This is a great example of the fallacy of gray. Compare the changes to the rules of chess you've described to the descriptions of senet's rules referenced by t

This is a great example of the fallacy of gray. Compare the changes to the rules of chess you've described to the descriptions of senet's rules referenced by the wikipedia article[0]. If these are the best attempts at senet rule reconstruction that the article author could find, then I must assume that the rules are basically made up from scratch with nothing but a game board, some pieces, and the vaguest of references to the game in ancient texts. Familiarity with one of these so-called senet rulesets would be of no use at all to somebody playing the other, and I'm sure familiarity with both would be of no use at all to somebody wishing to play senet with any ancient player. Classifications can be fuzzy, but they're not just a giant meaningless void of gray where anything goes. Chess has variants that can be placed on an evolutionary tree. Senet appears to have nothing but a handful of naive attempts at total reconstruction from practically no information. The game that was historically called senet appears to be lost. 0. http://www.gamecabinet.com/history/Senet.html http://www.gamecabinet.com/history/Senet.html