As I stated in my last post, the observation that Xiangqi has no divergent
pieces in it until the cannon does not apply because Xiangqi's earliest
known version had only 1 counselor and no minister. Later 1 minister was
added, and then another minister and another counselor were added. This
progression from 11 pieces to 14 to 16 where 8x8 chess always had 16 to
begin with and had the same moving pieces (not counting cannon) means that
Xiangqi predates and influenced 8x8 Chess.

The issue with the pawn in 8x8 Chess capturing differently than it moves
does not necessarily mean that the game is older than Xiangqi. That's like
saying a more modern game is older than we believe it to be because it has
more modern moving pieces instead of making the more obvious observation
that a more modern (pawn) is a later evolution of chess in general. If
there is a less modern version of the pawn in 8x8 chess, its predecessor
was obviously the pawn in Xiangqi which captures the same way it moves.

I don't know about any possible Greek influence, but the fact that the
position of the pieces and the movement of the pieces are the same in both
games on the back row, strongly suggests they have a common origin.

I also noted step by step how Xiangqi developed, and there is no apparent
influence from 8x8 chess, and 8x8 Chess looks like a more modern version of
Xiangqi.

It seems like I am using common sense logic, and I am being refuted with a
different kind of logic that I could not have come up with unless I saw the
responses to my posts here. It seems that there is no way I can state
something totally obvious to me here because it will always be looked at it
in a totally different way based on the assumption that 6th century A.D.
India Chess is first.

I am giving a great deal of detail, and it seems that I am getting back a
line of logic that is making my head spin.

It's like if I showed someone 2 cereal boxes. One looks like it is from
the 90's and the other clearly looks like it is from the 60's that are
similar to each other suggesting a common origin. I would say and most
would say that the box from the 60's is older, but I am hearing here that
the box from the 90's is actually older because of the advanced designs,
etc. suggesting a older origin.

It's like on this forum, things that seem newer and more modern are
actually older than something that seems more ancient because its evolution
process must be longer. Well, yes, a simple moving pawn moving straight
forward evolved into a pawn on the 2nd rank that captures differently than
it moves.

Why does a more modern pawn in 8x8 chess have to be from something other
than a simple moving pawn in Xiangqi? It seems like no matter what, some
form of logic not based on specific details must be stated in order not to
acknowledge something that is very obvious to me and others who do not have
a pre-set opinion regarding the matter as if it was their political
allegiance or something.

It's like saying that because Xiangqi has no queen in it, then it must be
the newer game because it has older moving pieces in it like the counselor
meaning that 8x8 Chess is an older game because it requires more change to
get where it needs to be.

That kind of thinking is prevalent here instead of the more obvious line of
logic that a 1 space moving counselor is probably from a game that requires
a 1 space moving counselor for the game to work right. i.e. Xiangqi and not
8x8 Chess. I know it survived in Makruk, but that piece is still out of
place to me and it's movement is essentially duplicated by the 'Silver
General' next to it.

I am not saying anything is for sure, but I am saying that from many points
of view, such and such is more likely than the opposite, and the initial
game design of Xiangqi strongly suggests that it has no influence from 8x8
Chess, but the opposite is true.