Single Comment

Yes, and Chinese people are willing to acknowledge that the religions they
look to are from India. 

But does that mean we should ignore the fact that the Chinese were strong
at board games and that Xiangqi as we know it today and not that other game
(Xiangxi) which is not a war board game apparently is just the 19x19 Weiqi
(Go) board divided into 4 pieces for a 9x10 board?

What is more likely? That the Chinese invent Weiqi as late as the 6th
Century B.C. or whenever it was and then invent another game using 1/4 of
the board that is also played on the intersection points as Weiqi is and
includes some of the same principals such as being blocked.

Or rather, the Indians who are not into board games culturally invented a
game played on the squares rather than intersection points with the same
moves as Xiangqi as it was during the Tang Dynasty but the minister and
counselor's movements are essentially updated into the modern day bishop
and queen in Europe later on because those movements do not fit the game to
begin with. Why? Because the soldiers or pawns are right in front of the
major pieces so a counselor moving up one diagonal square is hardly
interesting at all and the minister (not elephant) is also rather dull in
the game because it has nothing to defend really.

If the Indian version was really invented by them, you would think that
India would have a long history of playing the game, but they don't. Anand
is not proof of India's long history of playing the game since 600 A.D. or
so.

Europeans starting around the 1400's or a little later have a long history
of making the pieces move right on the 8x8 board and producing tons of
talented players. In fact, the real improvements were made by the
Europeans. The pawns can move 2 spaces on its first move because it is on
the 2nd row instead of the 4th. The rule en passant (French word) has to be
added to prevent players from illegally advancing pawns without a fight
against another pawn. Castling is added to the game. We call it castling
since there were castles in Europe! Seems like the game wasn't really
playable by modern standards until it got to Europe.

How come there isn't a single modern opening named after anything Indian?
Did the Indians invent a game with awkward moving pieces and then abandon
it only to find it again like 1,000 years later with all these openings
named after European people and countries?

Or maybe a board game with pieces that moved right on a 9x10 board had the
pieces put in the squares on an 8x8 board and the pawns were moved back the
2nd rank and filled in for aesthetic reasons, but no other necessary
changes were made to the counselor and minister (elephant) so the game is
not really playable and its slow also.

If the modern Chinese version was already basically done by 800 or so
during the Tang Dynasty and the queen piece was added during the Middle
Ages in Europe, which game probably came first? A game with pieces that
have not changed in their design but only their position on the board and
the number of pieces there, or a game with pieces in the middle of the
board that don't fit there until it gets a makeover like 600 years later
in a different part of the world?

So I am proposing to people that in terms of board game design which all of
us can think about on paper and pencil, that when a game reaches its modern
form like 600-800 years before another game that looks quite similar to it,
then that game most likely came first. It's not absolute proof, but it's
a bit like common sense.

As I have mentioned before, don't forget archeological findings found
before 600 or so.

The transmission of religion and spirituality from a country strong in
those aspects does not have any direct relationship with a board game based
on war. That's also ignoring the fact that Weiqi came from China. That
statement suggests a superiority of Indian culture in every respect instead
of looking at all the factors involved.

How come no one ever talks about Weiqi when discussing the origin of chess
if certain principals are similar? It's like the world's oldest board
game that is still played today must be ignored in order to make the
assertion without much good reason that a game made famous in Europe is the
original chess game in the ENTIRE world.

Regarding the document that Dr. Li quotes in his book. It was apparently
written in 1793, and it's about how General Han Xin invented the game 379
years after Confucius and you can see in Chinese the actual character Xiang
Qi in the document. If the document was written in 1793, no Chinese person
would put out the possibility that Xiang Qi could have meant another board
game that was not played any longer for like over a thousand years.

It's true the document does not have a description of how the game is
played but describes the condition of the camp during winter.

So I don't think the document proves that the game was first started in
203 B.C. or whenever, but to say that the document might be referring to
another game with the same name even though such a misunderstanding could
not occur in 1793, is like the Western cure all thinking to discredit the
Chinese assertion that the game was invented in China without any foreign
influence.

In the Western world, when we say 'Chess' we do not mean any other
version of Chess other than the Western version of it which we presume to
be an original game as the name 'Chess' suggests. Therefore, if someone
writes a document in the Western world after it has been played for at
least a few hundred years, then it is not that reasonable to say that the
word 'Chess' does not mean Chess as we know it today.

Does anyone ask anyone what do they mean by 'Chess' in the Western world?
Like is it Japanese chess, Chinese Chess, or Korean Chess?

So in the Chinese world after playing Xiangqi in its modern form for like
1,000 years, an author would not quote a different game with the same exact
2 characters if it was not in play anymore. That would be causing a very
illogical misunderstanding and there isn't a single Chinese person today
that would think that that document from 1793 would be referring to
anything else. In fact, if you ask your average Chinese person that there
was a game named Xiangxi or Xiangqi that has nothing to do with Xiangqi as
we know it today, they would probably not know what you are talking about
unless they were a board game historian.

But it appears that Westerners who believe Chess comes from India because
the English have said so over and over again, seem to know how to interpret
Chinese documents better.

Anyway, Dr. Li's books lacks cites, but the process he suggests in the
book of how Xiangqi was developed and the charts of how the game was
developed are reasonable. The game has always been well designed and they
just kept adding pieces to it until the back row was totally filled up.

At first, the general was one space up on the 5th column with the adjutant
(counselor) behind it. Interestingly enough, the Korean version of Xiangqi
has the general in that position till today. The Japanese and Koreans who
borrow from the Chinese and then make it their own have a tendency to
preserve a great deal of Chinese culture in many ways.

There was no minister at first and there were always 5 foot soldiers spaced
apart like that in the 4th row with the chariot and horse placed where they
still are on the first row. After Han Xin is executed for treason and his
writings destroyed, his game which is apparently named after the Prince of
Chu (Xiang qi) and not an elephant piece, is lost among the common people
until it gets revived again in 600 or so where it adds more pieces.

The minister is added in front of the general on the 3rd row. Then the 2
cannon pieces are added on the 3rd row prompting the need for more defense.
Another counselor is added as well as another minister and everything is
moved to the back row.

The back row is a bit crowded and the horse can only move up the 3rd row on
its first move instead of the 2nd row because the minister piece is now
blocking it.

So whether you believe these alleged Chinese sources Li is referring to
discuss the making of Xiangqi into its original form is your own choice,
but I am just referring to board game design. It's a lot more reasonable
to believe that the game developed on its own from Weiqi and the teachings
of Sun Tze's Art of War than it is to think the Chinese took an awkward
game from India and made it better by changing the positions of the pieces
so their movements have a purpose.

So if you guys would like to discuss the evolution of board game design,
then we can discuss it. I am not a chess historian, so please don't give
me the task of producing what the Western world considers to be hard
evidence of Xiangqi being invented in China and not a borrowed Indian game
as Europe likes to believe.

But I hope that by putting down the apparent evolution of Xiangqi here,
that I am discussing the development of the board game and coming to
probable conclusions based on how board games can change over time. If 2
board games are apparently very similar, one can make reasonable judgments
based on how the pieces developed over time and 'when' they developed
into its modern form. Like I said, there's a difference of about 800 years
or so between Western Chess' modern form and Xiangqi's modern form. Yes,
there is still room for argument, but I am just stating what is more
likely.

What is that rule called? Occam's Razor. The theory that is the most
simple one is most likely correct.

In this case, a game that comes to its modern form about 800 years before
its apparent cousin played on squares instead of intersection points comes
to its modern form, most likely came first and not the other way around.

A culture that wants all cultured people to play board games develops a
board game exactly 1/4 the size of an existing board game at least a few
hundred years after the former board game is invented. The board game is
revived 800 years later or so and the current dynasty (Tang) promotes the
game and it goes out to the rest of the world in places like India, Korea,
Japan, and Persia.

Or the opposite train of thought, a culture strong in board games, borrows
an awkward board game from a culture that does not promote board games and
then develops it into its modern form just 200 years later while the
supposed original game does not obtain its modern form until it is shipped
off to another continent before it reaches its modern form.

The early Indian game has a 'queen' that moves one space diagonally only
and has an elephant that moves exactly 2 spaces diagonally are both
suspiciously the same to the adjutant/counselor piece and minister piece
(minus the ability to jump over a piece) in Xiangqi. The early queen and
bishop do very little in the Indian game, while they perform a very
specific defensive purpose in Xiangqi which is to defend the general on all
4 sides by moving diagonally either 1 space or 2 spaces. The general is on
the 2nd rank in Xiangqi so the adjutant can go around all 4 sides without
the general moving.

The adjutant/queen and minister/bishop work well in one game and doesn't
work well in the other. Which pieces were designed for its board and setup
and which one was most likely just borrowed from the other game because the
pieces don't fit the game? Occam's Razor again.

A group of scholars in Europe state only sources from India as evidence
that the first chess game in the world is from India because the game they
play is from it. The scholars have no interest in looking at sources in
other languages as it does not support their argument.

Later on, scholars from that other large Asian country suggest a much
earlier date and the European scholars can't take it and don't want to
take back what they have been saying for like 300-400 years because that
would look silly. Besides the whole world speaks English and not Chinese so
information has been monopolized world's most influential empire. Occam's
Razor.

A minister piece is developed called Xiang much later the initial game was
developed. It is a homonym and one of them is 'elephant' even though
nothing suggests that that piece literally means elephant but everything
does in fact suggest it is a minister of the kingdom with swifter movement
than the adjutant. A 3 person game is also developed later in the Song
Dyansty that has 3 different pieces pronounced Xiang. 1 of them is elephant
and the 2 others are not. On the other hand, the chariot, cannon, and horse
all mean the same thing for all 3 sides. They do not use homonyms.

The same piece is found in the Indian game and is literally an elephant and
that culture happens to love elephants and the Chinese did not use
elephants in war as far as I know.

Oh boy, the European scholars have won some points here. Too bad many
Chinese characters have the same sound and this so-called proof is actually
a lack of understanding of the Chinese language.