Check out Symmetric Chess, our featured variant for March, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

LatestLater Reverse Order EarlierEarliest
Xiangqi: Chinese Chess. Links and rules for Chinese Chess (Xiangqi). (9x10, Cells: 90) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
M Winther wrote on Fri, Jan 21, 2011 03:30 PM UTC:
Is the repetition rule really valid for *all* moves, and not only for consecutive repetitions? I didn't know that, because then the notion of 'chase' loses its meaning. Anyway, I don't think it's necessary to check other repetitions than the consecutive. This is the form of repetition that causes problems, and non-consecutive three-move repetitions are nearly non-existent.
/Mats

H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, Jan 21, 2011 03:20 PM UTC:
Well, Xiangqi servers are infamous for poor implementation of the rules (not surprisingly, when these rules are next to infinitely complex).

One of my points was that it is not just for moving back and forth, but for any repeat, no matter how far in the past. This in definite disagreement with what you said.

But your idea of providing a warning is a good one, I think. Except that I think it would be better to give the warning already on the first repetition, and terminate the game (with unknown score) on the third repetition. Even if the moves were with a King or Pawn (because it is still a draw then, and only if the King or Pawn did not discover threats by other pieces, which is again complex to test.)  The warning could be something like:

WARNING! You are repeating a previous position. If both of you will keep this up, the game will be declared lost to the side which is forcing the other to repeat (by checking, or perpetually threatening a favorable capture of the same piece).

M Winther wrote on Fri, Jan 21, 2011 02:09 PM UTC:
H.G., I think my summary is good enough, because it is only a matter of putting an end to the repetition process. Whether the third repetition should result in a draw or a win, needn't be evaluated by the preset. The preset merely prevents the third repetition, if it isn't made by a king, or a soldier. It's a clever solution. The players can decide to continue, or the losing player may give up instead of continuing the repetition, or the players could agree on a draw, depending on what the rules say. I have played on the Xiangqi sites, and they brutally prevent three-fold repetition, or judge it as a loss to the repeating party. 
/Mats

H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, Jan 21, 2011 01:37 PM UTC:
I don't think you give a correct summary of those Xiangi rules. At least, not for the rules I know ('Asia rules'). For one, the condition is for causing any repeated position, not just consecutive. (So just like in FIDE Chess.) The difference with FIDE rules is that a 3rd repeat is not automatically draw, but can also be judged as win or loss. A side that is somehow forcing the repetition will be ruled to lose, where forcing by checking is considered a worse offense than forcing by merely attacking a superior or unprotected non-royal piece ('chasing'). So that if both are continuously forcing each other, the checking side loses. To be counted as a perpetual check or chase, every move of the repeat loop must be a forcing move threatening the same piece; if there is only one 'quiet' move (even a mate-in-1 threat) in the loop, or a move that only threatens another piece, (even if that is a check amongst chases), it is not considered perpetual check or chase.

The exact rules for which moves are to beconsidered forcing, and which not, are so complex that it requires a sizable AI to implement them. (See http://www.clubxiangqi.com/rules/asiarule.htm )

China mainland rules seem to be even more complex (even mate threats counting as forcing), and I have never been able to find an English description of them.

M Winther wrote on Fri, Jan 21, 2011 11:40 AM UTC:
Fergus, one very important rule is not implemented in your Xiangqi preset. Players are not allowed to move back and forth so that the position is repeated three times (immediately after one another, not overall, as in Fide-chess). If there were no such prevention of repetition, then Xiangqi would be much more drawish. 

Would it be possible to implement this rule so that the player who tries to repeat the position for the third time is prevented from doing this move? Exceptions are if he makes the move with a soldier, or with the general, when he can continue play.

There are cases when players are allowed to go back and forth, when they both go back and forth between different squares, but in this case the players can agree on a draw, so your prevention of the third move only serves as a reminder that it is a draw.
/Mats

🕸📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Thu, Oct 14, 2010 03:24 AM UTC:

Here's my new video on how to play Chinese Chess:


Anonymous wrote on Fri, Jul 16, 2010 06:20 PM UTC:
'Junk Kay'

Actually, it's pronounced without the 'k' sound in the first word. So
you might want to revise the sentence to read 'Jun Kay' (although it
sounds more correct pheonetically as 'Jerng Kay'.)

Liyuan wrote on Thu, Jun 10, 2010 06:08 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
This is very good introduction to ÏóÆå¡£Thank you!

I have one suggestion here about the meaning of ½«. it is not 'will' or
'going to' here, although it does have such meanings. The character by
itself means something similar to 'to lead' as a verb, or it could mean
'leader/general' as an abbreviation for ½«Áì. It is also a military rank
nowadays. ½« is pronounced with the fourth tone here whereas when it's
used to express the meaning of 'will' or 'going to', it's pronounced
with the third tone.

Flowerman wrote on Sun, Mar 14, 2010 06:04 PM UTC:
Do someone know something about ancient Chinese game 'Semedo'? I read that it's early variant of Xiang-qi, but i don't know exact rules and can't find it.

Flowerman wrote on Tue, Mar 9, 2010 02:36 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
I have question: what are early variants of Xian-qi?

🕸📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Thu, Feb 25, 2010 04:29 PM UTC:
Skye, Have you noticed the column of links on the right side? It provides links to sites where you can play against other people. Determining whether other players are at your own level is something you'll have to determine on your own. If you use Game Courier, Game Courier's rating system can help you identify who plays at your level once you have played enough games to have a meaningful rating. This page describes the rules, and if that isn't sufficient for helping you learn how to play, there are links on the right side to other sites describing how to play, as well as to software you can use to learn and play the game.

Skye wrote on Thu, Feb 25, 2010 04:52 AM UTC:
We need a link to where we can find someplace to both learn how to play, play with others and play with others at our same level.

H. G. Muller wrote on Sat, Oct 31, 2009 10:14 PM UTC:
The defensive pieces required a new approach in material evaluation, in my Xiangqi engine HaQiKi D. Rather than having a fixed value, their value is strongly dependent on the attacking material the opponent has. To implement that I use a material table that is indexed by the number of attacking pieces of each type for one side, and the number of defensive pieces of the other side.

In my simpler engine MaxQi (a dedicated version of Fairy-Max that can only play Xiangqi) I just use fixed piece values, and then itregularly happens that it converts its entire advantage to defensive pieces, thinking it is 800 centi-Pawn ahead, while in fact it has zero winning chance...

Larry Smith wrote on Sat, Oct 31, 2009 02:08 PM UTC:
An aspect of Chinese Chess is that certain pieces are primarily defensive(Elephants and Ministers). Also that the both players need to maintain offensive pieces to prosecute the game.

These values can tax a simple depth-search program. Demanding at least a few extra computational considerations.

🕸📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:28 PM UTC:
I agree with the reasoning for why Chess has a greater state-space complexity and a greater game-tree complexity than Chinese Chess. Having programmed the rules of both games, I will add some thoughts on computational complexity. This is primarily a factor of the number of possible moves available to a player each turn. Since Chess pieces all have greater powers of movement than their Chinese counterparts, a computer playing Chess may have to make more calculations to evaluate a move to the same depth. The main factors in favor of greater computational complexity for Chinese Chess are the larger board, the presence of Cannons, and the rule against opposing Generals. The larger board affects mainly Cannon and Chariot moves, since other pieces have limited ranges, and the opposing Generals rules. A Cannon is less computationally complex than a Rook, because it normally has fewer spaces it can move to. A Bishop is also less computationally complex than a Rook. Although the code for a Bishop move will be nearly identical to the code for a Rook move, it has as many possible moves as a Rook only from some positions. A centered Bishop has 14 possible moves on an empty board, the same as a Rook, but as a Bishop moves toward the edge, it has fewer possible moves on an empty board. I haven't done the math to tell which is more complex, but I suspect the Cannon is. Although a Horse sometimes has fewer moves than a Knight, it adds the computational complexity that comes from being able to pin pieces. A horse move can affect the possible moves of the opponent in ways that a Knight move cannot. The main source of greater complexity for Chess comes from the greater powers of the King and Queen, the ability of Pawns to promote, and the rules concerning castling and en passant. A Queen may have as much complexity as two Cannons, maybe more. A King normally has more moves than a General, and the opposing Generals rule only adds one more move to consider. Based on these considerations, I suspect that Chess is more computationally complex, but I have not done the math that a proof would require.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Mon, Aug 31, 2009 03:33 PM UTC:
Not sure triviality or not is an issue here. What may be beneficial is if the CV site had a place to reference other games that aren't in the same family as chess. I do believe the Courier system does enable people to play Go on it (and checkers also).

Larry Smith wrote on Mon, Aug 31, 2009 03:30 PM UTC:
Checkers might be considered trivial, while Go is quite complex. Though a simple reference link would suffice.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Mon, Aug 31, 2009 03:29 PM UTC:
I would also disagree with Go having an entry on here. It isn't part of the same family of abstract strategy games Chess is.

John Smith wrote on Mon, Aug 31, 2009 06:05 AM UTC:
I disagree. We shouldn't have Checkers listed here for the same reason.

Larry Smith wrote on Mon, Aug 31, 2009 01:58 AM UTC:
GD, check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)#Computers_and_Go

Also check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_and_mathematics

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go

Go should really have a page here at TCVP. Particularly since there are
several variants which are based upon this game and its equipment.

George Duke wrote on Sun, Aug 30, 2009 07:53 PM UTC:
'Chess&X.player' cites the state-space complexity of 8x8 chess at around 10^50. Last year 'Singh' claims there are this following many states of the universe in its entirety: 
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=18994
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=18940
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=18943
The first comment says ''silly'' but the probably bleak future indicated in the other two of Singh is not so silly.  'Chess&X.player's computational complexity in the comment here 29.August.2009, actually allowing variantly larger boards etc., is open-ended and he does not try to give numbers. And he ends up in the comment, admitting he is excellent OrthoChess player, like some remaining couple of CVPage stand-patters, talking as if OrthoChess is some one given thing to stay unchanged forever more. Hey, thanks for neat statisitics and please consider becoming a member for something different to look at for a change. Now we know there's more to life than Knife-Knight, Fork-Bishop, and Spood-fed-Rook. 'Chess&X.player' concludes that Go outdoes them all, and haven't we heard that immortal truth before?! But never frequently enough.

Joe Joyce wrote on Sun, Aug 30, 2009 02:19 AM UTC:
Thanks for the very thoughtful comment comparing chess and xiangqi. I've already gotten one private message which said just that. A very interesting conclusion, and more deeply reasoned than many other comparisons of the two games which have come up with various conclusions.

ChessAndXiangqiPlaye wrote on Sat, Aug 29, 2009 12:43 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
I've been thinking about the question of whether Chess or Xiangqi (Chinese
Chess) is strictly speaking the more complex game when viewed from the
perspective of complexity theory.

For more information on Chess and Xiangqi, see

Chess:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess
http://www.chessvariants.org/d.chess/chess.html

Xiangqi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_chess
http://www.chessvariants.com/xiangqi.html

Using the ideas of complexity theory, the complexity of Chess and Xiangqi
can be estimated and calculated quantitatively. In general, there are 3
different kinds of complexity a deterministic board game like Chess or
Xiangqi may have:

1 State-space Complexity: the maximum number of possible positions in the
game. It is also possible to calculate an upper bound for state-space
complexity which includes illegal positions as well. The upper bound is
generally speaking much easier to calculate than the exact value, which is
often only given as an accurate estimation.

It is generally calculated that the state-space complexity of Chess is
around 10^50 (10 to the power of 50, or 1 with 50 zeros after it, or one
hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion different positions), while the
state-space complexity of Xiangqi is around 10^48, 100 times less than that
of Chess. This is because despite a larger board (9 times 10 vs. 8 times
8), Xiangqi pieces are generally speaking less powerful than their Chess
equivalents and for many pieces the space over which it can potentially
move is severely restricted. In Chess, the King, Queen, Rook and Knight can
potentially move to every square on the board, the Pawn can potentially
reach more than 6/8th of all the squares (though unlikely to move that much
in a real game), and even the Bishop can reach half of all the squares. In
Xiangqi the General can only stay inside the Palace and move to 9 different
intersections, the Advisor can only move to 5 different intersections and
the Elephant only to 7 different intersections.

Another factor is that the Xiangqi board, having 9 files instead of
Chess's 8, is symmetrical in the left-right direction. This means the left
and right hand sides in Xiangqi are essentially the same, so different
board positions may just be a trivial reflection of the other. This
decreases the effective state-space complexity of Xiangqi by a factor of 2.
In Chess on the other hand, the Kingside and the Queenside are not just a
trivial reflection of each other since the distance the King has to the
edge of the board is different for the left and right hand sides.

Therefore despite having 90 intersections on the Xiangqi board vs. only 64
squares for Chess, the total number of possible positions is around 100
times more in Chess than Xiangqi, 10^50 vs. 10^48.

2 Game-tree Complexity: roughly speaking this is the total number of
possible games one can potentially play with a particular version of board
game. This is different from state-space complexity and the value is
generally speaking far larger because state-space complexity only takes
space and position into account, while game-tree complexity analyses the
actual moves in a game and hence also puts time into account. Generally
speaking, there are many different ways, in terms of playing the game, to
reach a particular position on the board. For instance, the opening
position on the chess board with Ng1-f3 and e2-e4 (moving the King's
Knight and King's Pawn out) can be reached via two different
'game-trees': Nf3 first or e4 first, and the number of possible
game-trees for a given board position increases dramatically as one
progresses into the game and the position becomes much more complex.

Generally it is estimated that the total number of possible games in Chess
is around 10^123 (or 1 with 123 zeros after it), while for Xiangqi it is
10^150, which is 100 million billion times more than Chess. For comparison,
consider that the total number of atoms in the observable universe is only
around 10^80.

There are far more possible games in Xiangqi since it is played on a
larger board (90 instead of 64 spaces), and generally a game of Xiangqi
lasts for more moves than a game of Chess. However, given that the Xiangqi
board is left-right symmetrical and therefore left-hand side play is
identical to right-hand side play, and that since Xiangqi pieces are
generally less powerful and the General is restricted to within the Palace,
the larger number of possible games in the purely technical sense becomes
relatively trivial by the endgame stage, since real play is likely to be
always focused around the General's Palace, and different moves elsewhere
on the board essentially converges to the same kind of endgames. In other
words, whereas in the earlier phase of the game the game-tree of possible
moves branches out, by the endgame in Xiangqi they begin to converge into
one-another, and Xiangqi games generally end in relatively similar
positions (major pieces and pawns around the General's Palace and a
relatively exposed General).

In Chess game-trees also tend to converge more by the endgame but since
the King can move to anywhere on the board and there is the possibility of
pawn promotion, the game converges to a significantly smaller extent than
Xiangqi. Also the approximate estimation for the game-tree complexity of
Chess does not take into account the re-divergence of the game-tree if
enough pawns are promoted into pieces in the endgame. Although in real play
this tends to be an unlikely scenario, in technical calculations of game
complexity this factor should be included. In addition, when the game-tree
complexity of Chess is calculated, unlikely endgame scenarios, such as the
game dragging on unnecessarily for dozens of extra moves that are in
practice trivial, are also included.

Therefore effectively speaking despite the technically higher game-tree
complexity of Xiangqi, I think Chess is actually the more complex game of
the two.

3 Computational Complexity: a third way to calculate game complexity is to
consider how much computational steps are required to play a Chess or
Xiangqi game by a Chess or Xiangqi engine/computer as the actual size of
the game increases in space. E.g. if the Chess board size doubles, how much
more computational power is required? In this both Chess and Xiangqi are
very similar in that computational difficulty increases exponentially (in
terms of the number of calculational steps required to play the game) with
board size. Thus both games are said to be inside the complexity class
called EXPTIME (stands for 'exponential time').

Personally despite being an ethnic Chinese and proud of Chinese culture in
general, I think Chess is a better game than Xiangqi and I'm a better
player in Chess than in Xiangqi. Though of course the Chinese game of
Weiqi/Go is far more complex than either of these games mentioned here.

H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, Feb 6, 2009 08:32 PM UTC:
I just produced a special Xiangqi version of my general variant engine Fairy-Max. Xiangqi is sufficiently different, because of its subdivided board, deviating promotion, stalemate an repetition rules, to warrant a separate engine, rather a further generalization of Fairy-Max.

The engine is called MaxQi, and is availabe as source code and Windows excutable from my website (download link http://home.hccnet.nl/h.g.muller/MaxQi.zip ). It uses WinBoard protocol to communicate its moves, and so can be run under WinBoard 4.3 ('WinBoard_F'). Other WB engines are HoiXinagqi and TJxiangqi. MaxQi is definitely a lot stronger than HoiXiangqi; I have not had it play many games against TJxiangqi yet, but I expect MaxQi to be weaker than that.

Charles Gilman wrote on Wed, Feb 4, 2009 09:25 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
The illustrations of sets do a lot to put this game into its historic and geographic context.

Has anyone else noticed that the Bare Facing rule is an example, many centuries before the rise of music downloads, of a restriction on file sharing?

🕸📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Sun, Dec 21, 2008 12:12 AM UTC:
I'm going to share my speculations on the origin of Chinese Chess here, and since it is speculation, I am adding it here instead of adding it as part of the page content. First, I'm certain that Chinese Chess is related to Chaturanga or Shatranj in some way. Their pieces and rules are too similar for me to buy into the idea that Chinese Chess arose completely independently of the Indo-European Chess tradition. Besides that, there was trade between India and China along the silk road. So it makes sense that word of a game that had become popular in one place would spread to the other.

From my experience playing Chess, Chinese Chess, and Shatranj, it seems to me that both Chess and Chinese Chess are better games than Shatranj, and the idea arises that both may be improvements on Chaturanga or some game like it. The main problem with Chaturanga/Shatranj is that the pieces are too weak and slow, making the game long and tedious. Chess fixes this by replacing the weakest pieces with stronger pieces and by giving Pawns a double move. Chinese Chess fixes this by confining its royal piece to the palace, using the weakest pieces only for defense, and adding the Cannon, which is a fairly fast and powerful piece. The result is that Chinese Chess tends to be fast and decisive, much moreso than Chaturanga/Shatranj. Given this, it seems likely to me that Chaturanga is closer to the original game than Chinese Chess is.

Besides this, it seems more likely to me that Chinese Chess was a transformation of Chaturanga than vice versa. Consider this. Chinese Chess could be described as being played on a board of 90 points, while Chaturanga could be described as being played on a board of 64 squares. If someone in India heard the 90 points description and tried to recreate the game, he wouldn't likely make the 64 square ashtapada, but if someone in China heard about a game played on a 64 square ashtapada, he may assume from his experience with Go that pieces go on the intersections instead of inside the squares. This might immediately lead him to thinking that the game has two Counselors instead of just the one in Chaturanga. If he also heard that the game had 16 pieces to each side, he might have thought that 7 Pawns didn't seem right, settle on 5 as the more natural number for a rank of 9 points, and then assuming that his information on Chaturanga had been garbled, set to work trying to think of what the two remaining pieces might be. Splitting the board in two, thereby adding an extra rank, and the other changes may have followed from attempts to improve the game.

One last point concerns the names Chaturanga and Xiangqi. The former, meaning the four branches of the military, seems like a name the original creator might naturally give to a war game. The latter, meaning elephant strategy board game, seems to have been named for one feature that perhaps struck someone as unusual or significant. This example of synecdoche in naming is the sort of name I might expect from people who adopted a game from another culture. Even the English name of Chess is an example of synecdoche, for it goes back to the Persian Shah, meaning King.

My speculations have been based on an analysis of the games and their names. If it were contradicted by historical or archaeological evidence, that evidence would be more relevant. Although there are those who would disagree with my conclusions, my conclusions are in line with the received opinion that the origins of Chess and Chinese Chess go back to Chaturanga.

H. G. Muller wrote on Wed, Oct 15, 2008 06:34 PM UTC:
Standard Staunton-style piece set for the Westernized representation of this game:


Anonymous wrote on Sat, Sep 13, 2008 08:37 AM UTC:
I think you should add the rules about handicap game.
Usually, the stronger player will play first and remove one or more of his
pieces, but sometimes he can get something back to avoid a much too unfair
game:
1.If a player removes a Knight, and move his Rook nearby to that place
('Rook out of the Forest'), it will be covered by an enemy Cannon, but
the enemy Cannon cannot capture it.
2.If a player removes both Knights, his central Pawn ('Solid Pawn')
cannot be captured before it makes at least one move, unless the capture
is with a check.
3.If a player removes one Cannon, his other Cannon cannot be captured
before it makes at least one move.
3.If a player removes a Rook, his Cannon and Knight cannot be captured
before it makes at least one move.

chesscape.com wrote on Thu, May 29, 2008 09:50 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
I like this site: http://www.chesscape.com Play Chinese Chess against people for free!

Me wrote on Fri, Feb 22, 2008 08:47 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Thanks!! This is great!! I already played and whew!! It is very good.

M Winther wrote on Mon, Dec 31, 2007 07:54 AM UTC:
My Zillions implementation of Chinese Chess plays a good game, it also has Western style pieces as an option:
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/chinesechess.htm

Mats

Anonymous wrote on Fri, Dec 28, 2007 01:07 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
A useful resource. Thanks for the website.

SCRIBD wrote on Mon, Nov 12, 2007 11:18 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Download a Free Xiangqi Book

http://www.scribd.com

[I have removed the link as it appears to be a copyrighted work. Please do
not post such links on our site. Thanks. --Editors]

Randy wrote on Tue, Aug 14, 2007 02:26 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
beginner searching for info - great resource

151 wrote on Fri, Apr 6, 2007 12:18 PM UTC:Average ★★★
I want to play see how good I am

Gary Gifford wrote on Sun, Mar 18, 2007 01:38 PM UTC:
If you like Chinese Chess, be sure to look at Korean Chess, if you haven't already. Korean Chess can be played with a Chinese Chess set, even though the later makes no use of the river. It allows for different starting setups and has more dynamics which result from subtle changes to the rules. Both games are challenging, with Chinese Chess being the game most often played in the world.

heartno1 wrote on Sun, Mar 18, 2007 09:38 AM UTC:
hi like it

chesscape.com wrote on Sun, Feb 18, 2007 03:13 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Thank you for the link: http://www.chesscape.com This is a great site to play Chinese Chess with other online players. This site has a very easy to use interface and free of commercial advertisements. It's great and I think Chesscape should be added to the Chinese Chess link so other reader can go there and play as well. Nice found! Thank you!

chesscape.com wrote on Sat, Feb 17, 2007 09:23 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
I found this nice website to play Chinese Chess (totally free) against other players online or pratice against the computer. Go check it out: http://www.chesscape.com

Sonia wrote on Sat, Nov 4, 2006 04:01 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
I was just wondering if there's a different way to play Chinese Chess!

Jazz wrote on Wed, Oct 25, 2006 09:53 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Thanks a bunch, mate. I bought a set without rules and you've given me a huge memory aid. Cheers.

Marek Futrega wrote on Sat, Oct 21, 2006 05:17 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
Play Xiangqi section misses http://www.kurnik.org
(one of the few places where you can play this game against other people
with non-Chinese user interface)

Anonymous wrote on Thu, Oct 5, 2006 02:41 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Now I finally know how to play 'that funky chess game with cannons!' SWEET! This is pretty cool and I think i'll try making some pieces and board. I might even end up making Xianqi in wood. I have to say, having not only the rules and game set-up but western equivalent names and the setup with westernized pieces, all rocks! You could possibly add pictures demonstrating each piece's moves and stalemates. Now don't think that your explanations are hard to follow, in fact they are extraordinarily easy to follow compared to most stuff I've read. Nice job.

D.Nicholas wrote on Thu, Jul 6, 2006 10:34 PM UTC:

In reading the page on chinese chess which I delight in playing I observed that you attribute different two chinese language titles to the game. Actually there is only the one in so much as the Mandarin written title is the only chinese title and the Cantonese pronunciation (Cantonese is not a written language - except in bastardised script based on sound) the game is known as Jeung Kei (Jeunhg Kay, as you have it) which to put it another way is written by the Cantonese speaker in the same character form as that in Mandarin (the only true written language).

Hope this is of assistance should you consider any revision of text.

I enjoyed your site and the variant described.


Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on Sun, Jun 18, 2006 05:59 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
hey here is another 'good' rating for an 'excellent' game :)

Fire_Dancer wrote on Fri, May 26, 2006 11:34 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
very good for me to know. Now i can play chinese chess. :)

Beauty_fire wrote on Fri, May 26, 2006 12:53 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Very interesting

KID wrote on Sun, May 14, 2006 03:29 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
a lot of good info good for my chess report

The_Beast wrote on Wed, May 10, 2006 02:19 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Thanks for the page!

One small suggestion would be a mention of Gabriel's totally different offering as Chinese Chess. As someone might pick it up in a thrift store, and find they'd made a mistake based on your excellent description, a warning seems considerate.

Mind you, Gabriel's version fascinates me as no one 'owns' pieces.


C.S. Graves wrote on Fri, May 5, 2006 06:06 PM UTC:BelowAverage ★★
I love xiangqi, and I'd like to see 'mao' on this page finally changed to 'ma'. Referring to the horse in xiangqi as a 'mao' caused me no small amount of embarassment when playing with a young Chinese woman at our weiqi club! Let's make this page an accurate source of information, rather than continuing to cite an author who was mistaken.

Gary Gifford wrote on Sun, Mar 5, 2006 08:16 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
I am primarily giving this 'excellent' to offset the 'ekon' comment of 'Poor' followed by the ekon statement of 'for learn more skill.' What kind of comment is that, aside from being terrible grammatically? The Xianqi page clearly explains the rules of Chinese Chess. The page is not 'poor,' nor is the game. If one already knows how to play and wants to get better then he or she can (a) play more games of Xianqi and (b) read one or more of the books listed in the 'Shop' section of the Xianqi page.

ekon wrote on Sun, Mar 5, 2006 05:09 PM UTC:Poor ★
for learn more skill

Tuan wrote on Tue, Jan 10, 2006 04:08 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Compared with the Western chess, I find this game is a lot more exciting. 

Only 5 pawns with a distance between them make roads for pieces come to
the enemy's territory and organize an attack. There are much less draws
than in Western chess, and you cannot play passively hoping for a draw if
you don't want to fight, the enemy's forces will overwhelm you soon.
The
battle here is more fiery than in its counterpart and draw is only
achieved through a fight with a lot of exchanges.

This game has less regard on material, you could be several pawns or one
piece down but you have chances to attack the enemy's King, it is ok
since the king is limited in His Royal Palace. Sacrifices of pieces are
seen in almost every 3 games, and two rooks (the strongest offensive
piece) sacrifice is seen in around, say, 5000 games.

andy thomas wrote on Fri, Oct 28, 2005 04:40 AM UTC:
i really like the cannons in xiangqi... and the fact that the game itself develops more quickly than 'fide' ... also that once the pieces become a bit unbalanced, the 'losing' side still seems to be able to mount an attack... in other words, material superiority is not as important as in 'fide'... one thing i really miss in chinese chess... there are no powerful bishops... but interestingly, the elephant can 'ambush' you because you forgot about it!... i don't know how many pieces i've lost to the otherwise 'weak' elephants... all because i forget, and the elephant does not forget!... i actually prefer xiangqi to 'fide'... i'm probably 'lower intermediate' level in both games... but they sure are fun!... anyway... getting back to the cannon... it is a very interesting piece... probably the single most interesting piece in either fide or xiangqi... when you cross over from fide to xiangqi... the cannon takes the most getting used to... at least that was my experience... finally, another site where you can play xiangqi is 'www.itsyourturn.com'... they have turn-based like brainking... i have seen some clubxiangqi players at iyt too...

laurent wrote on Fri, Oct 21, 2005 08:20 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
PLAY BY EMAIL SERVERS : brainking.com recently included xiangqi!

mandarin123.com wrote on Fri, Oct 14, 2005 11:30 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Rules are well explained. Just wonder if there's forum dedicated to xiangqi discussion?

Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on Mon, Oct 10, 2005 11:15 PM UTC:
try out shogi (japanese chess) and you will find another game better than 'classical' chess he he

Dorian Dodo Aleksei wrote on Mon, Oct 10, 2005 08:38 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
I just played Xiangqi today and it charmed me and everybody who played it today. Excellent game. Much better then the classic chess.

Jeremy Craner wrote on Thu, Oct 6, 2005 06:26 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Your readers might be interested in my free Chinese Chess program for Windows called Qianhong (Light Red)--it provides a good way to get into the game without previous Chinese Chess experience. Would you mind adding it to the list of links? Thanks! www.jcraner.com/qianhong/

Jared McComb wrote on Thu, Jul 21, 2005 07:12 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Roberto, I'd like to point out that as of right now, when one 
Googles 'chessvariants,' the first related page that comes up under the 
main listing is this Xiang-Qi page.  If that isn't a good indicator of 
this game's popularity variant-wise, if not game-wise in general, I don't 
know what is.

(Incidentally, a search for 'xiangqi' gives this page second in the list, 
and a search for 'xiang-qi' or 'chinese chess' gives it first.)

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Fri, Jul 15, 2005 12:38 PM UTC:
From: chinese-chess-xiang-qi.dev.java.net : 
'...Because of the huge number of players in China and the rest of Asia,
Chinese Chess is 'the' most popular game in the world...' 
There is not support for this statement, and, in my personal opinion, it
is not true, even if you are only talking about board games, and even if
you are only talking about Chess and variants.

joe wrote on Fri, Jul 15, 2005 06:18 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
sound as £5

Charles Gilman wrote on Mon, Jun 27, 2005 07:42 AM UTC:
There is now a Piececlopedia entry for the General itself, to which you may wish to add a link.

(zzo38) A. Black wrote on Fri, Jun 10, 2005 09:00 PM UTC:
This comment is now obsolite. I already submitted 'Para-Xiang-qi'.

alan wrote on Tue, May 24, 2005 05:51 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Anonymous wrote on Sat, May 14, 2005 10:17 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Anonymous wrote on Sun, May 1, 2005 04:40 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
I have found a 'Chinese chess board' with 'material pieces':
http://www.mastersgames.com/cat/board/chinese-chess.htm
But it's expensive.

harry wrote on Thu, Mar 24, 2005 10:31 AM UTC:
one rule in Xiangqi is : Perpetual check is forbidden. You cannot check
your opponent more than three times in a row with the same piece and same
board positions. But the software do not understand it. The device check
me no-limitted in a row wiht the same piece and same board positions. i
have to give up.

Anthony wrote on Mon, Mar 14, 2005 12:58 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
I managed to find a Xiang Qi set at a 'Value World' a few days ago that didn't include any directions whatsoever. This page was/is a great help!

mhau wrote on Mon, Jan 17, 2005 10:20 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

Robert N wrote on Wed, Jan 5, 2005 11:37 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
What a site! For a lover of fairy chess etc. like me.

Years ago I saw this beatiful chess set and wanted it, but could not
afford to pay D. kr. 1.500 (appr. 300 dollars). This Christmas my
girlfriend gave it to me! I never told her my wish, so it is simply the
best Christmas present I have recived, ever.

It is very beautiful, a smaller copy of the terracotta figures from the
grave of Qin Shi Huang Di, first emperor of China - much more visual than
Chinese characters. The ministers and guards are very alike, though
(anyone else out there who has a set and knows which one has a split
hair-do and which one does not?)

She worried that it was not standard chess. I thought great that it is
not, though rules did not follow (and I thought Chinese and Japanese
chess
were the same...), so we picked up some simple, and flawed rules on the
Internet.

I have played several games with my self or the kids. We have made three
major mistakes: 1. The ministers (elephants) could leap (minor mistake
actually). 2. I thought the way the horse moved was in a simple L-shape:
One step orthogonally and two steps to the side - or two steps, then one
step. This gives some other points where one cannot leap, including
different opening options. 3. Great mistake: I thought the cannons could
only capture a token directly behind another token (in stead of the great
leap for cannon-kind of the real rules), which makes it a rather weak
token in it self.

Glad you set me straight on all points, though I will recommend my
'wrong
variant', which gives a very complicated and defensive game (with some
tendency to produce tied games). The 'wrong horse moves' I will
recommend in general, for variation.

Looking forward to testing out your variants and the Chorean chess on the
board...

Xin Ying wrote on Thu, Dec 30, 2004 03:45 PM UTC:Poor ★
There wasn't any conclusions i could find for the game...
but as a chinese, i admit that i like this game a lot even though i do not
play it often...

Anonymous wrote on Sat, Oct 9, 2004 04:40 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

Charles Gilman wrote on Tue, Sep 21, 2004 08:24 AM UTC:
The idea that the differing symbols for similar opposing pieces were necessary long ago ties in with the Cannon, a latecomer to the game, being one of the pieces for which both armies use the same symbol.

Anonymous wrote on Thu, Aug 12, 2004 06:20 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
I Think you should also post the traditional characters for the pieces instead of just the simplified ones.

Anonymous wrote on Fri, Jul 30, 2004 04:14 PM UTC:
Also, what do the symbols on each of the pieces mean?

Jianying Ji wrote on Wed, Jul 28, 2004 05:40 AM UTC:
The reason the characters are different from what I hear is that in ancient times xiangqi is played with pieces that are not differentiated by color. So the characters and the shape of the base were ways in which the two sides are differentiated.

Anonymous wrote on Tue, Jul 27, 2004 08:24 PM UTC:
Do you know <i>why</i> the symbols on most Red pieces are different <BR> from the symbols on the corresponding Black pieces?

Anonymous wrote on Sat, Jul 24, 2004 10:12 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
thanks!

Brandon Wallace wrote on Sat, Jul 17, 2004 11:16 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
I recently visited China on a student tour. I was absolutely fascinated with the many groups of raggedy men gathered around a game board. So I, of course found the name of the game and ensured that I'd learn it when I got in the states. And after searching many-a-many sites to learn I was only dissapointed. This site- your site- however, has fully satisfied my curiosity. I am gratefull to have found such a nice mentor site.

A. DaRocha wrote on Wed, Jun 16, 2004 02:56 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
My roommate just came back from China, and she brought me a Chinese Chess board, but it had no instructions. This website is GREAT! The visual setup of the pieces is just what I needed. A. DaRocha <a href='http://www.darocha.org'>www.darocha.org</a> <a href='http://www.xtremeburn.com'>www.xtremeburn.com</a>

W.H. King wrote on Sat, Jun 12, 2004 07:54 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
There is another place to find a key to the piece movement notation in the WXF's English Xiangqi Books. Actually, at the same site from where the books are downloaded, the WXF homepage... http://wxf.hypermart.net/eg/index.html The key is not on the books page. Instead, go to drop down menu 'SELECT A CATEGORY' | 'WXF ORGANIZATION' ... ... Official Piece Names and Notation'. My, they hid that key alright!

nouville72 wrote on Fri, Jun 11, 2004 04:37 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
XiangQi is a very good game, the more you play it, the more you find it 
clever and elegant. 

Not able to read the chinese language, I found 4 very good books on

XiangQi, written by David H.Li. The titles are :
'First Syllabus on XiangQi - Chinese Chess 1',
'Syllabus on Cannon - Chinese Chess 2',  
'Syllabus on Elephant - Chinese Chess 3'
'Syllabus on Pawn - Chinese Chess 4'

These books use the notation given by the WXF and greatly improved my
knowledge and game level.

lihoe wrote on Thu, Jun 3, 2004 08:02 AM UTC:
good

w L wrote on Sat, May 29, 2004 08:13 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

Jeremy Craner wrote on Sat, Apr 17, 2004 07:33 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
<p>This is a great site for beginners, and wannabes too, like me. =) <p>[shameless plug] If you are new to Xiangqi, you might like my free Windows game. It has a range of computer AI levels (not all mine) and a nice interface. Check it out at <a href='http://www.jcraner.com/qianhong/'>http://www.jcraner.com/qianhong/</a>. Happy gaming!

cychong wrote on Mon, Apr 5, 2004 06:20 PM UTC:
Hi, all xiangqi friends, i would like to introduce the following free
online chess, come and join, all xiangqi players over the world.

http://www.clubxiangqi.com

                                                        cychong
                                                   [email protected]
                                                        Malaysian

Anonymous wrote on Mon, Mar 8, 2004 10:58 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
dfs

Larson wrote on Thu, Feb 26, 2004 06:51 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
IS there a way for you to include link to the online multiplayer 3D Chinese
chess game I created?

http://chess.hanamifx.com/

DMN wrote on Tue, Feb 17, 2004 04:05 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
It is a good start for beginners in understanding one of the greatest
game,
in my opinion, ever created. As to the question of Seongmo Yoon, the
website with those free e-books on Chinese Chess requires a program
called
Adobe Acrobat to view. You can find the software free to download almost
anywhere on the internet, just search for the program through google or
you can probably find it on Download.com. It was a great site for would
be
chinese chess players...highly recommended:
http://wxf.hypermart.net/eg/index.html
Thanx Seongmo Yoon. hopes this comment helps.

Seongmo Yoon wrote on Wed, Feb 4, 2004 04:59 AM UTC:
www.aikidoaus.com.au

by the way, this link leads me to an Aikido site.
Aikido is a Japanese martial art.

Interesting :)

I practiced Aikikai aikido  for a few months before.
Aikikai aikido is the most smooth and soft type of Aikido.

Do Aussy people practice Aikido?

Seongmo Yoon wrote on Tue, Feb 3, 2004 06:19 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Thanks, John!

This is from another source 
I can use this and your reference to know of Chinese chess notation.

>>From what I remember Lau just used a straightforward translation of 
>>the Chinese move notation which has been used for a long time. If you
>>have in Chinese language books you can verify this.
> 
> 
> I don't have Chinese books (as I unfortunately don't read Chinese);
but
> Lau used a pure algebraic notation.  The standard notation uses a 
> system with the symbols +, -, = to denote moves forward, back, or side-
> ward.  Lau's notation is actually easier to follow but no one else uses
it,
> so the student has to discard it and learn the standard notation later.

He simply uses english characters to represent the same thing.  From 
what I could tell his notation is easily translatable into [WA]XF by 
replacing f,b,t with +,-,=.  I may have the characters wrong, but in 
general he uses the Chinese notation with english characters just as 
[WA]XF uses chinese notation with mathematical symbols.

You should learn the characters needed to read chinese notation.  Its 
really only a few symbols more than the pieces.  You have front, back, 
side, and the numbers 1-9.

John Lawson wrote on Tue, Feb 3, 2004 04:46 AM UTC:
Check out http://www.aikidoaus.com.au/dojo/docs/chinese_chess/notation.htm

Seongmo Yoon wrote on Tue, Feb 3, 2004 04:30 AM UTC:
http://wxf.hypermart.net/eg/index.html

'Deceptive Play in Xiangqi Openings And Countermeasures'

I downloaded the free English  e-book
but do not know how to read its notation system

Any helps?

i r dumb wrote on Tue, Jan 13, 2004 04:35 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Anonymous wrote on Mon, Jan 12, 2004 05:22 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

guando wrote on Mon, Jan 12, 2004 04:29 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Error wrote on Sun, Jan 11, 2004 08:43 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
can i copy the texts here to my homepage?
i will claim the texts are copied from 'www.chessvariants.com' in my HP
ng goi ar.....

jdgdfgfh wrote on Thu, Jan 8, 2004 04:32 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

marilou wrote on Thu, Jan 1, 2004 03:45 AM UTC:
Help! Can anyone help me? I used to enjoy playing Chinese Chess in a site named 'tysung.cjb.net/xq/index.html It is now gone, where is it now?

100 comments displayed

LatestLater Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.