Single Comment

@ Charles Gillman Have you seen the pre-cannon version of Xiangqi? It does
not resemble the earliest known version of 8x8 chess in India or Persia
which are basically the same. The earliest pre-cannon version of Xiangqi
has less pieces (12) per side with only 1 counselor and 1 minister on each
side with the general in the middle which does not resemble the first known
version of 8x8 chess anywhere.

It's assumed that the earliest known version of chess in India is the
first game and all games are derived from that, but why are there already
16 pieces in that game with 2 ministers/elephants? The game is more modern
looking than the first version of Xiangqi which suggests that it comes
after Xiangqi and not before.

If something looks older and has less pieces in its setup, it probably
predates a more modern looking formation, not the other way around.

The first version of 8x8 chess in Persia and India looks like a modern
version of Xiangqi with 2 minister and 2 counselors in it. The position of
the pieces is more similar. That suggests that the first version of 8x8
chess is derived from a more modern version of Xiangqi. That means 8x8 came
after the first known version of Xiangqi.

This assumption that the Chinese drastically changed a game that was
developed in India by moving to intersection points and putting in a
palace, river, and cannons goes against common sense if you look at the
timelines of the 2 games.

If Xiangqi's earliest known version had slow moving pieces like a 1 space
diagonal counselor (fers in 8x8 chess) and a 2 space moving minister
(elephant in 8x8 chess), then that means those pieces had to have come from
one game or the other originally. The fact that there was no improvement
needed for those 2 pieces in Xiangqi means that those pieces come from that
9x10 board to begin with.

That is not radical change. That means origin. If one is to argue that the
1 space moving counselor and 2 space moving minister came from 8x8 and were
moved to 9x10, then this a more hard pressed argument, because those pieces
never fit that game well to begin with which is why it took longer for
those pieces to evolve into the long range bishop and long range queen.

That is why Xiangqi's development ends around the year 800-900 A.D. and
Chess does not finish its development until 15th Century A.D. in Europe.

That means that those pieces were NOT developed for that 8x8 board no
matter how simple that board looks with the 64 squares. That means they
were borrowed from another game and needed to be altered to fit the new
board.

Therefore, based on the movement of the original chess pieces which had 1
or 2 counselors, and 1 minister with a 2nd being added later, the 9x10
board appears to pre-date the 8x8 board and it looks like the pieces on the
9x10 board were simply moved from the intersection points to the squares
and the river was not counted.

If you take out the river in Xiangqi and just count squares, you get 8x8.
Easy enough.

It would be harder for someone or a group of people to take the 8x8 board
and add a river in between as well as a palace.

Shogi which plays more like FIDE Chess or actually like Makruk, is
obviously a descendant of South East Asian Chess which is played in squares
on the 8x8 board, but the Japanese used a 9x9 square board instead. Shogi
finished its development in the 1600's.

Therefore, games that are based on another game, generally will finish its
development at a later date than its predecessor. This is not contrary to
common sense.

Xiangqi finished its development 500 years before 8x8 Chess in Europe, and
Shogi finished its development about 100 years after Chess in Europe.
Therefore, it is likely that 8x8 Chess comes from 9x10 Xiangqi, and 9x9
Shogi comes from 8x8 Chess or Makruk specifically.