The Chess Variant Pages
Custom Search




[ 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

Later Reverse Order Earlier
This item is a game information page
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2011-02-27
 By Travis  Z. Xiangqi vs Orthodox Chess. Missing description (9x9, Cells: 77) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Samson Marriner wrote on 2014-10-30 UTC
seonoo, you have miscalculated. the Chess (FIDE) army contains only one Queen, so (5+3+3)+8+9=39. However, Advisors cross (and block) paths so often they are hardly worth anything more than Elephants, and Jocly's Shako rates Cannons at 4.9. Splitting the difference for Cannons (I they are weaker on 8.5x8.5 board, ((0.75x5)+(1x2)+(1x2)+(2x2)+(4.4x2)+(5x2))-1.5 for King weakness=29.05, but I don't know what the 3.75 is for.

seonoo wrote on 2013-12-20 UTCBelowAverage ★★
The Mao is worth two pawns, the Elephant worth about one ( remember, Alfil is one and a half, and the elephant can' t cross the river and can't jump, so), the Guards maybe one and a quarter ( the ferz is one and a half, and the Guard is confined), the Cannon worth maybe four, and each pawn probably a quarter. So (2+1+1.25+4+5)x2+(0.75x5)=26.5+3.75= 30.25. But (5+3+3+9)x2+8=48!! So Xiangqi loses easily. Maybe yang qi against chess?

Hafsteinn Kjartansson wrote on 2011-06-24 UTCPoor ★
The F3 problem is too great for this to be a good game. I hate to rate a game 'poor', but if not fixed,that problem kills the game.

Fergus Duniho wrote on 2011-03-19 UTC
The thing about Xiangqi vs Orthodox Chess is that the former has weak pieces defending a weak royal piece that is confined to a small area, and the latter has strong pieces defending a stronger royal piece that can move around the whole board. Aside from the quick checkmate for Xiangqi, this would be an easy win for the Chess side. It would work better if the two sides switched royal pieces, so that one side had to checkmate or stalemate a General confined to a palace with Xiangqi pieces, and the other side had to checkmate a Chess King with Chess pieces. Even so, there are still difficulties with the game. The Advisors and Elephants are designed for defending a General that is confined to the Palace and is under attack from Xiangqi pieces. They would be less useful for defending a King that can move around the whole board, and their ability to protect the King from Chess pieces would be more feeble. There would also be the problem that Xiangqi pieces are simply weaker than Chess pieces. The side with Chess pieces would still have an easy win. Because one game uses overall weaker pieces than the other, this game is sort of like Major League vs. Little League. It's not a fair fight. Something fairer than this would be Xiangqi vs. Shatranj or Xiangqi vs. Janggi. But even in these, I suspect the Xiangqi side would be more liable to lose.

Charles Gilman wrote on 2011-03-19 UTC
The Checkmate described in previous comments is one of the reasons why I gave up my idea of a three-way variant with FIDE, Shogi, and Xiang Qi armies. Arranging the King and Queen one way would result in that Checkmate. Swapping them over would result in the XQ player capturing the Queen on their second move and the King having to capture the Cannon to stop further captures and losing the right to Castle. It would diminish the FIDE army's advantage but tend to make play stereotypical. Better, I suspect, to start with better-balanced armies to start with. Perhaps it would be better to substitute a Yang Qi army for a Xiang Qi one, with something - a Pawn, as it happens - in front of every cell of the Cannon rank. This would stop a Cannon threatening any enemy but a Pawn - all of which are famously guarded in the FIDE array anyway.

H. G. Muller wrote on 2011-03-18 UTC
> Umm... Here's a stupid question: Cannon to F3, couldn't the > rook just capture the cannon, as would happen in orthodox xianqi? Yet another one who doesn't know where F3 is??? (But at least you got the nature of the question right! ;-) ) But seriously, I don't think this is a viable game. Obviously the mate-in-one problem would have to be solved, but the material imbalance is huge, and even when the rules would be changed to convert the instant mate into an instant Queen-for-Cannon trade, the Xiangqi side should get its *** whipped. So fixing the mate-in-one problem by giving the FIDE side the first move is not really an option. An interesting way to connect the 9-wide board half to the 8-wide half would be to offset them half by a file (Xiangqi is supposed to be played on the intersections, after all), and add the rule that you should 'keep right' when crossing the River. That would connect the XQ central file (blocked by the Pawn) to the FIDE King file, and the King would be safe. (So you would move a Cannon to d3 to gain a Queen in stead, which would become an obligatory starting move. But you could still choose which Cannon to move there, so it still makes sense to have that move be part of the game.) By having the square-to-gridpoint connections different for up-rank and down-rank moves, you get the interesting effect that the color-boundedness of Bishops disappears: they can change sqare color by crossing the River, and then crossing back! connectivity on down-rank moves: r n b q k b n r p p p p p p p p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P . P . P . P . P . C . . . . . C . . . . . . . . . . R H E A K A E N R Connectivity on up-rankmoves: r n b q k b n r p p p p p p p p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P . P . P . P . P . C . . . . . C . . . . . . . . . . R H E A K A E N R

Ivan Roth wrote on 2011-03-18 UTCGood ★★★★
Umm... Here's a stupid question: Cannon to F3, couldn't the rook just capture the cannon, as would happen in orthodox xianqi?

Nicholas Wolff wrote on 2011-03-18 UTC
If only this website had the 'like' button, Christine's comment would most assuredly get one.

Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2011-03-18 UTC
yeah looks like mate to me, and, you also rated your own game ...

Fergus Duniho wrote on 2011-03-18 UTC

Travis Z wrote

First your first point about checkmate is wrong. Actually study the variant before making a response. If the cannon takes either knight the other player can simply move the rook and get out of check. THERE IS NO CHECKMATE POSSIBLE ON THE FIRST MOVE.

Not that I made the first point, but I do agree with it. Cannon to F3 is checkmate if that is the first move. Cannon to F3 does not take a Knight. So your comments on the Cannon taking the Knight don't pertain to the move and only suggest that you don't understand where F3 is. Following algebraic notation, files are identified by letters, beginning with A on the left and following through the alphabet. The sixth column from the left is F. The third space from the bottom of this file is F3. This is the second empty space in front of the Advisor on the Emperor's right. (If you want the notation to match from side to side, call the 4th file on the Chinese side D, the 6th file E, and the 5th file something else. By this notation, the move in question is Cannon to E3). From this position, it checks the Chess King down the Chess side's E file. The King can't escape by moving, because it can't move. It can't stop the check by capturing the Cannon, because nothing can capture it. It can't block the check, because it can't move anything to the King's file. And it can't eliminate the check by moving the screen out of the way, because the King's Pawn can't move to another column. That exhausts the ways the King can get out of check, which implies that it is checkmate.


(zzo38) A. Black wrote on 2011-03-18 UTCPoor ★
To Travis Z: Cannon to F3, does not take any Knight. It is moving the cannon two spaces in front of the Chinese Advisor, using the FIDE King's Pawn as the screen.

Travis Z wrote on 2011-03-18 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
You stated, '1) Which side moves first? Assuming that the Chinese side moves first, he plays, '1. Cannon {either} - F3! CHECKMATE!' 2) Your rules say that the Chess King cannot be seen by the Chinese General. Is this a) only along the forward orthogonal? b) along all four orthogonals? c alng all orthogonals and all diagonals?' First your first point about checkmate is wrong. Actually study the variant before making a response. If the cannon takes either knight the other player can simply move the rook and get out of check. THERE IS NO CHECKMATE POSSIBLE ON THE FIRST MOVE. As for your second point. I mentioned how that rule is the same as in regular Chinese Chess. Read the regular rules first to understand. The King does not move diagonallys in Chinese Chess. So option 'C' is gone. Now as for options 'A' or 'B' the Chinese Chess rules state that there always has to be a piece between Kings, as the King could theortically move as a Chariot or Rook and take the other King. So by some simple logic that puts it at option 'B'. Back on the first point. I do not need to say who moves first. Play as you like. I do not have to specify that as it is not necessary to game play. Would you like me to post you out all sorts of thousands of game plays? From here on out, I will not even respond to comments which are unfounded or ill thought through.

Malcolm Webb wrote on 2011-03-06 UTCBelowAverage ★★
1) Which side moves first? Assuming that the Chinese side moves first, he plays, '1. Cannon {either} - F3! CHECKMATE!' 2) Your rules say that the Chess King cannot be seen by the Chinese General. Is this a) only along the forward orthogonal? b) along all four orthogonals? c alng all orthogonals and all diagonals?

13 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.