Single Comment

The initial known version of Xiangqi has one minister in front of the
general at the top of the palace and one counselor or scholar behind the
general where the general is located at the start of the game in the modern
version of Xiangqi. I also pointed out that Janggi has the general in the
middle of the palace like in the initial version of Xiangqi which suggests
that having the general or king there is the actual initial placement of
the general/king. Please refer to David Li's book for the diagram for the
initial look of Xiangqi. I am not endorsing the story he tells in his book.
Just pointing out the diagram in the book.

Take the middle column of the palace in Xiangqi, and put the counselor on
the first rank, the general on the 2nd rank, and the minister on the 3rd
rank. That was the original setup. That plus 5 pawns or foot soldiers in
the initial positions and a chariot and horse in the corners of the board.
There were no other pieces on the back rank. Therefore, out of 9 possible
points on the back rank, only 5 of them were occupied.

My point is that the initial version of Xiangqi which I have just described
does NOT look like it is developed from Chaturanga because it has less
pieces and looks less developed with the back rank unfilled. A game with
its back rank filled to begin with is more developed and is probably
developed at a later date, if we assume that Chaturanga and Xiangqi are
related games with similar pieces on different boards.

Once again, a game that has 16 pieces in it to start with is probably more
modern than a game with 12 pieces that eventually became 16 a side also. In
Xiangqi's development, the 2nd counselor and 2nd minister were only added
after a period of time and perhaps at the time the cannons were added. In
Chaturanga, or Persian Chess, or any version of 8x8 chess, all have 2
ministers/bishops to start with suggesting that they appear later in the
timeline of chess. They never had more than one counselor or fers because
there is only 8 spaces on the back rank of an 8x8 board.

I didn't say the first 8x8 game had 2 counselors, but it did have 2
elephants/ministers in it which Xiangqi initially did not have.

How do you argue that a game where the pieces need development is the
earlier one and a game where the pieces do not need to be changed is a
later one? The chances of that are against game design common sense.

If the 1 step moving counselor and 2 step moving minister do not need to be
improved in Xiangqi, that means that those pieces were designed for that
board. If the original chess was from 8x8, why would anyone put those
pieces there? They don't seem to fit. It's more likely that they came
from another game and the game stayed that way for centuries because of
tradition, but the game was not a fully developed game.

You say it can be argued that a game not requiring improvement of the
movement of the pieces could have been improved from a predecessor. Where
is it then? They cannot find a version of Xiangqi earlier than the one I
have just described, and a one step moving counselor seems pretty basic to
me  as well as a 2 step moving minister. Both are about as simple as pieces
as I can think of. What could have preceded a 1 step diagonal moving
counselor? A non-moving counselor that just sits there and cannot move? If
we assume that chess pieces have always been able to move at least 1 space,
there is no piece that could have preceded a 1 step moving piece.

I am not saying that your argument cannot be true. I am just saying that it
is unlikely that the counselor and minister had any kind of movement to it
that could have been different. Only the placement of those pieces and the
number of them changed over time according to the information we have about
Xiangqi's development.

Once again, if we assume that chess games have a common origin, the
earliest known movement of the pieces would probably fit the board its been
placed on. Chaturanga and Xiangqi have similar moving pieces and 2 of them
fit in Xiangqi and do not fit in Chaturanga. That means that those 2 pieces
suggest that they were from Xiangqi and not Chaturanga.

Isn't it common sense that a civilization or person developing a game,
would design movement for pieces that fit the board they are being played
on? No one would do something illogical unless there was a matter of
tradition involved.

As in 8x8 Chess was played with a 2 space diagonal jumping bishop in Europe
for several centuries until the long range bishop was finally accepted as
the standard piece. Russia played with the 2 space moving bishop and the 1
space moving fers for about 2 centuries while Western Europe moved to the
long range bishop and long range queen in the late 15th century. This was
due to tradition that they did not want to break in Russia because chess
had already been played like that for centuries.

There's more than one way for the river to be added and the river to be
taken out. I am not insisting it happened one way or the other. It is quite
easy to look at a 9x10 intersection board with the river in it and just
play within the squares. Any trader traveling between China and Persia can
do that spontaneously and essentially create a different but related game.
It's harder to take the 8x8 board and add the river because that would
take more thinking. My argument is that there is precisely an 8x8 board of
square within a 9x10 intersection board because the river has no lines
going through it so if you count only squares on a 9x10 intersection board,
you get 64.

I am saying that in the timeline of Xiangqi within Chinese historical
circles who do not look at Western sources, there is no one who believes
that Xiangqi was developed during the Tang dynasty which is what the 6-8th
century was in China. Although the specific timeline is not agreed upon
among Chinese scholars, the Spring and Autumn period is the most agreed
upon period of time that Xiangqi was originally developed. One of the
reasons was because the pieces and the palace concept is from the Spring
and Autumn period and the Warring States period. That is 5th-2nd century
B.C. That means Xiangqi's believed timeline among Chinese historians who
study Xiangqi's history or supposed history, believe the game was first
developed around 700-1000 years before Tang dynasty.

This conclusion was not made to counter Western arguments that all forms of
chess were developed from Chaturanga in 6th century A.D. It was made
internally and with no intention of starting a war of words between the
East and West.

I do agree that the 8x8 Chess can be linked back to 6th century India or
2nd century Persia, but there is no reason either from game design
development or anything in history to suggest that Xiangqi is borrowed from
a different game. What we do know is that similar games with similar moving
pieces and slightly different boards popped up in India, Persia, and China
by the 6th century. Which game came from which is a matter of opinion as we
don't have any hard evidence of it going one way or the other.

Therefore, it shouldn't be some hard fact that chess comes from India 6th
century because similar games already appeared in Persia and China 400
years or more before chess is known to have appeared in India.

What do you mean that my argument that games finishing their development at
different points means nothing? We know when the long range bishop and long
range queen were agreed upon to be in the 8x8 game. Late 15th century in
Europe. This is not in dispute. The bishop was taken from the Courier in
Courier Chess in Germany which comes from 13th century approximately.

So what do you mean, in existence for centuries? That seems kind of
generalized.

I am only stating 2 accepted dates of the final development of modern 8x8
Chess in Europe and 9x10 Xiangqi in China.

8x8 Chess in Europe was late 15th century, and Xiangqi was Song dynasty in
China which is about 500 years or more before late 15th century. That
suggests, but does not prove that Xiangqi is an earlier game because it
finished its development much earlier than Chess and did not need to change
the movements of any of its pieces. In fact all Xiangqi did was add the 2
cannons and an extra counselor and minister to finish the game. That was an
easier development than Chess which required more changes.

Not just to the bishop and and queen, but 2 space moving pawns, en passant,
and castling. Moves like castling and en passant, and 2 space moving pawns
are definitely more modern concepts in Chess than anything in Xiangqi which
plays very much more like an archaic game.

Please be more specific when you say that the bishop and queen in their
modern form had already been around for centuries. From which point? If we
go back to the earliest known long range diagonal moving piece in Europe,
it was in Courier Chess played on a 12x8 board which also had the 2 space
moving minister in it also. All of this took place after Xiangqi was
finished in its development. This suggests but does not prove that Xiangqi
has an earlier start date because less work was needed to finish the game.
To believe the opposite is more likely is saying that a game that takes
longer in its development process and needs really special rules like en
passant and castling precedes a game that did not require much change 500
years beforehand.

It's not impossible, but it's unlikely. That's why I think it's silly
that the Western world says with absolute authority that chess comes from
India without a second thought to it and that China and Japan just copied
it. That seems like a bully kind of mentality and not a commitment to
actually studying what most likely happened in history.