Editing Cox–Forbes theory (section)

==Refutation==
The earliest Puranas are now assigned a more conservative date of 500 BC, rather than 3000 BC.<ref name="Murray">{{citation|last=Murray|first=H. J. R.|authorlink=H. J. R. Murray|title=[[A History of Chess]]|year=1913|page=48|publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref> Furthermore, [[Albrecht Weber]] (1825–1901) and Dutch chess historian Antonius van der Linde (1833–97) found that the Purana quoted by Forbes did not even contain the references he claimed.<ref name=H&Wp143 /> While working on ''Geschichte und Litteratur des Schachspiels'' (Berlin, 1874, in two volumes), Van der Linde also found that the actual text around which Forbes had built his entire theory was the ''Tithitattva'' of [[Raghunandana]], which was written around AD 1500, rather than 3000 BC as claimed by Forbes.<ref name = "part">Partlett, David, ''The Oxford history of board games'', Oxford University Press, 1999, p.281.</ref><ref name="H&Wp227">{{harvnb|Hooper|Whyld|1992|p=227}}</ref> Van der Linde thought that Forbes deliberately lied, and was furious.<ref name=H&Wp227 /> [[John Griswold White|John G. White]], writing in 1898, did not suggest deliberate deception on Forbes's part, but insisted that "He did not even make good use of the material known to him."<ref name=H&Wp143 /> As a result, the theory is now rejected by all serious [[chess historian]]s.<ref name="H&Wp143">{{harvnb|Hooper|Whyld|1992|p=143}}</ref>