Who the heck designed these pieces? Most of them are fine, but the "chariot" (i.e. the rook, as that's what "rook" means) is just ridiculous! Chess is a warfare simulation game. The chariot (with a driver and an archer, and maybe a shield & spear man as well) was a staple of battles in the ancient world, such as those described in the ancient Sanskrit epics as well as those in Greek history. A battle chariot would not -- repeat, NOT - feature a bloody sunshade! This makes it look like the chariot has been lifted from the elegant boulevards of Xian in peacetime!
In introducing the elephant, you forgot to mention the crucial point -- that the elephant (unlike the alfil in Shatranj/Medieval chess) cannot jump over a piece.
@@CouchTomato87 If you had no choice but to use that image, then so be it. But it's still stupid. What do you mean by "any pictures of ancient Chinese chariots"? What pictures, and where? If you mean the images for the chariot piece used in modern xiangqi sets, you are right. I possess a couple of such sets: the Chinese can be as stupid as any of us. If you mean ACTUAL chariots as used in ancient warfare in ANY country, then obviously they did NOT include parasols! I should also point out that the image for the rook/chariot that you use in your own game of Synochess does NOT contain a parasol and actually looks exactly as a war chariot SHOULD look, for which I congratulate you! It often seems to slip people's minds that all forms of chess are a simulation of a battlefield. This is why names for the 士 like "Advisor" and "Counselor" are so ludicrous. Office managers and presidents have advisors or counselors; generals on a battlefield most definitely do not. That is why these piece names should be translated as "guard" or "equerry" or some other such military title.
Who the heck designed these pieces? Most of them are fine, but the "chariot" (i.e. the rook, as that's what "rook" means) is just ridiculous! Chess is a warfare simulation game. The chariot (with a driver and an archer, and maybe a shield & spear man as well) was a staple of battles in the ancient world, such as those described in the ancient Sanskrit epics as well as those in Greek history. A battle chariot would not -- repeat, NOT - feature a bloody sunshade! This makes it look like the chariot has been lifted from the elegant boulevards of Xian in peacetime!
In introducing the elephant, you forgot to mention the crucial point -- that the elephant (unlike the alfil in Shatranj/Medieval chess) cannot jump over a piece.
I did -- if you look at any pictures of ancient Chinese chariots, that's how they look. The same model is also present on Chinese chess boxes
@@DieFlabbergast Thanks, completely slipped my mind to mention that in the video. All I can do right now is add a note to the description.
@@CouchTomato87 If you had no choice but to use that image, then so be it. But it's still stupid. What do you mean by "any pictures of ancient Chinese chariots"? What pictures, and where? If you mean the images for the chariot piece used in modern xiangqi sets, you are right. I possess a couple of such sets: the Chinese can be as stupid as any of us. If you mean ACTUAL chariots as used in ancient warfare in ANY country, then obviously they did NOT include parasols! I should also point out that the image for the rook/chariot that you use in your own game of Synochess does NOT contain a parasol and actually looks exactly as a war chariot SHOULD look, for which I congratulate you!
It often seems to slip people's minds that all forms of chess are a simulation of a battlefield. This is why names for the 士 like "Advisor" and "Counselor" are so ludicrous. Office managers and presidents have advisors or counselors; generals on a battlefield most definitely do not. That is why these piece names should be translated as "guard" or "equerry" or some other such military title.
@@DieFlabbergast en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariots_in_ancient_China