why using a Bishop in the diagrams and a different piece in the text explaining the General?
the string "rn1ke1nrpppebppp3pp22PP3PPPEBPPPRN1KE1NR" should not appear in this page I think.
why there is some part of a ZoG's source file inside the Rules section? Is that a rule?
"the similar Alibaba (Betza notation AD) was used in India prior to the year 850" No, this is wrong. Murray was clear on this. You can check on his History of Chess, 1913, p59. In ancient India, 3 sorts of Elephants have been reported: A (like in shatranj), FfW (like the Silver in modern shogi) and D (by al Adli). No AD, never. So calling this piece an "Indian" Elephant is maybe not the best name.
Few remarks:
why using a Bishop in the diagrams and a different piece in the text explaining the General?
the string "rn1ke1nrpppebppp3pp22PP3PPPEBPPPRN1KE1NR" should not appear in this page I think.
why there is some part of a ZoG's source file inside the Rules section? Is that a rule?
"the similar Alibaba (Betza notation AD) was used in India prior to the year 850" No, this is wrong. Murray was clear on this. You can check on his History of Chess, 1913, p59. In ancient India, 3 sorts of Elephants have been reported: A (like in shatranj), FfW (like the Silver in modern shogi) and D (by al Adli). No AD, never. So calling this piece an "Indian" Elephant is maybe not the best name.