Where, when and how was checkers/draughts born? Writers on board games [Linde 1874 II:394; Gonjajew 1886; Sargin 1890:58; Fiske 1905:93-4; Branch 1911-1912; Murray 1916; 1952:73-5; Kruijswijk 1966; Bell 1969; Bakker 1992; Westerveld 1997; Parlett 1999] assume that chess played a decisive part. Modern writers embrace Murray's hypothesis [1952:75]. He wrote: "Undoubtedly one parent was chess which provided (...) the name of the draughtsman (...), in French dame, and after the death of the medieval chess, peon in Spanish, pion in French and pedina in Italian."

Stephen Toulmin (1997)

The use of an argumentation model is a good method to assess an argumentation. A practical model, workable in a scholarly discussion, was developed by the English philosopher and physicist Stephen Toulmin. His model has three stages:

Note. The author can express reservations about his claim: "supposedly", "probably", "likely", "almost certain" etc.

▲

▲

Warning: A claim can only be right if the data is true and the warrant explains why the claim logically results from the data.

Example of an argumentation

An often given example in publications about argumentation:

Claim: I think that Anne must have red hair,

Warrant: for any of Jack's sisters has red hair

Data: Anna is one of Jack's sisters

This argumentation can be expressed in several ways, like "As Anne is Jack's sister she must have red hair, like her other sisters', or like "Anne is Jack's sister, and therefore she must have red hair, for Jack's other sisters all have red hair".

In our daily life the warrant is not always necessary:

Data: the petrol tank is almost empty ►Claim: the driver should go to a filling station. Every human being knows that an empty tank must be filled, and for this reason a reference to the workbook or what happened to aunt Mary in the summer of 2005 will be irritating.

In the following reasoning the warrant cannot be omitted:

Data: the steel plants have raised the price of steel ► Warrant: higher prices of raw materials lead to higher prices of the products ►Claim: the price of steel products will increase.

The warrant is in fact a claim, which should be sustained with data, for instance the statement of an expert, or an inquiry into the prices of raw materials.

The assessment of Murray's argumentation

Murray wrote: "Undoubtedly one parent was chess which provided (...) the name of the draughtsman (...), in French dame, and after the death of the medieval chess, peon in Spanish, pion in French and pedina in Italian.".

Our first task is to determine whether this argumentation is complete by filling in the three elements of Toulmin's model. In my opinion -it is not always easy to unravel an argumentation- Murray's argumentation is complete:

Claim: There cannot be any doubt about the origin of draughts: chess was one of its parents ► Warrant: for chess provided some names in the vocabulary of draughtsplayers ► Data: Look to the name of the draughtsman (the singleton), in French dame, later peon in Spanish, pion in French, pedina in Italian.

The evaluation of Murray's claim

A claim can only be right if the data is true and the warrant explains why the claim logically results from the data. Is the data true? No, for Murray did no inquiry into the words he mentioned, so it is not certain they rose in the vocabulary of chess players. Therefore Murray's claim is false.