Single Comment

Isn't it a bit strange that we rely on (old and disagreeing) western sources, while in this age of the internet it should be easy to get feedback directly from Korean players? Discussing disagreements between Gollon, Murray and Pritchard might be interesting in an article reviewing their books, but mistakes they might have made do not deserve to be mentioned in a rule description of the game. I never mention the 'Murray Lion' in the Chu Shogi article...

The Fairy-Stockfish developer has included Janggi in his engine now, and claims to have received a lot of feedback during its implementation from Korean amateur and pro Janggi players. I believe him. Which means I consider the current rule implementation in Stockfish to be reliable. Notable point in this are:

• Turn passing is always unconditionally allowed, not just when it is forced.
• The Bikjang rule for King facing is not applied in every tournament. If it is not, King facing is legal.
• If it is, but is declined, it has (indeed) no effect on the possibility to win later for either player.
• The point-counting tie breaker is not applied in every tournament.

So there are actually four sub-variants, bepending on application of Bikjang and point-counting rule.

It also seems wrong to describe Bikjang as "the Generals checking each other". Check is an imminent loss because of King capture. There is neither loss or King capture here, just a draw offer that can be accepted or declined. The whole idea that King facing is a check seems to be contamination by Xiangqi concepts.