Commander-in-chief in Chinese chess and in western chess (#244, Topic G)

Proto-chess was invented in China (#243). The focus of Xiangqi (Chinese chess) is the commander-in-chief (CiC); when he is attacked, he must find ways to neutralize this attack -- (1) by marshalling his troopd to counter the attack (check) and, in time, to mount a counterattack on his counterpart, or (2) by moving to a different location to temporize the assault. When he cannot do either, he surrenders (resigns) and the game is over. The focus of western chess is the same, but there are three major differences. One, in Xiangqi, the CiC must remain in a 3x3 square (the headquarters), symbolizing that, in commanding his troops, he stands confidently at the center. In western chess, the CiC is moved to the side of the board the soonest (by the 7th or so move), symbolizing, at least to me, that he seeks safety at the expense of his troops. Two, in Xiangqi, when the CiC can neither defend himself nor move to safety within the 3x3 square, he surrenders. In western chess, the game is declared a draw when the CiC, even though hopelessly behind, being surrounded, but not being checked, cannot find a legal move for himself or for any of his pieces (stalemate)-- this rule bears no resemblance to real-life war which western chess is said to simulate (in Xiangqi, a stalemate is a win for the opponent). Three, in Xiangqi, the two CiC cannot stand face-to-face on the same open file (which may be up to 8 spaces apart vertically) -- known as telepotency, a word I coined when I wrote the first of, so far, five volumes on Xiangqi. In western chess, the two CiC must not stand next to each other; they must be separated by 1 space either vertically or horizontally. In USA, the President is also the CiC. The western chess seems to simulate USA's CiC well -- moving about the entire board/country unconstrained. As I write this, the President/CiC was on the road for the 6th consecutive day (today: Montana), campaigning for various Republican candidates for election/reelection to the congress or governorship (today: Montana's senatorship). Is that the proper role for a CiC? Yesterday's Washington Post and today's CNBC gave a cute answer: they spell the CiC not as Commander-in-chief, but as Campaigner-in-chief -- a sitting president is invariably an attractive draw; when he visits, it is the occasion to host cocktails and dinners, with his followers shelling out $5,000 or $10,000 for the privilege of shaking his hand and listening to his talk. The other day, I wrote about how much time is needed to earn $10,000 (#238). Perhaps I should also write about how fast one may spend $10,000 -- a 2-hour dinner meeting with the president.