Interesting paper. Errors in describing chess variants are not uncommon in literature (see Grant Acedrex for example). However, not everything are errors as this paper says. There are always obscure points in the old and original descriptions, and they are rendered with some interpretation by more modern authors. This is also what the authors of this paper are doing themselves. In my opinion their reconstruction is speculating as much as Murray or others have done, but their speculation make sense and I think their proposed reconstruction is the best for this game, indeed.
If Markov contacts me I will be glad to discuss that with him.
Interesting paper. Errors in describing chess variants are not uncommon in literature (see Grant Acedrex for example). However, not everything are errors as this paper says. There are always obscure points in the old and original descriptions, and they are rendered with some interpretation by more modern authors. This is also what the authors of this paper are doing themselves. In my opinion their reconstruction is speculating as much as Murray or others have done, but their speculation make sense and I think their proposed reconstruction is the best for this game, indeed.
If Markov contacts me I will be glad to discuss that with him.