Single Comment

Joost Brugh has the right idea, but it is really worse than he describes. Suppose I am playing this game in a tournament with someone I know is a superior player. The rules are such that I can choose to play for a draw and easily get one. All I have to do is keep all my pieces on my own side of the river, exchange pieces for any he sends over to attack my King, and finally have a draw when he runs out of pieces that can attack my King. You see, the pieces available for offense can also be used for defense. When a player chooses to use all his pieces for defense, there isn't much his opponent can do, since he has fewer pieces available for offense, and worst of all, his strongest pieces aren't available for offense. Although Xiang Qi, upon which Anglis Qi, the game from which this rule comes is based, also has pieces devoted to defense, they are the weakest pieces in the game, and the Pawns are unable to mount the same kind of defense Pawns can in Chess. Thus, Xiang Qi is much better balanced between offense and defense. This game is tipped too much in favor of defense.