (during colonization), they quite naturally used a lot of fianchettoes, since they are common in Indian Chess. As explained in user1583209's answer, that was the case for Moheschunder <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moheschunder_Bannerjee" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bannerjee</a> in his games against Cochrane around 1850:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>The Indian Defences by P-KKt3 coupled with P-Q3, or P-QKt3 coupled with P-K3, were largely taught to European players by the example of Moheschunder and other Indians, to whom the fianchetto developments were a natural legacy from their own game. It is notable that many of Bannerjee's openings were based on single pawn moves, the &quot;legacy&quot; mentioned by Sergeant, as in the rules of Indian chess.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p><a href="http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/earliest.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Chess Player's Chronicle</a> used the term &quot;Indian defense&quot; to refer to 1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 after him about 30 years later (1884). This is the first documented use of the appelation about that kind of defense with fianchetto - although &quot;Indian Opening&quot; appeared earlier to refer to 1.e4 e5 2.d3.</p>
  <p>The term &quot;Indian Defense&quot; as we understand it today (After 1.d4 Nf6, thus excluding Pirc-Ufimsev and other schemes with e4 and not c4 for White) established itself after WWI, its use being popularized by Savielly Tartakower and Hans Kmoch.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-07-14T06:45:32.333Z
Answers.Text: why isn't this the accepted answer
Answers.UserDisplayName: shashank shekhar singh
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-10-19T13:20:00.200Z
Answers.Text: Can the downvoter explain how I should improve this answer ?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Evargalo
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-24T08:27:59.880Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-06-15T06:30:35.370Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2022-06-15T06:30:35.370Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Evargalo
Answers.Body: <p>In "Indian" defenses, Black holds back his center pawns, especially his d-pawn, against a White 1. d4. This "Indian" style is in contrast to the European style of opposing 1. d4 with 1. ... d5, and 1. e4 with 1. ... e5.</p>
  
  <p>Instead, Black opts to contest White's control of the center from the side. In the King's and Queen's Indian defenses, this means moving g6 or b6 respectively, and "fianchettoing" a bishop along the "long" diagonal. In the Nimzo-Indian defense (Nimzo stands for Aron Nimzowich), it means playing B b4 after e6. But the idea is to oppose White's d4 with c5 and not d5.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-07-19T19:46:40.147Z
Answers.Text: I am afraid this doesn't address the question...
Answers.UserDisplayName: Evargalo
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-07-19T20:35:19.777Z
Answers.Text: @Evargalo: My post answers the question of "What is the significance of Indian in all these opening names?" (The fact that Black holds back his center pawns and develops from the side.) Maybe it doesn't address "What's India's contribution to it?" but that's the second part of the question.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tom Au
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-11-14T00:56:04.337Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-11-14T00:56:04.337Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tom Au
Answers.Body: <p>Indian Castling is derived from Shatranjan ( Not Shatranj ). ShadYantra is the actual game from which more advanced form of game called Shatranjan was derived by Kautilya (*Chanakya) some 2300 yrs ago. Chaturanga and Shatranj are variants.</p>
  <p>In Shatranjan, Kings can move like Knights with the help of Royal and Semi Royal Aids. But in modern chess there are no Royal and Semi Royal pieces.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-10-19T12:42:12.230Z
Answers.Text: This answer is not relevant to the question.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rosie F
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-10-09T11:57:08.453Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-10-11T18:53:43.687Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-10-11T18:53:43.687Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: ShadYantra
Answers.Body: <p>Apart from the name Indian we have French defence, Yugoslav attack of Sicilian, the Russian attack of some defence which I do not remember right now but, the names came from the country where they originated but they are played in their respective way.</p>
  
  <p>Chess has its <em>origination in India</em> and it was named <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaturanga" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chaturanga</a>.</p>
  
  <p>In the medieval world, <em>India was the only country who deployed Elephants during warfare so we have Rooks in the Game</em>. The Indian Name in many Openings does not necessarily mean a Fianchetto of the Bishop as we have Nimzo-Indian Defence where Bishop comes to b4 but <em>it's the introduction of a Bishop which is also an Indian animal Camel which was used in north India during Warfare</em>.</p>
  
  <p>So I believe that would be the only idea behind this naming convention. Even I have tried finding the reasoning but there is nothing specific. It is a sad history of chess that we do not have the name of the Person who invented the Game. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-23T09:17:50.013Z
Answers.Text: What do rooks have to do with elephants? I thought the bishops were originally elephants.
Answers.UserDisplayName: bof
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-23T09:28:55.953Z
Answers.Text: You need to match their walking/running style . Since Elephants are giants heavy animals and are straight walking , Rooks are better suited for the match to Elephant for going straight on open files .
Answers.UserDisplayName: Seth Projnabrata
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-23T09:34:13.233Z
Answers.Text: And yet the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_chess) agrees with book I've read on chess history, that originally the bishops were elephants and the rooks were chariots.
Answers.UserDisplayName: bof
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-23T13:19:28.247Z
Answers.Text: Here is one more wiki . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_chess _Wiki Indian Piece names_ where Rook is the Elephant . Please refer to the Name of the Pieces section.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Seth Projnabrata
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-24T11:29:28.493Z
Answers.Text: Can someone please let me know how to find that Person who is down voting my answer without any reason ? I am suddenly seeing that someone just reduced my 1 vote to 0 .
Answers.UserDisplayName: Seth Projnabrata
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-24T08:35:58.557Z
Answers.Text: I find the explanation unconvincing. A lot of openings use Bishop moves without being called Indian... " It is a sad history of chess that we do not have the name of the Person who invented the Game. " -> I would rather say: it is a great part of the history of Chess that no single individual invented the game !
Answers.UserDisplayName: Evargalo
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-26T11:53:08.277Z
Answers.Text: Perhaps @Evargalo u forgot the school GK where we used to match the particular inventions with the respective scientist . I think it did not got well with u . Perhaps u believe somewhat more in Teamwork .
Answers.UserDisplayName: Seth Projnabrata
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-10-26T12:02:18.500Z
Answers.Text: @SethProjnabrata : I don't understand your last comment. What I believe in is irrelevent. The OP's question is about the origin of the appelation 'Indian Defense', and your answer doesn't offer documented information in that respect. At most you speculate on camels being used for warfare in Northern India and Indian Defense featuring moves by bishop. It strikes me as a very dubious analogy, and you don't back it with any source.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Evargalo
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-11-01T14:02:16.313Z
Answers.Text: if there would have been a concrete source there would not have been so much discussion on it . There are lots of things in Chess where we sometimes speculate about the origins of openings / names and names of the pieces etc and it is undoubtedly very unfortunate where we are unaware of the person who invented the game and never a great part of the History . Yes if you say various people have contributed to the development of the Game that is absolutely fine .
Answers.UserDisplayName: Seth Projnabrata
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-03-19T15:59:28.653Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-03-23T06:35:48.543Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2017-03-23T06:35:48.543Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Seth Projnabrata
Answers.Body: <p>In many cases, openings are named after a notable first master game (or games). The master or country does not necessarily must have contributed to it. Apparently in the case of Indian openings (1. d4 Nf6), they are named after <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moheschunder_Bannerjee" rel="noreferrer">Moheschunder Bannerjee</a>. See the Wikipedia article on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Defence" rel="noreferrer">Indian defence</a>.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-11-13T12:38:37.203Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-11-13T19:09:49.917Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2016-11-13T19:09:49.917Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Body: <p>Why are a few chess openings named King's <em>Indian</em> Defense, Queen's <em>Indian</em> Defense, Nimzo-<em>Indian</em> defense, and so on?</p>
  
  <p>What is the significance of <em>Indian</em> in all these opening names? What's India's contribution to it?</p>
  
Tags: <opening><history><kings-indian><queens-indian><nimzo-indian>
Title: Why do some openings have Indian in their name?
ThreadText: # Why do some openings have Indian in their name?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-11-13)
  
  Why are a few chess openings named King's *Indian* Defense, Queen's *Indian* Defense, Nimzo-*Indian* defense, and so on?
  
  What is the significance of *Indian* in all these opening names? What's India's contribution to it?
  
  **Tags:** opening, history, kings-indian, queens-indian, nimzo-indian
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 5 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2016-11-13. Score: 15 | Accepted answer
  
  In many cases, openings are named after a notable first master game (or games). The master or country does not necessarily must have contributed to it. Apparently in the case of Indian openings (1. d4 Nf6), they are named after [Moheschunder Bannerjee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moheschunder_Bannerjee). See the Wikipedia article on [Indian defence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Defence).
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2017-10-24. Score: 19
  
  In [Indian Chess](https://www.chessvariants.com/historic.dir/hindustani.html), the game that was [played](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_chess) in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries in India (not to be confused with its ancestor [Chaturanga](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaturanga)), the rules allowed no castle, and double-step pawn moves were not allowed but:
  
  > The king can make a knight's move once in a game, known as Indian castling.
  
  As a consequence, g3 followed by Kg2 for White or ...b6 followed by ...Kb7 (the black king stands on d8 at the beginning of the game in Indian chess) were very common moves in the opening, since it was the fastest way to bring the king towards the corner where it will usually find the most safety.
  
  Of course, playing g3, b3 or ...b6, ...g6 could also be followed by a "normal" fianchetto with the camel (our bishop).
  
  When Indian players started playing western chess (during colonization), they quite naturally used a lot of fianchettoes, since they are common in Indian Chess. As explained in username_8's answer, that was the case for Moheschunder [Bannerjee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moheschunder_Bannerjee) in his games against Cochrane around 1850:
  
  > The Indian Defences by P-KKt3 coupled with P-Q3, or P-QKt3 coupled with P-K3, were largely taught to European players by the example of Moheschunder and other Indians, to whom the fianchetto developments were a natural legacy from their own game. It is notable that many of Bannerjee's openings were based on single pawn moves, the "legacy" mentioned by Sergeant, as in the rules of Indian chess.
  
  [The Chess Player's Chronicle](http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/earliest.html) used the term "Indian defense" to refer to 1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 after him about 30 years later (1884). This is the first documented use of the appelation about that kind of defense with fianchetto - although "Indian Opening" appeared earlier to refer to 1.e4 e5 2.d3.
  
  The term "Indian Defense" as we understand it today (After 1.d4 Nf6, thus excluding Pirc-Ufimsev and other schemes with e4 and not c4 for White) established itself after WWI, its use being popularized by Savielly Tartakower and Hans Kmoch.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: why isn't this the accepted answer  
  > **username_1**: Can the downvoter explain how I should improve this answer ?  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2016-11-14. Score: 1
  
  In "Indian" defenses, Black holds back his center pawns, especially his d-pawn, against a White 1. d4. This "Indian" style is in contrast to the European style of opposing 1. d4 with 1. ... d5, and 1. e4 with 1. ... e5.
  
  Instead, Black opts to contest White's control of the center from the side. In the King's and Queen's Indian defenses, this means moving g6 or b6 respectively, and "fianchettoing" a bishop along the "long" diagonal. In the Nimzo-Indian defense (Nimzo stands for Aron Nimzowich), it means playing B b4 after e6. But the idea is to oppose White's d4 with c5 and not d5.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I am afraid this doesn't address the question...  
  > **username_3**: @username_1: My post answers the question of "What is the significance of Indian in all these opening names?" (The fact that Black holds back his center pawns and develops from the side.) Maybe it doesn't address "What's India's contribution to it?" but that's the second part of the question.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2021-10-09. Score: 0
  
  Indian Castling is derived from Shatranjan ( Not Shatranj ). username_4 is the actual game from which more advanced form of game called Shatranjan was derived by Kautilya (\*Chanakya) some 2300 yrs ago. Chaturanga and Shatranj are variants.
  
  In Shatranjan, Kings can move like Knights with the help of Royal and Semi Royal Aids. But in modern chess there are no Royal and Semi Royal pieces.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_5**: This answer is not relevant to the question.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2017-03-19. Score: -3
  
  Apart from the name Indian we have French defence, Yugoslav attack of Sicilian, the Russian attack of some defence which I do not remember right now but, the names came from the country where they originated but they are played in their respective way.
  
  Chess has its *origination in India* and it was named [Chaturanga](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaturanga).
  
  In the medieval world, *India was the only country who deployed Elephants during warfare so we have Rooks in the Game*. The Indian Name in many Openings does not necessarily mean a Fianchetto of the Bishop as we have Nimzo-Indian Defence where Bishop comes to b4 but *it's the introduction of a Bishop which is also an Indian animal Camel which was used in north India during Warfare*.
  
  So I believe that would be the only idea behind this naming convention. Even I have tried finding the reasoning but there is nothing specific. It is a sad history of chess that we do not have the name of the Person who invented the Game.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_7**: What do rooks have to do with elephants? I thought the bishops were originally elephants.  
  > **username_6**: You need to match their walking/running style . Since Elephants are giants heavy animals and are straight walking , Rooks are better suited for the match to Elephant for going straight on open files .  
  > **username_7**: And yet the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_chess) agrees with book I've read on chess history, that originally the bishops were elephants and the rooks were chariots.  
  > **username_6**: Here is one more wiki . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_chess _Wiki Indian Piece names_ where Rook is the Elephant . Please refer to the Name of the Pieces section.  
  > **username_6**: Can someone please let me know how to find that Person who is down voting my answer without any reason ? I am suddenly seeing that someone just reduced my 1 vote to 0 .  
  > **username_1**: I find the explanation unconvincing. A lot of openings use Bishop moves without being called Indian... " It is a sad history of chess that we do not have the name of the Person who invented the Game. " -> I would rather say: it is a great part of the history of Chess that no single individual invented the game !  
  > **username_6**: Perhaps @username_1 u forgot the school GK where we used to match the particular inventions with the respective scientist . I think it did not got well with u . Perhaps u believe somewhat more in Teamwork .  
  > **username_1**: @SethProjnabrata : I don't understand your last comment. What I believe in is irrelevent. The OP's question is about the origin of the appelation 'Indian Defense', and your answer doesn't offer documented information in that respect. At most you speculate on camels being used for warfare in Northern India and Indian Defense featuring moves by bishop. It strikes me as a very dubious analogy, and you don't back it with any source.  
  > **username_6**: if there would have been a concrete source there would not have been so much discussion on it . There are lots of things in Chess where we sometimes speculate about the origins of openings / names and names of the pieces etc and it is undoubtedly very unfortunate where we are unaware of the person who invented the game and never a great part of the History . Yes if you say various people have contributed to the development of the Game that is absolutely fine .  
  
  ---
  
  