Western cultural differences from the rules of chess

In the process of learning chess, I found some interesting things to share with you.
First of all, chess and Chinese chess are very similar, chess 8 rows 8 columns, the front row is placed 8 soldiers, the back row from the outside to the inside, respectively, are the car, horse, elephant, king, elephant, horse, car (look more like an arrow tower).
Chinese chess 10 rows and 9 columns, the front row is placed 6 soldiers, the middle is two guns, the last row from the outside to the inside, respectively, are chariots, horses, elephants, Shi, generals, shi, elephants, horses, chariots.
Comparing the two, you will find that Chinese chess has two fewer soldiers, two more guns (powerful, can be used as siege weapons), two more officers (can be understood as counselors, ancient staff), and one less after the war (let women leave?). .
And chess seems to have no siege weapons, does this mean that chess was invented by a less technologically advanced country? In addition, there is no military staff such as "Shi" in Chinese chess, which seems to represent the country that invented chess, and the war experience and form are relatively backward; The strangest thing is that chess has such pieces as "queen", and the most powerful force, which is even more puzzling, is the country that invented chess at that time was still in a matriarchal society?
Second, although chess has only 8 rows and 8 columns, it should seem simpler than Chinese chess with 10 rows and 9 columns; But in fact, the rules of chess are more complicated than those of Chinese chess, which makes it more difficult for beginners to master.
For example, a chess pawn, if there are enemy pieces in front of him, can not eat, can only eat the adjacent diagonal direction of the enemy pieces; Does that mean, in a head-to-head fight, it's usually hard to win? Slants can eat, which means that you can beat the front opponent?
For example, the "rear" in chess has the most powerful force, can eat straight, diagonal, and does not limit the distance, as long as there is no piece of their own side in the middle of the way;
Is it strange that a woman had the most powerful force in ancient warfare? That doesn't make any sense, does it? Or does the "queen" in chess not represent a woman at all, let alone a "queen"? Perhaps the "queen" of chess represents a tribal witch?
The most puzzling thing is that the "last" dead side will not be judged to lose, and if their soldiers can rush to the last line of the opponent's board, they can choose to change into the "rear" or "car", "horse", "elephant"; Since the "rear" has the most powerful force, the "soldiers" who can rush to the last line of the enemy are basically choosing to change into "rear".
There are two interesting situations, one is that if the enemy "king" is cornered by us, it counts as a draw; This is very different from Chinese chess, and it is not logical, considering that the enemy king is cornered by his own side, there is no way to escape, and it is obvious that he will perish and lose the battle.
Second, there is a "king castling" chess operation, I am also very interested in this, this is a makeup sneak attack on the enemy, or makeup to escape? Or does it reflect an element of surprise?