What is the technique for defending with two advisors and no elephants against a chariot?
These answers restate the rules implemented by our open-source engine, which follows the WXF laws for movement, checkmate and both repetition rulings: a side that forces a repetition by perpetual check or perpetual chase loses rather than drawing. The chase half has not been validated against the official casebook. Where an answer refers to a specific position, that position lives on the linked reference page, where the build verifies it before publishing.
Direct answer
Against a lone chariot, it does not hold. A chariot beats a general with two advisors and no elephants in every one of 125,118 legal positions, in at most 12 moves, and the advisors are part of the problem: they occupy palace points the general would otherwise step to. Without any elephants, every approach square outside the palace is open to the chariot, so all the defender can do is make the win take those moves.
Why losing both elephants changes the defence so much
Elephants normally cover key points well outside the palace, forcing an attacking chariot to work harder to get close. With both gone, the chariot can approach freely from almost any direction, and the advisors, confined to the palace itself, cannot extend their coverage out to meet it the way an elephant would have.
Where the real defence happens
Against a lone chariot the result is settled: careful general and advisor placement can delay the mate, never stop it. The defence that matters comes earlier, before both elephants are gone, or by keeping another piece of your own on the board. See advisors and elephants for the fuller defensive picture with elephants present.
Related questions
Is this position usually a draw or a loss?
Against a lone chariot, a loss in every position: all 125,118 are wins for the chariot, none longer than 12 moves. The counts are on the proven endgame verdicts.
Does an extra soldier help this defence?
It can, if positioned to block an approach square the missing elephants would otherwise have covered, though it is not a substitute for the elephants themselves.
.