Why do people still say xiangqi is from the Warring States period?
These answers restate the rules implemented by our open-source engine, which follows the WXF laws and is regression-tested against the official 110-diagram repetition casebook. Where an answer refers to a specific position, that position lives on the linked reference page, where the build verifies it against the engine before publishing.
Direct answer
Mostly because of the 楚河漢界 inscription on the board, which really does reference a genuine historical event from that broader era, the contention between Chu and Han after the fall of Qin. People reasonably but incorrectly infer that if the inscription is that old, the game must be too. It dates the decoration, not the rules.
How the inference goes wrong
An inscription referencing a historical event only tells you the inscription was written with that event in mind; it says nothing about when the board underneath it, or the game played on it, was invented. See what 楚河漢界 means for the inscription itself, and who invented xiangqi for why no individual founder is documented either.
Why the claim is sticky
A specific, dramatic origin story is more memorable and more shareable than "the game developed gradually over an uncertain period," even when the second version is what the evidence actually supports. That asymmetry, not any new evidence, is most of why the older claim keeps circulating.
Related questions
Is there any truth in the Warring States claim at all?
Games called by similar names existed in various periods, but nothing documents the modern cannon-and-palace game that far back.
Should I correct someone who repeats it?
Gently, and it helps to explain the inscription, since that is usually the actual source of the confusion.
.