Single Comment

Rating: Average, 4 out of 10 highest. 'It was seeing Toccata...' it begins illogically since fine Toccata's only Xiangqi piece is Cannon. References to Glinski(1936), McCooey(1978), and Wellisch(1912) for relevant connection are sham because those three have only RNBKQP analogues not Xiangqi. Notice no links to G,M,W but to Gilman's own instead. Peruse Toccata a few minutes and we know how to play unlike any Gilman. 7 piece-types. Here board's depiction of hexagonal connectivity without hexagons works okay. Gilman avers falsely that General appears in Toccata and Wellisch: wrong, because they have no Palace nine-squares or any area confining their King-type. Why always make far-fetched comparisons? Covetously to try partially to subsume others' solid work into own. Dabbabah 'a stepping one and the halfway square must be empty' is a good phrase, without pejorative 'lame'. (He'll go back to using 'lame' now) Yet thus Dabbabah is far afield from Xiangqi's counterpart Elephant, so even the Xiangqi analogue strains forcibly. In the midst of Rules, on the fly we get citations on origins of piece names and other pieces rejected -- very distracting style of presentation of one's new CV. Logical enough Viceroy's one-step being called 'Knight analogue' another awkward pairing-up and hardly 'what Wellsich did' at all, having rather all FIDE counterparts. Look at the two sentences for the Point (quasi-Xiangqi Pawn), and it is all but impossible to tell how Point moves. Okay, under Rules two paragraphs down, I get how Points move now. Can you? In all, it hangs together as one to play despite convoluted, preoccupied article.