I have read Prof. Li's book. In fact, I own it, and have taken it off the shelf and am looking through it again. I am still not persuaded. As I have explained elsewhere, I don't think Chinese chess developed from chaturanga, I think it developed from Shatranj al-Kamil v.1. While the king (governor, general)'s and aide-de-camp's moves were restricted, because they landed in the nine-castle, the dabbabah's move was greatly increased, and the pawn's move was slightly increased, and simplified. I can't imagine how that weird rule about the pawn capturing diagonally forward would ever have been introduced after the game had been established.
I understand that there were elephants in China, too.
There are different kinds of symmetry. FIDE chess has reflective symmetry: symmetry with respect to a line, as I think of it. The crossover pattern has rotational symmetry: symmetry with respect to a point, as I think of it.
I don't recall about the names of the armies. That could be suggestive.
I live in America, and it is no matter to me whether chess originated in India, China, Bactria, Iran, or Albania. I am simply trying to make the best sense I can of fragmentary evidence.
I understand that there were elephants in China, too.
There are different kinds of symmetry. FIDE chess has reflective symmetry: symmetry with respect to a line, as I think of it. The crossover pattern has rotational symmetry: symmetry with respect to a point, as I think of it.
I don't recall about the names of the armies. That could be suggestive.
I live in America, and it is no matter to me whether chess originated in India, China, Bactria, Iran, or Albania. I am simply trying to make the best sense I can of fragmentary evidence.