I can see the way you interpret "non-lion" in the counter-strike rule becoming a point of contention though.
I cannot see that, and never have spoken to anyone who thinks that. (Which includes the Chu-Shogi Renmei, the 81-Dojo community, the German Chu-Shogi Association, the TSA, Hidetchi, the Wikipedia maintainers...) If it would have said "A Lion cannot capture a protected Lion"... Would that also mean that a Rook cannot capture an adjacent protected Lion, because 'Lion' refers to 'Lion move', as it did not explicitly contain the word 'piece'? And if 'Lion' by default refers to a piece, why would 'non-Lion' be different?
I read in LiChess 'issues' (in particular about Ln x P x Ln without recapture possibility) that the developers want to follow CSRM rules, even though most people consider some of the deviations from historic rules there non-sensical. And the CSRM definitely considers 'Lion' a piece type, and not a move.
I cannot see that, and never have spoken to anyone who thinks that. (Which includes the Chu-Shogi Renmei, the 81-Dojo community, the German Chu-Shogi Association, the TSA, Hidetchi, the Wikipedia maintainers...) If it would have said "A Lion cannot capture a protected Lion"... Would that also mean that a Rook cannot capture an adjacent protected Lion, because 'Lion' refers to 'Lion move', as it did not explicitly contain the word 'piece'? And if 'Lion' by default refers to a piece, why would 'non-Lion' be different?
I read in LiChess 'issues' (in particular about Ln x P x Ln without recapture possibility) that the developers want to follow CSRM rules, even though most people consider some of the deviations from historic rules there non-sensical. And the CSRM definitely considers 'Lion' a piece type, and not a move.