It's a possibility that the 8x8 chessboard comes from China or the pieces
were moved over to the squares in China, or they were moved over to the
squares some where between China and Persia or China and India. All of
these are possible.

What is not likely is the pieces from Persia/India were moved from the
squares to the intersection points some where between Persia/India to China
because the original Xiangqi design has less pieces than the 16 pieces
found in the first version of Indian or Persian Chess.

I was mistaken about the first known design of Xiangqi. The earliest one
appears to have no palace, no river, and no minister. It's the same design
as what Charles has posted, except with those changes.

If you look at that board, it looks even less like the first known version
of chess in India/Persia unless you believe the pieces were removed some
where between India/Persia to China. There's only 11 pieces per side in
Xiangqi originally as opposed to 16 in the original versions of Persian or
Indian chess.

A game with less pieces in its original design and one which does not even
have the 2 space moving minister, most likely predates a game with '2'
ministers. Xiangqi did not have 2 ministers until much later. At first it
had none, then one, then 2. That's a progression.

Indian and Persian versions start with 2. That suggests the 8x8 version
came later. Unless of course you believe that a progression of game design
includes removing pieces that were already there.

Another important thing to point out in the first version of Xiangqi, is
that the general or king is the character 'Han' . The same Han from Han
dynasty. Later version of Xiangqi had the generals changed to 'Shuai' or
'Jiang'. The character 'Han' is the same one you can see in Janggi.
That Janggi preserved the position of the general in the center of the
palace on the 2nd rank as well as the character used for the general, is a
strong indication that parts of Janggi are based on the earliest known
version of Xiangqi and then evolved as Xiangqi evolved, but the general
stayed on the 2nd rank.

This is often the case with Korean and Japanese culture. They seem to be
influenced by Han Chinese culture at certain points in history and
essentially preserve parts of it while Chinese culture moves on and forgets
what it was in the past. Therefore, Korean and Japanese culture are places
to look for hints of what Chinese culture was like at a certain point.

Regarding the elephant vs. minister confusion, with all due respect to this
site and every other form of research regarding the name and meaning of
Xiangqi, the Xiang means 'Alive, or atmosphere' as in the pieces move as
opposed to static pieces in Weiqi. If you think of Weiqi as being an
influence on Xiangqi, the pieces in that game are static while the pieces
in Xiangqi move around.

If you want to debate this issue, you will have to learn Chinese and go
into the literature of Xiangqi to dispute this. In Chinese, a character can
be used for different words. In the case of Xiangqi, 'qi xiang' means
'alive/atmosphere', and 'da xiang' means elephant. The xiang on one
side means prime minister and the other xiang takes after the name of the
game.

I've addressed that the main points I have written here are to try to
figure out which game likely came first. I don't claim to have all the
answers to how a game can migrate from place to place.

If we have what we believe to be reliable records that the earliest Xiangqi
does not resemble the earliest forms of chess in Persia and India, that is
good enough.

I'm also trying very hard to point out that there are some very big
misunderstandings as far as what the 'xiang' characters mean and the name
of the game. I am only sharing what I have learned from Chinese people who
know something about the history of Xiangqi and are unaware of the India
vs. China debate which originates from the West.

I'm a little confused by the reference to the Xiangqi site on this web
site chess variants.org. Are you saying that because this site says that
Xiangqi means 'elephant game', etc. that Chinese people don't know their
own language or history or not entitled to interpret their own history and
language without adhering to Western sources first?

This site claims that Chess comes from India first. Does that mean I am not
allowed to post any of these things here that suggest that it does not? So
because a site and a lot of other sources say Xiang in Xiangqi means
'Elephant Game', that I am not allowed to say that the Chinese Xiangqi
historians say it means 'Qi Xiang' and not 'Da Xiang'?

I didn't say the game means 'Minister's Chess' although if I wrote that
by accident at some point, I apologize. I mean that the chess pieces (red
side) means prime minister. The game uses the black side 'Xiang' which is
from 'Qi Xiang' (atmosphere, live) and not 'Da Xiang (elephant)'.

In short the game means moving and alive pieces as opposed to static stones
in Weiqi.

If that's the case, then there is no room for discussion or debate,
because it means that so-called established sources in English take
precedence over Chinese sources regarding Chinese history, language, and
the history of a board game.

Does this also mean that Chinese teachers must ask Westerners what the
meaning of their own language is before teaching Chinese to Westerners?

If you want to say it's more likely that the Chinese moved un-working
pieces to a different board so that they did work, I can't try to convince
you, but I think the evolution of board games is much more likely the other
way around.

When deciding how a chess piece moves, it has to be on a board with certain
dimensions. Therefore, it's a bit difficult to come up with the 2 space
moving minister on the 8x8 board, because it only reaches 25% of the
squares and doesn't reach any of the back rank squares at all.

The 2 space moving minister/elephant obviously didn't come from 8x8.

And I've also pointed out already, that the original Xiangqi design
didn't even have the minister in the game, so debating this point is
moot.

Regarding the facing each other thing, the fact that the kings do not face
each other in the original version, is another hint that they were reversed
essentially to prevent them from facing each other if the center pawns are
exchanged as they so often are with anyone who is familiar with playing
Chess. In the French Defense exchange variation, the e-file pawns get
exchanged and the kings face each other. Even in the original game where
pawns move 1 space only, the same thing can happen.

I'm not saying it's proof, but it's a possible reason for why the kings
do not face each other. There's other possible reasons of course.