Single Comment

It's widely assumed by Western scholars that Indian chess was the first
form of chess, but it is also widely assumed that Asian forms of chess were
derived from it although there is no direct evidence of it other than the
fact that the pieces move in a similar fashion.

But what if there are historical documents or artifacts in China that
suggest that Xiangqi has been around since 2nd century B.C.? What if the
similarities between the early Indian version and Xiangqi were the result
of influence from the other way around?

Just because European scholars had no access to Chinese documents but did
with Indian archives, that does not mean it can be assumed that the first
game was from India. It seems since China was not a part of the British
empire, then its archives can be ignored and only regions of the world
which are a part of Britain's sphere of influence can be deemed as
inventing anything.

I have not done the research myself, but it is generally considered by
chess historians with access to Chinese archives that Xiangqi came much
earlier than the Indian version, so no scholar who can read Chinese would
think that the Indian version came first. This does not prove that the
Indian version came from China, but the similarities in the boards would
suggest that one is taken from the other but with a different board.

The 8x8 chess board used for the India/Western version is simply the 9x10
board for Xiangqi with the river removed. This removes a row, and results
in an 8x8 board if you play in the squares and not on the intersection
points. Therefore, in a way, the 2 boards are almost the same board.

What can be objectively pointed out is that the pieces for Xiangqi move in
a way that fit its board that has survived up to its modern form while the
moves for the counselor/Queen and elephant/bishop do not fit the gameplay
of the 8x8 board. That's why the pieces were logically improved or adapted
to fit the gameplay of an 8x8 board later on.

If we assume that one game influenced the other and was the first version
of it known to man, then it is more reasonable to assume things went from
China to India based on the fact that the 9x10 board actually fits that
movement and the 8x8 board does not suggesting the initial movement of
those pieces was borrowed and does not fit the 8x8 board.

Also if one assumes it went from India to China, it is unlikely that pieces
would become more restricted. 

This is a misnomer. The main reason why the pieces can jump over pieces in
the Indian version is because the board is smaller and the pawns are right
in front of the horse/knight and elephant/bishop requiring the rules to be
adapted so they could move right away rather being blocked right off the
bat.

Western researchers conclude that pieces become more restricted when going
East and more free when moving West. But does that really make any logical
sense?

Are our cultures so different that Asians like to restrict, and Indians,
Persians, and Europeans like to make things more free?

That makes it sound like Westerners or countries colonized and/or
influenced by the West like to make things better while the people in the
Far East like to make things 'worse'.

It's more reasonable just to look at the different boards and notice that
a major difference between the 9x10 board and 8x8 board (other than the
size difference) is that the pawns are not blocking the main pieces in the
9x10 board so the pieces can move right away.

The fact that the knight and elephant can be blocked in Xiangqi is
reminiscent of Weiqi where the 2 sides are 'blocking' each other from
going to further territory albeit with stones rather than pieces.

How come no Westerner or scientist has noticed the similarities between
Weiqi and Xiangqi?

Also, let's not forget the bigger picture in terms of board games in
China.

If Weiqi was first recorded in the 4th century B.C. and now there are
claims that Xiangqi was first played in 2nd century B.C. and has
similarities in the blocking concept, why is that so hard to believe for
Western Chess historians?

Because it has already been stated and stressed in European literature that
Chaturanga was the first game, so why would an entire continent of people
want to revise their thinking and basically admit that they did not
consider an entire region's documents simply because that would be
tantamount to admitting either ignorance or basically a condescending
attitude towards 'yellow people' who could not have possibly invented
anything first.

So 2nd century B.C. is not that much of a stretch for board games in China.
Actually, the origin of chess in China makes a lot more sense because the
cannon was not added until much later when that kind of technology was
invented, so that's a more probable reason why the cannon has no
corresponding piece in Indian/Western chess. A version without the cannon
was brought over earlier before it was recorded in India first.

And its the version with the cannon that seems to have been brought over to
Korea and Japan. i.e. It went to those regions later on.

Why does the origin of those games have to be from India also when they
resemble the modern Chinese game more than the original Indian game?

It goes back to the original assumption that not enough Western
writers/scientists or whatever you want to call a person with a right to
have an authority on this subject, said that India was first and that is
the end of the conversation.

One would think that if there was a different version of Go that is widely
played in Europe and India, Western scholars would also insist the origin
was India by only looking at Indian documents that support their thesis
without bothering to look at any records in Chinese.

So when the Chinese come forward with so called records, they are refuted
by European chess historians as being inaccurate! So Europeans also know
Chinese history better than Chinese people. Well, that is something I had
not thought could happen.

Or is it just Western arrogance as we have all become accustomed to in this
world?

In no way, am I attacking this website or anyone in particular. I am just
frustrated with why even things that can be viewed objectively, are not
being viewed objectively like the awkward movement of certain pieces in the
Indian version and fluid movements of those same pieces in Xiangqi.

That is an objective observation anyone could make but instead other
theories that do not seem reasonable are put forward without the converse
ever being considered.

If the question is which chess game was first and therefore could have been
the father of all others, then shouldn't archives and other related
evidence from all over the world be considered before declaring any one
country or region as the first game?