Single Comment

M Winther states, 'The expanded palace removes most of the traditional mating methods. The elbow horse check is rendered almost useless. The standard cannon mate on the last rank (when the king is surrounded by the mandarins) doesn't exist anymore.'

The palace is not bigger.  Where does it say that it is?  The palace is still the same size.  There is just extra row behind the palace.  So the horse checkmate can happen just as much.  All of the same checkmate possibilities still exist.

M Winther states, 'The added bishops can probably not compensate for this as both bishops move on the same diagonal colour, and the opponent's bishops move on the other diagonal colour. As a result the opponents control half of the squares each, a questionable circumstance. So there is no real bishop pair.'

Chinese Chess is supposed to be symmetrical, having pieces not symmetrical would destroy the balance of the board.  You still checkmate with a Javelin, and you can create a stalemate, which is the same as winning.  In addition, this is not western chess so I really have no concern to create bishops.  They are not bishops anyways, and are intended to be bishops in the exact same sense as that of western chess.

M Winther states, 'The horse is even weaker now on this longer board, and the dragon is almost useless.'

How is the horse weaker?  It still has the same powers it had before.  It does not take it any longer to reach the other side.  Saying that something is weaker and proving that it is are two different things.

The dragon is supposed to be weak.  Each defensive unit in Chinese Chess gets weaker as you move out from the palace.  They have a use, just like the elephants and other pieces.  It is how you use them that makes them effective or not.

M Winther states, 'A rook is even stronger, probably worth three horses. A
bishop is probably worth almost two horses.'

Proof please.  The 'bishop' you call cannot be worth more than a horse, it only controls half the points on the board while the horse can get to every point.

M Winther states, 'I suspect this game is much more drawish than Xaingqi as it is not easy to invade the squares controlled by the opponent's bishops (and which cannot be controlled with one's own bishops). I suspect mate is much more difficult to achieve.'

It is not any more chance of a draw than in the traditional.  Just because there are new pieces does not mean that there are not new ways to get the job done.  As with standard Chinese Chess, you really only need one piece plus your king to get at least a stalemate or checkmate depending on what piece you have left.  The same still applies.