Single Comment

If that's the Manual written by Hodges, I do know it. And you are RIGHT when you say it is first mentioned 100 years EARLIER than I claimed. I apologize. That makes it still younger than Sho and Dai Shogi EXCEPT when you argue that the Heian Dai Shogi was really a kind of Chu Shogi and The later Dai Shogi was the novelty. Dunno, you tell me!

But that the Yamashina family had a faible for Chu Shogi is meagre evidence for Chu Shogi ever being more popular than the smaller variant. On the other hand  the carpenter Minase Kanenari tell us  that between 1590 and 1602 he produced 618 sets for Sho Shog but only 106 sets for Chu Shogi (that's from the web). That also doesn't prove very much. Or does it? But I admit, I just thought that it was commonly accepted among scholars that at least in the 16th century and later Sho Shogi was dominant, and for earlier times we lack proper information. I never claimed Chu Shogi was not a popular game. Just that Sho shogi was more so.

I think when Hodges states, that Chu Shogi was the more popular game in the Kamakura period he overstretches the (few)sources we have about the game in this time. Historians do that very often. You should always reckon with that and being published by a University unfortunally does not prevent them from doing so. 

That the first tsumes and game scores come from Chu- rather than Sho Shogi I really doubt. But i cannot argue against, for I'm on holydays and the web is a very bad source for chess history. If it is right I would be very surprised.