Single Comment

Millions of chess piece-types are possible (and impossible to be played), but seven are fundamental west and/or east. Any one of the millions of piece-types, some announced inventor can use words like ''interesting, challenging'' and frankly get away with it in CVPage. And they do as if original even though the piece-type, or near-equivalent, has been used over and over. Basically, Xiangqi is flawed because there is no distinguishing Cannon from Long Leaper or Grasshopper or ten or twenty others similar in modality and then saying one, Cannon in particular, or another is best or correct from group of Hoppers. That has nothing to do directly with the subject matter of Morality XII, but CMXII is my favourite so far. Whereas Xiangqi is flawed, in that for another example, there is no rationale for size of palace, Shogi the other standard, is simply arbitrary, having no sustaining logic. For playability, Xiangqi is excellent and Shogi poor. Again, the CM here does not address those two, Shogi and Xiangqi, yet accompanying Falcon Chess article has section on those other two Chesses for contrast. The reasoning for building blocks of OrthoChess, complementarity and completeness, does not exist elsewhere and assures its logical extension beyond 64 squares, to either 80 or 100. Moreover, mere 80 squares are still fewer than Shogi's 81 or Xiangqi's 90 spaces.