Talk:Xiangqi

Template:China Portal Selected Article Archived discussion:

• /Archive 1 — Gwalla | Talk 00:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FAC

Documenting my FAC research...

• A Wikipedian brought up the sentence claiming that Xiangqi was the most popular form of chaturanga. I could find no concrete evidence for this- not a surprise! I doubt that there is a way to count the entire number of players, because of the millions of casual players out there. Also, what defines a player? The closest I could find to upholding that sentence came here, and it seemed more like a casual, offhand statement than fact. Thus, I've changed the sentence to say that xiangqi is one of the world's most popular forms of chaturanga, especially in Asia. This seems to be agreed upon. Flcelloguy 00:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• Also from the FAC review... a Wikipedian suggested adding major tournaments, play today, and best players. Thus I'm going to add a section for that... my source is this for best xiangqi players in the world, and here for how xiangqi is played today (clubs, tournaments, etc.) Thanks! Flcelloguy 00:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why xiangqi in the US gets its own section. Avoid systemic bias. It would make more sense to talk about the main Chinese association(s) first, then the rest of Asia, then the West. I don't know enough about these groups to make the change though (the chessvariants page only gives addresses for them, it doesn't say which are the biggest or considered most important). — Gwalla | Talk 06:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean. From the FAC: "Also I think there needs to be a section about the way Xiangqi is played today, what are the major tournaments, and who are the best players. Deepak 21:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)"... So do you think we should make a section for Xiangqi in the East and then one for Xiangqi in the West? Otherwise how would we differentiate between Europe, which actually has xiangqi leagues, and the U.S.? Or should we just put it all in one section, Xiangqi played today? What do you all think? I've been checking on the article on chess as a model; it's already a FAC. The chess article has a section called "Modern Chess" but it deals more with the development of the chess game in modern times rather than how chess is played today. Let me know what you think! Thanks for your comments and suggestions! Flcelloguy 15:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I think they should share a section. Probably "Xiangqi tournaments and leagues" (as it's a Chinese game, "international" would mean "outside of China" rather than "outside of the U.S." anyway). China should come first, since it's the place of origin. Then the rest of Asia, then Europe. U.S. should probably come last because it's the least organized. Rankings should be a subsection. My latest edit moves towards this arrangement. — Gwalla | Talk 22:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Gwalla! Looks good now. Flcelloguy 16:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Another thing: is the word "xiangqi" Mandarin or Cantonese? We need to make that clear, and possibly provide the name in the other dialect as well. Also, it would be great if somebody with good (Mandarin|Cantonese) pronunciation could upload a sound file of them saying the word, and insert the pronunciation template. — Gwalla | Talk 22:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm a mandarin speaker (though I'm an ABC) and I know xiangqi is a term in Mandarin, though I'm not sure if it is also in Cantonese. I would think it originated in Mandarin since it's the putonghua of China, but let me do some research, I'll get back to you on that. As for pronunciation, I would do it but 1) My Chinese has an English accent, since I'm an American Born Chinese (ABC) 2) I have no clue how to record, considering I have no mic on my computer. :) Otherwise that's a good idea! Flcelloguy 16:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

All Chinese terms, regardless of what dialect (Cantonese, Mandarin, etc.) are written the same. Thus, Cantonese speakers would still write 象棋 for xiangqi. However, every pronunciation is different- according to this website, Cantonese speakers pronounce it "Junk Kay". The website also says it is written in Cantonese as "Jeuhng Keih"- I think that's the Hanyupin method of "writing". In other words, in Cantonese, it is still written 象棋 but pronounced differently. Flcelloguy 17:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Xiangqi is the Mandarin pronunciation. The Cantonese pronunciation would be different. —Lowellian (talk) 13:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, do you think the above information should be incorporated into the article? Flcelloguy 17:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

On a different note, on xiangqi's FAC site (here) another Wikipedian comments that the template for sources (I think she's talking about the external links in ==Xiangqi Tournaments and Leagues== are incorrect. I'm not familiar with doing the external links/sources- could someone with experience help us out here? Thanks in advance! Flcelloguy 17:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, on yet another note, the same Wikipedian also commented that the article needed a longer intro. I don't see what else to add in the intro- anyone have ideas? Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy 17:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

why you talking about cantonese? adding a pronounciation for cantonese would be ridiculous and unfair, because their are many more dialects in china more spoken than cantonese.......162.84.165.169 (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ending the Game

The first line of this section reads, "The game ends when one player successfully checkmates the other player—that is, when one player successfully threatens the opposing general with a piece and the player with the threatened general has no legal moves which would prevent the general from being threatened." But technically, doesn't the game end when one person actually captures the other's general? I think this is an interesting difference between International Chess and Chinese Chess. Assuming the losing player does not concede first, I am pretty sure the winner must physically take the opposing general to win the game. --Fazdeconta 17:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting one. I've never heard of that rule- I was taught that if the General is in check and cannot "escape", the game is over. Do you have a source for that? I would be very interested. Thanks! Flcelloguy 13:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't have a source. It's just my impression coming from the way I was taught, and watching other people play. I'm going to try and find out from a reputable source. I'll get back and include it in the article when I do. --Fazdeconta 16:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Street rules might provide a possible explanation for the discrepency. The way some play Western chess as well, especially in speed games, check is not announced and the king is captured. -David Villa 59.104.85.243 19:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I am a longtime player of the game and I am sure that the game, ends as soon as the General is in checkmate or is unable to move without entering check, not when the General is actually taken. —Lowellian (talk) 13:41, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I am a longtime player as well and I am sure people never bother capture the General when you know he is checkmate or unable to move. You know you lost already, not much of point doing the last move. And is legal to move your general to a suicide position as well.

I have quite a bit of experience in Chinese Chess, and the way that we play is that check is not announced, you are allowed to move into check (although you usually lose except against beginner players who don't notice), and technically, games end when the general is captured, not when he is "checkmated". Although usually, the losing player will forfeit when he is unable to escape check, simply because he knows he can't win.

From my experience, stalemate is handled the same way. Since you are required to move, and since all moves move your general into check, the opponent will take your general on the next turn and you lose.

Also, the Chinese Chess programs that I use (many of them IN Chinese) also play this way.

Of course, the only way for this to be truly verifiable is to state the rules of the current authoritative Chinese Chess organization, if such exists. Viltris 02:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm originally from Taiwan and the rules I grew up with (20 years ago) was check cannot be unannounced. If you move a piece to check position but did not announce it and your opponent makes another move then you cannot take his general on your move because your check was unannounced. Upon discovering of the unannounced check, all subsequent moves are void and play resumes after the unannounced check.

Also another rule is checking is limited to 3 consecutive runs. The 4th check is not allowed, you must make a none checking move before you can check again, so perpetual checking rule isn't even needed.

Well... don't actually capture the general. There's no point going further because the general will get captured on the next turn; that's how my chinese chess utility says. More thoughts? ~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 03:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Since there is not such thing as stalemate, there is no reason to actually capture the general. Also imagine this taking place. The only move you can make would put your general in check. So the move you make puts your general face to face with opponent's general. How does your opponent's general capture your general? We know there cannot be clear line of sight between generals, and the general cannot move out of his box much less cross the river. How does the capture take place?

In reality the above never occurs because such move is illegal. You simply cannot move your general into a checked position. And when your general is in check, your only legal moves are to get it out of checked position. --17:44, 25 Jan 2007 (UTC)

Just read this from http://www.clubxiangqi.com/?F=rules

King safety: One must never leave the King to be captured by the opponent in the next move. Any moves that put the King in such a setting is illegal.

It should be clear now the game does not end on general's (king) capture. Rather the games end when there is no legal move to make. --19:29, 25 Jan 2007 (UTC)

Hello everybody. I may be a little too late for the dispute, but is the "flying general" move actually possible? My Xiangqi tutor says "no", but just go check the article under how the general moves. --121.7.203.206 (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Rename this article?

For reasons that I pointed out above, I really think this article should be renamed "Chinese Chess" and have "Xiangqi" redirect to it. Chinese chess is the word English-speaking people use to refer to this game, not Xiangqi. Basically, "Chinese Chess" belongs on the English Wikipedia site and "Xiangqi (象棋)" on the Chinese side. --Fazdeconta 18:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. Xiangqi is not "Chess"! It's the "Elephant's Game". In my opinion this game is known by much more English speakers (especially by those of Asian origin) by the name "Xiangqi" or "Elephant's Game" than by "Chinese Chess". The later name is not correct, of course. Miastko 19:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1) "Xiangchi" literally translates to "elephant chess". See here. However, its nickname in English is "Chinese chess". How about we mention that it is literally translated as "Elephant Chess" but is more commonly referred to as "Chinese Chess"? (I have yet to hear someone call it "Elephant Chess").

2) I believe that the article should be under "Xiangqi" because that is the most commonly accepted name. Chess Variants (see above link) lists it under "xiangqi" with the subtitle "Chinese Chess". Chinese chess is simply a nickname for the official term, "xiangqi". As long as we mention both terms, though, I think it should be fine. Flcelloguy 20:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, the site you are giving does not say "Elephant Chess", but "Elephant Game". Miastko 20:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) Anyway, I agree with your statemant no. 2) Miastko 22:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oops, it does say "Elephant Game". However, I think "qi" can be translated as either "game" or "chess"... I've just looked it up in my Chinese-English dictionary, and it gives both definitions. Flcelloguy 02:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My problem with using "xiangqi" is that it is a Romanization for the Chinese name, and historically there have been many such systems. Common names ("xiang qi"?) may even supplant the formal. But the same is true for "mahjong", so I would concede that the test really should be whether the Chinese name (or its Anglicization) has become standard at least as spoken. I would assume this is the case since, to my knowledge, the game is little known outside of the circle of Chinese culture. Someone should inform us otherwise if this is not true in Britain, as the name "UK Chinese Chess Association" might suggest. I also think it more likely that the easier handle and most obvious descriptor, "Chinese Chess", would be the one to gain popularity. -David Villa 59.104.85.243 19:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me bring in this explanation from the Chinese Chess Union, full text here[1], in relavent part:

“. . . In ancient times xiang meant astronomical phenomena, meteorology, changes in the behavior or properties of people or animals, image/form, symbol, etc. So, the xiang in xiangqi stands for humans using their own intellect to control all the objects around them, it is the comprehensive expression of human activity.” (my translation)

My point is that elephant does not belong to the etymology of xiangqi. Yes, of course xiang also means elephant, but this is just an interesting aside that maybe has its place somewhere in the article, but not in the opening paragraph.

I believe the misconception that the word means "elephant" in this case may be especially common among those of us not literate in Chinese since there is a piece in the game called the elephant. You also have to consider that people who speak Chinese are highly aware that the word in Chinese has this second meaning, and that in translating xiangqi into English might try to describe it as "the Elephant Game" or "Elephant Chess", or give it that ad-hoc name for the purpose of conversation. After all, many Westerners have never seen the game, and Chinese speakers cannot be expected to have knowledge of their own culture from the persepective of other languages. To avoid further modifictions that suggest the name "Elephant Game" is appropriate, I am adding delicate language to the first paragraph. Davilla 21:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a silly idea. You say it's not the correct name, and then you go on to propose that we call the article by that name? enochlau (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. You completely misunderstood.

The argument is not whether "Elephant Game" is a legitimate name, as we all agree that it is not. The argument is whether the word "elephant" should appear in the first paragraph. I contend that it should; it is pertinent to the name of the game, as per my arguments above. To preserve this discussion, here is the language I've modified on the page should it be edited in the future:

The first character 象 xiàng here has the meaning "image" or "representational", hence Xiangqi can be literally translated as "representational chess". Although the character can also mean elephant, the game is more appropriately and more commonly called Chinese chess in the West.

Davilla 14:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh right, if it's about clearing up common misconceptions, then go ahead. Many articles have such sentences in them. enochlau (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently someone didn't agree and deleted the language. As easy as it is to make the mistake, how many people are going to read this article and add decide to add "elephant chess" to it? Not my problem. It's up to the same trolls that created this mess to deal with it. I tried to help and I try no more. Davilla 22:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In deciding what to call this game, please also consider this analogy: The Chinese game tiaoqi literally translates as "jumping chess" or "jumping boardgame," but this is not meaningful for English-speaking people. We call it Chinese checkers. I strongly suggest renaming this article "Chinese Chess" while giving the Chinese name and maybe its etymology in the body of the article. --Fazdeconta 02:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Flcelloguy, I did read your link at chessvariants.com, but I don't think we should consider that an authoritative source on the Chinese language. My above link to the Chinese Chess Union (the sanctioning body for Chinese chess competitions in mainland China) is a more appropriate reference for settling this question I think. --Fazdeconta 02:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The etymology discussion is very important (and should be in the article), but may be a distraction from the question at hand: On Wikipedia would it be better to have Xiangqi redirect to Chinese chess or the other way round?

The name "Chinese Chess" has the major benefit that English-speakers will grasp what the article is about simply given the name (even if they haven't played Xiangqi before).

Titling the article "Xiangqi" has the advantage that it is more formally correct, that it educates the reader, and that it is memorable.

Wikipedia convenction appears to oppose inconsistent naming between the article heading and its text: for instance, Gengis Khan uses that spelling throughout, and the Inter-Services Intelligence agency is officially known as "Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence", but the article name matches the convenient ISI abbreviation used throughout the article.

The question is, do the benefits of easy title-comprehension outweigh the drawbacks of having to rename "Xiangqi" to "Chinese Chess" everywhere in the article? Or can this convention be ignored, with an article named "Chinese Chess" referring to the game as "Xiangqi" when discussing its rules?

Wragge 06:41, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

I think we should stay with the current title. "Chinese chess" is more of an informal name; English-speakers who play it seem to prefer to call it by its Mandarin name (or at least a close approximation thereof). Chinese checkers is a different issue, because English-language players refer to it almost exclusively as Chinese checkers (and anyway, the original name of the game is stern-halma, not taoqi—the game is actually German; it was marketed as "Chinese checkers" because it sounded exotic). — Gwalla | Talk 16:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As an American Born Chinese, in my household, we refer to the game in Chinese as "Xiang Qi", but we refer to the game in English as "Chinese Chess". The name "Elephant Game" is simply ridiculous. When I talk about the game in English, I use the term "Chinese Chess" exclusively.

Lastly, I'd like to note that the majority of non-Chinese speakers who play Chinese Chess can't even PRONOUNCE "Xiang Qi" correctly (by virtue of the fact that most non-Chinese speakers cannot pronounce ANY Chinese phrases). Viltris 02:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If there should be a translation for xiangqi then it should be chess. The problem is chess already denote a board game in the English speaking world so translating xiangqi to Chinese Chess is very natural. If fact if you translate the western chess to Chinese it becomes "international chess" (sorry I wish I can type Chinese to furthur reinforce this, but that's the exact translation from Chinese to English". So saying xiangqi = elephant's game is redicules. If that was the case, then the western chess must become international elephant's game when written Chinese. Also since this is an English wiki, it should be renamed Chinese Chess. I speak Mandarin. When I speak with other Chinese in Mandarin, we refer it as xiangqi but with my Cantonese friends who I must communicate in English because of the different dialog, we refer to it as Chinese Chess. Just now when I was googling, I entered Chinese Chess not xiangqi. I do not believe Chinese Chess is an informal name for xiangqi because if you take a look from a different prespective, "international xiangqi" is certainly not an informal name for western chess.

Player on/off for five years: I am not chinese. I am a filipino born in the Philippines and raised in Canada. To my oriental friends I exclusively refer to this game as Xiangqi (conveniently I am actually able to pronounce it). To everyone else, I refer to this game as Chinese Chess to introduce it, but encourage that the Xiangqi term is used. I would like to promote the original (Chinese name) as much as possible. Everyone else who doesn't know or use the Chinese name simply needs to be exposed to it more often. If they can't pronounce it at first... hopefully they can pronounce it in the future. I don't want to discourage english-speakers from being able to pronounce chinese words in the future. When they finally do, it's a good conversation topic at times. I would also like to point out that this topic can be similar to a western attempt to integrate figurines into the game to make it 'easier' for western players to adapt, much as it would be 'easier' for western players to exclusively refer to the game as 'Chinese Chess'. I am highly against this idea. Illuminosferatu 15:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Xiangqi is pronounced as siahng chee. --121.7.203.206 (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Piece characters

I see in the article that it mentions the characters that are drawn on the pieces. I think it might be relevant to point out that in quite a few sets I've seen, the soldiers, elephants/ministers, and generals are the ones that mainly have the different characters. The guards sometimes do, but the chariots, cannons, and horses rarely do. I also have never seen a set that uses the simplified characters. Do these sets exist?

At one time or another I've owned three kinds of sets: 1) traditional character, 2) simplied and 3) a mix of both--the jū being traditional and the red jiàng simplipied, for example. Chinese players don't seem to care much either way. Though probably in Taiwan there are more sticklers who only want the traditional sets. Same thing goes for distiguishing between the red and green shì, sometimes they add the rén radical, sometimes they don't. It's pretty much at the whim of the maker. By the way, the characters are usually carved into the discs and then filled in with paint. --Fazdeconta 09:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm just saying what I have seen is all. I have seen quite a few nice sets on eBay of China that use the characters in the way I described. I also did notice the carvings in both wooden and plastic sets. Too bad few of the sellers will ship to the US as I've seen a few sets I would buy. Another good point you mentioned: Red and black or red and green seem to be the most common colors for the sets, though the article does cover that. I brought up the point about the characters mainly because I wondered if it might be a neat tidbit to include in the Xiangqi article. --Sivak 12:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What i've seen is pretty consistent. The guards do have the ren radical, but never the chariots, or the horses. So it came as a shock to me when i saw the red horse with the ren radical in one of the illustrations in the article. By the way, i thought cannon was pronounced pao for both forms. You might not be able to find such characters in a dictionary though. --Liuyao 07:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Try a look at the Japanese Wikeipedia, and you would find out what's going on...in fact, horses and chariots having the ren radicals are not uncommon in tradtional Chinese versions. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I see. But it still looks awkward. really awkward. It's not a matter of simplified vs. traditional. Xiangqi sets are predominantly traditional. The picture on the Japanese wikipedia is what typical Xiangqi sets look like. I would still say it is uncommon to have ren radical on the chariots and horses. Unfortunately I have no evidence for anything i said. --Liuyao 08:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I was just about to say that Xiangqi characters were typically written (or carved and painted) in li style, instead of kai. then I saw what appeared on this article. I'm not sure now. --Liuyao 19:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

As an American Born Chinese, I think it's relevant for me to add that all the Chinese Chess sets I have owned, seen, or played with have person radical for the horse and the chariot. Viltris 02:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

All the sets I've ever played with has then ren radical for the horse, and chariot for the red side as well. I believe it is traditional correct to have the ren radical for the red side. It's possible when communist simplied Chinese writting, both the horse and chariot with and without the ren got simplied to one word. It is also possible that horse and chariot with ren radical isn't even a real Chinese word except it is used in Chinese Chess so a mainlander simply did not know about the ren radical so chess sets were manufactured without them in China.

More FAC

More updates from the FAC (you can check it out or cast a vote here)...

A Wikipedian has suggested expanding the opening intro before the sections to two or three paragraphs. Personally, I really don't think that's necessary because the opening paragraph is concise and sums up the article really well- there's no point in going into detail if it's going to be covered later on in the article. But that's just my opinion- any comments, suggestions, etc? Flcelloguy 00:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is two paragraphs... — Gwalla | Talk

Also, the Wikipedian also commented that the Table of Contents seemed to be lopsided with too many subheadings. Again, I personally think that it looks OK- any comments, suggestions? I'm always open to more input. Thanks to everyone for helping out! Flcelloguy 00:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They're probably referring to the subsections on each type of piece, which results in a relatively long string of subheadings in the first section. I think it's fine. The important thing isn't how many subheadings there are, but whether they are the result of a clear and logical structure. I think they are. Each section on a piece has a few paragraphs, so it makes sense to divide them like that. — Gwalla | Talk 06:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, the river also adds another rank to the board (10 ranks rather than 9). This allows one footsoldier to advance and block another on it's first move.

Thanks!

Thank you to all who helped write and edit this article and helped make this a featured article. Your work is truly appreciated- keep up the excellent work! Flcelloguy 01:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sound and pronunciation

The sound file for the pronunciation of "xiangqi" is very nice! Could we maybe get pronunciations for each of the Chinese terms used in the article? — Gwalla | Talk 00:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Actually, I was thinking of recording the entire article. — Chameleon 00:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've added sound to every Chinese word now, using Template:Audio2. Perhaps Template:Listen would be a good alternative. What do you all think?

---

---

— Chameleon 16:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Nice work! I do tend to prefer template:audio to template:audio2, though; the subscripts set it off from the text nicely. Template:listen doesn't seem appropriate, since it makes more sense for pronunciations to be put inline with the text and that makes a large box set off from the surrounding text.

Having an audio version of the article would be great. I was going to suggest it before, but I kind of want to see the history thing addressed first. — Gwalla | Talk 21:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ugh, I hate Template:Audio. The superscript text would be OK by itself, but the superscript icon looks horrible. Anyway, it doesn't matter. I shall record the whole article at some point soon. Hey, in the meantime check out my other audio contribs: User:Chameleon/Uploads#Audio!

If there are any native Mandarin speakers here, I'd like to encourage you to record your own voice and upload it over the top of my recordings. I'm sure my accent is far from perfect.

Another thing, I've just added simplified Chinese after all the traditional Chinese characters in the article. If anyone adds more characters, please remember to add both varieties. I totally didn't understand the traditional chars until I looked them up (who would have guessed that 當 was just 当?). — Chameleon 10:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have added a list of openings. Please help me add the Chinese characters and the sounds. Thanks. Tac ke 06:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

History

There is a paragraph in the History section that claims that xiangqi may have originated in Egypt. The only citation is the article Origins of chess, which says nothing about an Egyptian origin...probably because that theory was removed as speculation not taken seriously by any scholars. It seems to be a pet theory of [[::User:Roylee|Roylee]] ([[::User talk:Roylee|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Roylee|contribs]]) -->, who went around adding it to chess-related articles a while back.

I've seen the "evidence" for Nefertiti's game being a sort of proto-chess: it consists of a single painting of Nefertiti playing a board game with tall pieces that could just as easily be senet. The supposed connection to chess is due to a checkerboard pattern on the side of Nefertiti's chair in that image, which the person on the webpage Roylee cited speculated was actually a top-down view of the board, meaning it was played on a grid and therefore must have been the earliest form of chess; no explanation was given for why a top-down view of the board would have been painted on the side of Nefertiti's chair, and no evidence was given for why it couldn't simply be decorative.

I'd just remove the paragraph outright, but this is a featured article now so big changes should really be discussed first. — Gwalla | Talk 00:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

a)Why not? b)You're going to have to get someone else's opinion as well, though. c)Just to tell you... d) ~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 03:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Variants

Does anyone know much about variants of xiangqi (besides janggi)? The Rec.games.chinese-chess FAQ lists some, but isn't very clear about which ones are well-established and which are new. There are evidently multiple half-board variants, and CV has rules for the Peng Hu variant supposedly invented on the island of Penghu. H. R. Murray is cited for a three-player variant but Murray is somewhat unreliable (then again, a variant described by Murray may be notable even if it isn't an accurate description of an pre-existing variant). The "Who crosses the river first?" (no Chinese name is given) variant "supposedly comes from the area around Chang-an at a caravan crossing point on the Yellow River". The 5 Tigers variant is supposedly popular. A variant with a randomized starting layout is claimed to be popular in Victoria Park, Hong Kong.

We should probably have a section on variants, but information seems scanty. — Gwalla | Talk 00:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can count atleast 8 additional variants of the game all played using the same board and pieces (just 1 set is required). I actually know more but just haven't finished counting them yet. Majority of them are 2 players but some are 3 and 4 players. These variants however seem to be only know in Taiwan because none of my mainlander friends even knew they existed. The 2 player variants are easier then the standard version and are used as introduction to new players. It's common to find children who only know how to play the variants but can't play the standard game. Also both have similar play, there is no relationship between ones ability to play the standard and variant games. Some very strong players of standard game loses to children every single time when they play a variant version. The 3 and 4 players version also introduces other aspects to the game. Since everyone is on his own, you'll need to consider the consequences of taking a piece. Mutual destruction/survival rules comes to play. Reducing one of your opponent's forces may make the other too strong. Alliances changes constantly when power shift from one player to another.

History

Most people will state that Chinese chess was developed independently of chatarunga. As the history of Chinese chess predates Western chess, it is unlikely that Chinese chess was derived from Chatarunga in the 6th century A.D. unsigned comment by [[::User:68.14.62.73|68.14.62.73]] ([[::User talk:68.14.62.73|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/68.14.62.73|contribs]]) --> --> -->

Chinese chess should be older than 6th century A.D., but still can be related to Chaturanga, as Chaturanga is played in Mahabharata which is older than Christ. -Bijee 09:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bijee, please do not randomly change text on a whim. We're trying to write history here, not cater to your nationalistic views. Chaturanga dates to after the birth of christ. unsigned comment by [[::User:68.14.62.73|68.14.62.73]] ([[::User talk:68.14.62.73|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/68.14.62.73|contribs]]) --> --> -->

Please use a user id -Bijee 09:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He or she is under no obligation to get a user ID. Welcome anonymous editing. However, it would be beneficial if he would sign his comments. — Gwalla | Talk 21:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to the Chinese version of the article Xiangqi originated from a game called Liubo: 《楚辭·招魂》有：「蔽象棋，有六博兮。」 And Liubo was introduced into India: 後秦釋道郎《大般涅磐經·現病品第六》記有：「樗蒲、圍棋、波羅塞戲、獅子象鬥、彈跳六博，一切戲笑，悉不觀作。」 If we could find more information upon this basis then a solid answer might emerge. -- G.S.K.Lee 10:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Liubo. Most historians think that chinese chess and western chess do not share similar ancestry. Bijee is biased and I have run into him on previous articles relating to Chinese and Indian history. He has changed the texts on numerous articles to represent his nationalist pro-Indian POV. unsigned comment by [[::User:Kennethtennyson|Kennethtennyson]] ([[::User talk:Kennethtennyson|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Kennethtennyson|contribs]]) --> --> -->.

I would like to see scholarly citations showing that most historians think that xiangqi and chess are not related. All that I have seen has asserted that a relationship is likely. If this is no longer a commonly accepted theory, we need to show it; if the issue remains controversial, we should show that. — Gwalla | Talk 21:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kennethtennyson, first I am not an expert on Xiangqi or any other field you edited. But just reading your changes it is so obvious that it changed a lot of meaning without any discussion. And how did I became "biased" "nationalist" "pro-Indian" when I repeated same revert as Gwalla? Any way all my BEST WISHES to you as a new Wikipedian. -Bijee 23:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Bijee, Well, let's see.... if you are not an expert on Xiangqi then why in the world did you change the history of the article to state that it is derived from the indian game of chatarunga? I actually have played the game for years. My chinese associates would disagree that chinese chess is descended from chatarunga mainly due to the fact that they have discovered chinese chess boards inscribed in granite tables that predate chatarunga. Further, most chinese if you ask them will state that their game is descended from Liubo as G.S.K.Lee has asserted. Secondly, why did you add all of those comments to the kalaripayattu article... also, why did you start changing all of those articles on Buddhism? Are you a practicing Buddhist like I am? Regardless, during my conferences on history, I have run into personages like yourself who wish to "rewrite" Indian history to reflect a more pro-Hindu view. Please read the Taj Mahal discussion on P.N. Oak and whether it is a Vedic or Muslim structure if you do not believe me. kennethtennyson unsigned comment by [[::User:Kennethtennyson|Kennethtennyson]] ([[::User talk:Kennethtennyson|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Kennethtennyson|contribs]]) --> --> -->.

Dear Kenneth, Problem is you are not LOGGED ON so it is difficult to know whether it is vandalism or not. And to revert a vandalism one need not be an expert -Bijee 05:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The history section and intro paragraph should probably at least mention the alternative theory that Xiangqi derived from Chaturanga. It seems misleading to state that it originated in the 4th century BC as a proven fact, when it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.170.161 (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I've never heard of anyone disputing the claim that the two games are related 2. How could they not be? Have you played them? Casey J. Morris (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Retailers

I was wondering if anyone thought it might be a good idea to list any of the retailers for Xiangqi sets. I have gotten mine from eBay, but I know there are others and I'm sure some people here might know of some.

I don't think that'd be a good idea. You can get them from practically any good game store, and it'd just encourage spam links. — Gwalla | Talk 7 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)

ff

Images

I'll create some new nice images for this article. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice images! Did you use a Xiangqi font to do it? I have one, though mine doesn't do the red pieces (chariots and horses) with that extra character on the left nor the black cannon with the different character on the left. If you did use a font, maybe you should post it. -- Sivak 13:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

There is an error on image "Checkmate.png". The "bishop" is at the wrong place, and it will never reach that spot. :-( Jason Soong 13 July 2005 (EST)

Which one is the "bishop"? You mean the elephant? I'll correct it later... -- Jerry Crimson Mann 10:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Notations

There is a really good, systematic, and universal (among Xiangqi players, not computer programmers) notation, different from either of the two mentioned in the article. I'm no expert on Xiangqi, so I did not dare to just edit the article. The notation consists of four characters, which is so Chinese (if you know what i mean). The first character is the name of the piece. Second one usually is the number (1 to 9) specifying which column it is located. If two pieces of the same kind are on the same column, say two cannons, you need to use qian pao / hou pao to specify. The third character gives the direction it's moving - ping means moving horizontally, jin means advancing, tui means retreating. If it's ping, the fourth character gives which column it is moving to. If it's jin or tui, the fourth character gives how many steps it is advancing or retreating.

For example, the common openning would be pao er ping wu, ma ba jin... i guess horses and elephants are different. you would specify to which column it is advancing or retreating. can any real expert help out here?

I suppose this notation is used in the Xiangqi books (qi pu). And it's used in 'mang qi', in which the two players are not looking at the board while they are playing. Is there such thing in Western chess? --Liuyao 08:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I just found out they had that on the Chinese wikipedia... --Liuyao 08:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Give us an update! :-) Davilla

Do the notational systems have names? Under the second system, is there a way to disambiguate two similar pieces that occupy the same file?Davilla 20:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that the second system is the same system as Liuyao is talking about or a variant of it. 213.238.211.114 12:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the system Liuyao is talking about is exactly the same as the second system on the page, just using Chinese characters instead of the Latin alphabet and punctuation marks. —Lowellian (talk) 23:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest adding this notation to make it easier to understand for Western Chess players that combines both:

Use the letters from the second notation and use letters and numbers like in Western Chess. The most common opening would then go 1.Che3 Hc7 2.Cb4 etc.

Although I was not logged on at the time, I put in another notation system to make it easier for western chess players to understand the moves. I am the commenter of the previous comment. This new system matches that comment's description.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ending the game

Diagramm in "Ending the game" seems to be imposible. Both horse and cannon are delivering check, how can this happen? Andreas Kaufmann 10:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

This has been fixed in newer revisions of the image. —Lowellian (talk) 23:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Where was the horse? Depending on where it was, it might have moved to give a discovered check and simultaneosly uncovering another check from the cannon.

Although I was not logged on at the time, I put in another notation system to make it easier for western chess players to understand the moves.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I am new to Xiangqi and editing here. I am confused with the notation references. It would be nice to have a picture of then board under Notational system 1 and 2. Later Notational system 3 has a board picture.

On the example opening and brief game can you make sure the notation is correct. I cant figure out how this is correct.

Thus, the most common opening in the game would be written as:

  1. Che3 Hf7"   <--(Should Hf7 be Hg8)?

An example of a brief game ("the early checkmate") is

  1. Cbe3 Che8?
  2. Ch5 Cb4??
  3. Cxe6+! Cxe4?? <--(Should Cxe6+ be Cxe7+!)?
  4. Ce5#  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.221.224.7 (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC) 

Advisor attacking

Wondering...can the advisor attack and how? The article does not really specify on that...thanks...CharlesZ 15:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The advisors can't leave the palace/fortress (Whatever you wanna call it), so not really. The general is the only piece that can "attack", per se, from the palace due to the rule of them not being allowed to face each other on the same file. You could have a chariot in one file checking the enemy general on the edge of its palace and your own general in an empty file next to the chariot's and that would be a checkmate since the enemy general is being checked by the chariot and it can't move into the file where your general is. But as far as the advisors go, there aren't any rules about them not being able to face each other. The advisors can capture other pieces, if that's what you meant... Hope that helps. --Sivak 13:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Advisors is used for protecting King, and that is their main purpose. They could be used as screens for the Cannons to attack, especially in endgame. Tac ke 05:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

template

Just wanted to announce, for those who know of the templates Template:Chess position and Template:Game of Go Position - I have a similar template coming up for xiangqi very soon...just have to get every single combination of squares (corner, side, middle, etc.) can be on, which is about 8 per piece....I will submit it very soon! -- Natalinasmpf 16:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article on Main Page

File:Screen Shot Wiki.png

Xiangqi on the main page!

Xiangqi was featured on the main page on Wednesday, July 13! Once again, thank you to all editors and contributors. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 17:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

This is an excellent article. A refreshing read. Thanks! --LeoTheLion 19:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Crossing the River

The article explicitly states that certain pieces cannot cross the river. It is clear that the others must somehow be able to, although the manner in which they do so is not obvious. Clearly the most common opening move is an immediate threat, but it's counter-intuitive to suppose that a chariot, for instance, might be able to wade through water, so to speak. I would write a blanket statement in the Board section if I were more confident of the rules.

The region is called the "river", but I don't think it's intended to be regarded in such a technical way like that. --Sivak 21:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

So would the following description be correct?

• Although the river provides a visual division between the two sides, its presence affects the movement of only one piece, the elephant.

Davilla 15:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it has other effects. Crossing the river promotes the soldier so that it can move sideways. —Lowellian (talk) 23:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Article images revision?

I was wondering on a few matters about some images: For that one image of the cannon threatening the rook, does anyone think it's really necessary for the black elephant to be there? And the fact that the soldier is RIGHT in front of the cannon would lead me to think that cannon would be captured the next move (unless red can do something better). This image could maybe be shrunk down and placed with the cannon's section.

Another image idea I had was demonstrating the common defense of advisors and elephants protecting each other. There's a section which mentions this in the gameplay.

Lastly, anyone think it might be nice to post some pictures of actual Xiangqi sets? I have a nice wooden board one which I have taken 2 pictures of. --Sivak 20:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, the original purpose of that image is to show possible "threats" of the cannon. We can remake some other images, nevertheless, that show the way of attack by the cannon as well as the remaining pieeces.

Draft your image idea, and I'll make it for you. :-)

Well, if you've got some authetic Xiangqi photos, why not upload them to the Wikicommon, so everyone here can enjoy your work? :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi. It's me again. The way I'd revise the cannon image is maybe have it jumping over a black soldier or something...

For the elephant/advisor defense I'd just do what that is. Have the left advisor moved up and one of the elephants deployed. Maybe have it shown for the red pieces as there are quite a few diagrams involving black pieces and none with the red shuai.

I'll see what I can do about the photos of my set. --Sivak

Qi = game

I changed the opening paragraphs so that "qi" is translated as "game" and not "chess". My reason for this is that other games such as weiqi (Go) use the same character in the name but are not nearly as related to chess as xiangqi is. There seems to be no reason why it should mean "chess" in particular when it seems to refer to any kind of traditional Chinese board game. - furrykef (Talk at me) 06:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

"Qi" does not translate to any thing like "game", more like "chess". Qi means any board game played between two players, and which uses some strategy of sorts. So qi is almost always translated as chess. Mandel 15:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

"chess" does not mean a competitive board game between two players. --Sumple 23:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Qi should be considered as a strategy board game. That's what it means in chinese to me. 70.111.251.203 14:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Qi denote a piece on a board. Any piece. Even a King/queen/bishop/knight/rook from western chess can be denoted as qi in Chinese. Qi can also mean board game but this meaning isn't popular. Monopoly game is monopoly qi in Chinese.

Onomatopoeia

Is there any confirmation for the claim of the word for "cannon" actually be onomatopoetic? It's quite clearly a radical-phonetic character and I have now idea if "pow" would actually be perceived as the sound of a gun firing in Chinese. Any comments?

Peter ^Isotalo 22:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The phonetic part "包" only indicates the sound of the character, it has nothing to do with the meaning. -- G.S.K.Lee 11:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The meaning of "Xiang" in Xiangqi

The meaning of "xiang" in xiangqi is simple: representational. If you know Chinese you'll know what I mean. The fact that the character "xiang" has triple meanings (like many of English words) is of no consequence as neither "elephant" and "minister" contribute anything to the meaning of the word "xiangqi". Sorry, this is not a pun word, there's no need for multiple meanings. So don't keep adding that Xiang means elephant, minister. It does, but obviously this doesn't apply here. Mandel 15:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

-I'm new to this site and so don't know if this is the right place to discuss the above information -- but one of the pieces is an elephant. It's a war game. With elephants. Why would a game with four elephants "obviously" be called "representational game" and not "elephant game"? Aren't all games representations of something, which would make "representational game" absurdly meaningless, while the game's elephants are actually a unique feature? Please explain. -AG

First, this game has only two elephants, not four. Second, this game is not all about elephants. Queen is a unique feature of western chess, why don't you call it queen chess or women's chess? (69.228.204.245 01:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

But we don't get to make up the name of either type of chess in order to satisfy our respective cultural or hemispherical pride. The names were made up a long time ago, whether you like them or not. Chess is a game where the pieces represent (or should I say they "elephant"?) parts of an army. There are four pieces which represent elephants. Two of the elephants might have a different character in order to tell them apart, but there are really four elephants. As for your second point, you seem to have the idea that the term "elephant game" is somehow not sufficiently respectful to the game, and are angry about it. My question is, what does your personal insecurity about the word "elephant" have to do with the historical origin of the game's name? I am not trying to be rude here, but as someone who does not speak or read Chinese, it's difficult for me to understand how you can be so sure that a written character that is literally a drawing of an elephant doesn't mean "elephant". To me, this seems confusing. -AG, 12 Feb 2007

Seems like you are insecure yourself about the idea that the meaning of "xiang" in xiangqi being representational. As the first person said, if you understand Chinese, then you'll know what he's talking about. Same words have different meanings under different circumstances. There're words like that in english too. In fact, the English word "chess" could mean "one of the floorboards of a pontoon bridge" ,too if you look at the dictionary, but what's the point of arguing about chess being related to bridges? The piece elephant in Chinese chess is just a coincidence. It has nothing to do with the name itself. If you are unable to read or write Chinese, then why are you so sure that the character xiang in the game's name means elephant? And about your question, I'm not insecure about the word elephant, but it's just ridiculous when someone who doesn't know any Chinese argues about the meaning of a Chinese word. If you want to keep arguing for your point, take Chinese lessons. And about your lame "cultural pride" crap, I don't buy it. In today's society, don't be too sensitive about your cultures or else people would look down at you. Thanks. --69.228.87.70 02:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Directed at user AG: Please take some Chinese lessons... I'm not Chinese, nor did I take lessons in order to understand that it's just weird to exclusively refer to this game as 'elephant chess'. Sure you do use elephants, but from an outside perspective, only the elephant piece will be emphasized, which may take away from the other interests the game has to offer or mislead first-time players that elephants are the key to winning games... I am almost completely positive that this was not the intention of the game. The idea that characters can have multiple meanings are a lot easier to comprehend... but take the word 'Xiangqi' as face-value. Xiang or qi by itself may have multiple meanings, but we can all be comfortable with the fact that 'Xiangqi' is what this game is called, and if you wanted to find out what 'Xiangqi' means, then simply refer to this game. Illuminosferatu 16:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that everyone should refer to Chinese Chess as "Elephant Chess". Obviously, in English, the game should probably be called "Chinese Chess", or if you want to be obscure, "Xiangqi", end of story. What I'm trying to figure out is if "Elephant Strategy Game" is what the name ORIGINALLY meant in Chinese, or not. Did the very first Chinese person who ever referred to the game look at it and say "Aha, there's 'representational strategy game'", or is it possible that they said "hey, there's that strategy game with those elephant pieces"? Apparently this area of inquiry is offensive to the dignity of the game. I didn't know this before, but it seems there's a nationalistic debate where Chinese people claim that they invented chess, and not Indian people. Thus any mention of elephants means I'm anti-Chinese, since elephants are from India. Oh well. The game of American Football is not mostly about feet, but I'm not offended by someone pointing out that the word "foot" is in the name. Why is this so different? -AG, June 8, 2007

The triple meaning of xiang has already been mentioned above. One of the meaning is minister. What does a minister do? He advices the emperor. There are internal, economical, political, foreign and military minister/advisor. Xiangqi is a tool to study strategy. Everyone piece (qi) is a representation of military unit. Pawn/soldier, charoit, horse rider, cannon/catapult, minister, guard and general. Elephant, other then also pronounced xiang in Chinese is not related with/nor represented in xiangqi. NYCDA 18:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A direct answer to your question (AG) is, xiangqi is just a name for Chinese chess. There's no meaning for the words except referring to that particular board game. The same can be said for chess. Why is chess called chess? Some one created a game with king/queen/bishop on a 8x8 board. It needs a name so some one called it chess and it settled. Here's another example. Mazedong or however you spell it is just a name of a person. You do not say it means/or is related to east because dong=east. It's a name that refers to a person and has no meaning beyond that. Xiangqi is a name that refers to the game and has no meaning beyond that. It's also interesting you brough up American Football. Have you ever asked yourself where does the word 'soccer' come from? Again soccer has no other meaning except it refers to a game. NYCDA 19:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok.. that AG person

Let's take a look: "What I'm trying to figure out is if "Elephant Strategy Game" is what the name ORIGINALLY meant in Chinese, or not."

More than 3 people have told you, no.

"Did the very first Chinese person who ever referred to the game look at it and say "Aha, there's 'representational strategy game'", or is it possible that they said "hey, there's that strategy game with those elephant pieces"? "

The first one obviously. Because they are the exact same words.

"Apparently this area of inquiry is offensive to the dignity of the game."

No, I don't think so. Seems like you are the only one who keeps mentioning that. If you wanna start a fight, probably no one would join you.

"I didn't know this before, but it seems there's a nationalistic debate where Chinese people claim that they invented chess, and not Indian people."

Yes, there is. So what are you trying to say? Do you have any new discoveries on this matter besides the well known "elepant" one?

"Thus any mention of elephants means I'm anti-Chinese, since elephants are from India."

No one cares if you are anti-Chinese or not. It's your own choice. By the way elephants exist not only in India in case you don't know. There are elephants in Asia as well as in Africa.

"Oh well. The game of American Football is not mostly about feet, but I'm not offended by someone pointing out that the word "foot" is in the name."

Because foot doesn't have another meaning that can also describe the game like xiang does. Liebenasuka 02:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

board template

Following Go with Template:Game of Go position and chess with Template:Chess diagram, I have made a template for Xiangqi.

The template is transcluded by

{| style="margin:1em;"
| style="border: solid thin; padding: 2px;" |
{{Xianqi-position|=

 10 |rd|hd|ed|ad|gd|ad|ed|hd|rd|=
  9 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |=
  8 |  |cd|  |  |  |  |  |cd|  |=
  7 |sd|  |sd|  |sd|  |sd|  |sd|=
  6 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |=
  5 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |=
  4 |sl|  |sl|  |sl|  |sl|  |sl|=
  3 |  |cl|  |  |  |  |  |cl|  |=
  2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |=
  1 |rl|hl|el|al|gl|al|el|hl|rl|=
     a  b  c  d  e  f  g  h  i

|30|nested=yes}}
|-
|}

It works just like the other templates: r stands for the chariot/rook, h for horse, e for elephant, a for advisor/guard, g for general, s for soldier, and c for cannon. D denotes "dark" for black, and l denotes "light" for white.

You can adjust the parameter where it says "30" to control the size of the board (the size of each image). It works roughly like the previous templates mentioned.

The characters are a tad ugly, but that's because I don't have good calligraphy on a computer. That can be fixed later, if needed. Adding something for arrows, etc. might be a tad more complex, but it is workable. Other possibilities include portions of the board (ie. like the middle, or a quarter of it, for individual examples). Tell me what you think! -- Natalinasmpf 17:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it looks decent. The black pieces look like they are in bold though... Not BAD, just strange. Though will we be seeing any USE of it anywhere? --Sivak 01:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Possibly while documenting games? Currently there isn't an abundance of use to it due ot systemic bias, ie. because we do note individual chess games like the Game of the Century. I put the black pieces in bold to distinguish it from the red, but on hindsight I'm not sure whether I should have done that for the red, too. -- Natalinasmpf 16:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I guess it could be used for articles documenting individual games, but when I first saw this template my thought was - we could have a game over at Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess. Nice work, by the way. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a great template! — Gulliver ✉ 08:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just used it - good stuff Lessthanideal (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Elephant

I have just added the Blocked Elephant rule. A picture to explain this rule is highly appreciated. Tac ke 06:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Openings

Anyone have perhaps a few more openings than the standard one? Since International Chess has a huge set of openings. 70.111.224.85 20:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

For that purpose, you could try create a new wiki page. Just Middle Cannon vs Screen Horses (Zhongpao dui PingfengMa) opening easily expands to several megabytes in text. Tac ke 09:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Korean Chess

Someone might want to mention it's similarity to Korean Chess, perhaps just provide a link and let them find out that the differences are only in the setup and movement of some pieces. 70.111.224.85 20:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Janggi (Korean chess) is already mentioned in the lead. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Due to extensive new additions from anonymous users, this article really needs a cleanup. It doesn't look much like a featured article anymore. enochlau (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I just noticed that myself... if no one objects, I'm going to be bold and take the unprecedented step (I think) of reverting to an earlier revision. Specifically, the December 30 edition, which I think still resembles the FA form, yet still has kept some of the changes between September and now. If we really wanted to be safe, the September 15 edition is the one to go with. Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

(Oh, I forgot to mention: most of the changes that now require cleanup is redundant information that was covered anyways.) Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeh I would agree with a rollback. The new info is mostly redundant, except for the "Piecemen Power and Information", but I don't know if those numbers are "official" in any way or just personal to someone. I'd say revert, just to ensure that the best quality work is always on display, and then go through the anon contribs with a fine tooth comb and add anything useful in. However, do you think the tips should stay here, or should they be moved to wikibooks? enochlau (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm going to go ahead and revert to the December 15 edition; this should hopefully solve the article quality issue. Most of the changes was the addition of text by anonymous editors that was redundant with information already in the article; other additions weren't exactly encyclopedic (such as "tips"), and other edits changed what had already been agreed upon and was stable (the names of the pieces, etc.). After the revert, I'll go back and add in some stuff the mass revert got rid of (such as category fixes, etc.) Let me know what you think. I would say "tips" should be moved to Wikibooks - we shouldn't have a collection of strategies, tips, etc. on Wikipedia. I'm going to revert to December 15, but let me know if you think a revert to September is necessary (the two are only separated by 20 edits or so). Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I've reverted, and also gone back and add in some cats and languages that the revert had taken out. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I am so sorry about the new additions i added, i dont really know how the format is. Can you please correct the text instead of deleteting them. Tell me which part i edited wrong. I am reading this and waiting for your reply thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.129.23.180 (talk • contribs) .

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. However, the main reason we reverted your additions was because the text you wrote was redundant with what the article had already; in other words, the new text simply repeated what had already been stated. In addition, some of the text wasn't considered encyclopedic - for instance, tips and strategies on games such as Xiangqi generally go into our sister project, Wikibooks, not Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. This article is already a featured article, which means it's one of Wikipedia's best articles. While we encourage contributions and additions, we need to strive to maintain the high level of quality in this article. (By the way, you can sign your posts on talk pages, such as this one, with four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically sign your post and add the date and time.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh i see, thanks for telling me. Now i get it. I didn;t know because i saw the Rule section empty so i added basic, Advance and drawing rules. Anyway sorry about that. And i added the Piecemen Power and Information. But that one was good but i didn;t know i added repeated stuff. Sorry about that. I will edit some of the words i edited earlier but this time i wont violate the format. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GustaveXIII (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for your understanding! In addition, please remember to discuss any major changes here before making them; while I encourage you to be bold while editing, any major revisions (addition of new sections, restructuring, etc.) should be discussed first because this is a stable featured article. Also, I've removed your additions of more links to xiangqi sites. Wikipedia is not a link repository; unless the sites add significantly to the article, one (which we already have) should suffice. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also reverted your changes to the pieces' headings and the addition of the approximate value for the pawn inside the palace. The piece names were agreed on previously, if I remember correctly, and have already come to this stable version. The alternative names you added have been discussed in the past, but the current headings were agreed upon. Note that the piece's section often references the alternative names you added in. In addition, I've also removed your addition of the approximate value of the soldier in the palace. As the section says, those approximate values don't take into account the position of the piece; the only exception is with the soldier, after it has crossed the river. This is because it gains additional moves after it crosses; a soldier does not gain additional moves by entering the palace, and thus should not be listed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please re-insert the Blocked Bishop rule. And opening list. The current version of Opening only mention 2 moves, that's not opening theory at all.

To say about chess, that is similar to "1.e4 is the most opening move in Chess. To reply, the most popular black move is 1...e5 to equal center sharing. To attack the e5 pawn, the most often move White play is 2.Kc3. To protect e5, Black play the 2...Kc6".

That's not it. We must mention Sicilian defense, Italian , Spain, English opening, French defense, KaroKann, Slav, Ancient Indian, Modern Indian, Grunfield, Naijdorf, etc.

Same is the openings of Middle Cannon vs Screen Horses, Sandwich Horses, Same-side Cannon, Opposite-side Cannon, Half-way Opposite-side Cannon,... in Xiangqi. Tac ke 05:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Please elaborate and tell us which parts of the changes you would like back in - I couldn't find what you were referencing - is it the very last section that was changed? However, this article shouldn't be the place to put all openings - if needed, that would probably go into Wikibooks, or at the very least, in a seperate article about the opening moves of xiangqi. It shouldn't go here; the version as is, in my opinion, is fine already. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To clean up is different compared to roll back. In my opinion, you please start from the latest/newest version, which may be rather long from your point of view. Then we will do finetuning, eg, put openings into a wiki page and put a link to that from the main xiangqi page.

The old version is fine in structure, but not complete in content. I have added the blocked bishop rule, as well as opening list. The xiangqi history could be put a separate page as well. That will keep the fine structure the same, the main page neat, while let others could elaborate on, say, openings. Tac ke 14:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind elaborating your ideas? Sure, some of the content could be moved to separate articles, but right now none of them appear to be in need of such a move. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the cleanup removed a lot of redundant additions, which was good. However, I do think that there is a place for openings on Wikipedia, and not just on Wikibooks, say. See Chess opening for example. enochlau (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that as well - however, in a new article of its own. Perhaps Xianqi openings? After that's been written, add a {{main}} notice to this article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the singular, Xiangqi opening with a redirect from the plural. But I've always played by following my nose, so I wouldn't know an opening from a cheesecake. enochlau (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask me about openings! :-) I don't think there's enough information right now to justify creating a new article, but if anyone wants to do write more and put it into that article, I don't mind. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Palace

I've reverted the addition of "九" (jiu) to the section describing the palace (宮, gong). 九 means nine, and I've never heard of either the imperial palace or the section where the general and bodyguards stay be called 九宮. It doesn't make any sense, in my opinion. Please let me know if 九宮 is actually used in the context of xiangqi and provide a source. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The phrase exists, it usually refers to a 3*3 blocks, though in this instance it refers to the 9 points. -- G.S.K.Lee 12:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

九宮 actually refers to "magic square",an acient mathematical puzzle in China.Chinese call it 九宮 only for the appearance of the square in which general and bodyguards move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamzhang (talk • contribs) 14:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

game complexity

The game tree is listed, but what about the state space? I'm trying to verify the numbers on the game complexity article. 70.111.251.203 14:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ending the Game: Stalemate and Repeated Moves

I reverted this text out of the Ending the Game section:

"If one player puts the opponent into a situation where it cannot make a move without moving its king into an attacked square (but the king isn't attacked itself, just like the Stalemate in Western Chess), the game ends in a win for the offensive side. (In short, Stalemate = Checkmate)"

An earlier paragraph already makes the stalemate = checkmate point, and in any even doesn't need to be bulleted as part of the repeat positions. -- JHunterJ 12:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ending the Game: Dispute

The rules quote in this section to end game is either completly wrong or not needed. I know they are from http://www.clubxiangqi.com/rules/asiarule.htm but clubxiangqi seems to have invented those rules for the sake of tournaments. From http://www.chessvariants.com/xiangqi.html the rules is

3. Perpetual check is forbidden. You cannot check your opponent more than three times in a row with the same piece and same board positions.

which is also not correct. The rule is simply you cannot check your opponent more than 3 times in a row. There is no rule regarding perpetually chasing because in this situation, either both sides can't afford to lose the chase there by ending the game in a draw or one side has enough advantage and will concede the chasing to the weaker side. -- 18:41, 26 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Internet servers section

A lot of board games on Wikipedia have "Internet servers" sections with links to select sites where those games can be played online. How about adding such section to Xiangqi? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.128.58.194 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

No; we're not a link farm. The external links section currently has a few, select links to such sites - and that's plenty. Unless they add significantly to the article, external links shouldn't be added. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The external links section doesn't have any links to such sites (I'm talking about internet servers for playing the game). It used to have but they were nuked.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.128.58.194 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC).

Would you mind providing an example to clarify what you're talking about? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.clubxiangqi.com/ and http://www.kurnik.org/ are good examples of web sites where Xiangqi can be played online against other people (both are special because most other sites are in Chinese)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.128.58.194 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

nefertiti link

the link between chinese chess and the game potrayed on the walls of queen nefertiti are speculation... no one knows the rules of the other game... it is currently speculation because of the evidence of chinese silk... Steelhead 21:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Internationalized Version of Xiangqi

Please take a look at my website:

The Elephant Chess Club

The redesigned xiangqi set features double-sided playing pieces. There are traditional Chinese characters on the obverse sides and intuitive characters on the reverse sides, so anyone can play xiangqi. When I returned from China in 1997, I found that it was very difficult to teach people the game because the Chinese ideograms were too intimidating. I appreciate your feedback.

I would like to add this site as a link from the Wikipedia Xiangqi article. Could you help me with this?

Thanks Michael

Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a strict policy on external links. As a general rule of thumb, sites that do not add significantly to the article should not be added or included, and placing links for promotional purposes is also frowned upon as spam. Thus, the website you cite is probably not appropriate as an external link on this article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Books

Six books by one author in the book list makes it look like someone is promoting that author. Could it be reduced to one item, perhaps that points to the series of books? 206.53.197.12 04:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Vietnamese Chess

Since there is an article about the Korean variant/version of this game, should there not be one of the Vietnamese variant? The Chinese version is played in Vietnam, (or was when I was there), but there is a local version with slightly different rules for some of the pieces, about as different as the Korean version from what I recall. The set up may differ also. Someone could check this out? Halfelven 04:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why was my change reversed? What was wrong with it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wclib (talk • contribs) 00:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

I didn't revert it, but your change deleted text with no edit comment. Why did you make your change? -- JHunterJ 00:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it read better. Isn't it obvious? What's the point of letting anyone edit if some bozo can reverse my edit without reading it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wclib (talk • contribs) 02:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC.

No, it isn't obvious. Another editor felt that it read better with the text, or else it wouldn't've been added in the first place. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary with your edits, even the ones that should be obvious. And don't call another editor a bozo -- be civil. And please sign your talk page contributions. -- JHunterJ 10:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, is that better? Wclib 18:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead image

The lead image, a copyrighted screenshot from a computer game, is completely unacceptable. I've tagged it as replaceable fair use and it is scheduled for deletion in seven days. If someone made all the rest of the images, someone can make a complete board as well. Regards, howcheng {chat} 16:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Did it myself. howcheng {chat} 16:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that still a computer game screenshot? A pic of an actual board might be preferable. — Gwalla | Talk 23:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not impossible that he pieced together the image himself... enochlau (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a screenshot. I did the lines in Inkscape, imported them to GIMP, then got all the images used in the article for the various pieces and arranged them on my board image. I can send the GIMP file to anyone who's interested. :) howcheng {chat} 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Double Cannon Technique Under Gameplay and strategy

I don't see how it can be avoided by

have 1 advisor move diagonally forward prior to double cannon being set up. This allows the general to move sideways to avoid the check.

If the player is threatened by double cannon where the first cannon is already in place then moving the guard up would be an suicide move since the guard would serve as platform for the cannon. Can anyone think of a situation where moving the guard is possible? I've removed the text in the mean time. NYCDA 16:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

your dump. It saids prior, before it happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.113.89 (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Cannon Platform in traditional character

This sentence:

The piece over which the cannon jumps is called the 炮台 pào tái — "cannon platform".

Had an inline comment "not sure if the traditional script is 炮臺 or 炮檯".

臺 means "platform" while 檯 means "desk" or "counter". Also doing a google search for "炮臺" "象棋" gives 173 hits while "炮檯" "象棋" gives only 26 hits. Therefore I changed it to

The piece over which the cannon jumps is called the 炮臺 (trad.) / 炮台 (simp.) pào tái — "cannon platform".

The same section also contained an external link to a Russian dictionary site explaining 炮. The link to Wiktionary would suffice I'd say so I removed the external link.

If a native speaker could please confirm the character thing it'd be appreciated. Thank you. Arne Brasseur 04:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Time limit in blitz games

In most Chinese formal tournaments, there isn't a fixed round-time limit for blitz games. Player have to make a certain number of moves (instead of finish the game) in a certain time. I have seen two common forms: "Blitz", where players have to do 40 moves under 10 minutes and "Super Blitz", where a play have to do 30 moves in 5 minutes. Times gets accumilated; that means if a player did 40 moves in 8 minute in a "Blitz" game, the player will have up to 12 minutes for the next 40. I cannot find a internet based source for this; but this type of game is aired on TV in China played by highest-ranking masters. Any comments?Rockvee (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the undo?

Cazaux recently made some edits that were reverted with an explanation that the edits were "vandalism done by user who significantly revised materials on this page". Cazaux's edits weren't a rewrite of everything, and they did provide additional information that was as well sourced as the material around it. So why the revert? Here is what Cazaux wrote:

Xiangqi has a long history and the way it is related to Indian Chaturanga and Persian Chatrang is still controversed. Though its precise origins have not yet been confirmed, the eldest extant reference to a game that more closely resembles modern Xiangqi can be found in the "Xuanguai lu 玄怪錄 (‘Tales of the obscure and peculiar’)" by the Tang Minister of State Niu Sengru 牛僧孺 , dated to the year Baoying 寶應 1, that is 762 AD.

Xiangqi has a long history. Though its precise origins have not yet been definitely confirmed, the earliest indications reveal a game named Xiangqi have been played as early as the 4th century BC, by Tian Wen (田文), the Lord of Mengchang (孟嘗君) for the state of Qi, during the Warring States Period. (See chess in early literature or timeline of chess.) However, the rules are not known and some scholars think that the ancient Chinese game of Liubois meant. Liubo may have had an influence on Xiangqi.

The word Xiàngqí's meaning "figure game" can also be treated as meaning "constellation game". Sometimes the xiàngqí board's "river" is called the "heavenly river", which may mean the Milky Way; it is worth to mention than a forerunner of xiangqi was xiangxi from which we know very little except that it may have been based on the movements of sky objects.

During the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, wars were fought for years running. There is a "theory" David H. Li that a new strategy board game was patterned after the array of troops, developed by Han Xin in the winter of 204 BC-203 BC to prepare for an upcoming battle. Without any serious proof, this theory is far from satisfying historians, it should be looked as a story rather than history.

During the reign of Suzong of the Tang Dynasty, Prime Minister Niu Sengru (779-847) wrote a fictional story about Xiangqi. That occurred during the Baoying period, so historians name it Baoying Xiangqi. Baoying Xiangqi evoked six types of pieces and it is the earliest extant trace of the game.

The game took shape under the Song Dynasty. The Korean game of janggi which has no river is supposed to derive from Xiangqi. The river borderline is first mentionned in a poem from Cheng Hao (1032-1085)

Readin (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

a reasonable question. The edits you quote might need a bit of cleaning up (I'd also alter the paragraph boundaries and remove a repetative sentence on the origin being uncertain), but its much better referenced and more detailed than what we have in the lead. As it stands the lead refers to an earliest example of the game being played without references. Such statements about game history are often highly misleading. I've done quite a bit of game history research myself and its often very difficult to discover what game is being played in any historical account. The new material does refer to that difficulty in a very balanced way. 80.219.193.185 (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would need clean up. Unfortunately I'm not a game historian (or even close to it) and am not at all qualified to make the edits, especially since neither the bfore nor the after provides any sources for me to use for verification. If both the old and new information is accurate, it looks like a case where they should be combined instead of one chosen over the other. Readin (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Queens and Advisors

"While their origin is probably not the same as that of the queen in Western chess[2], their powers are distinct from those of the queen[3]."

What. This sentence is nonsensical. It basically says: "Although they are different, they are different." Perhaps it should be "because" or maybe that they did come from the same origin. I don't know the history, though, so someone should fix the sentence. 70.110.191.29 (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There's an extraneous "not" there. They likely derived from a common ancestor of the Queen (which derived from a piece that could move one square at a time diagonally). — Gwalla | Talk 23:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

about the name xiangqi

i dont know if anyone mentioned this.

in mordern chinese, the phrase xiangqi actually sounds like shyang-chee.im pretty sure xiangqi ,shogi(japanese chess) and janggi(korean chess) are the same word spelled in different accents. though the three languages(chinese,japanese,korean) developed greatly and the pronunciations changed a lot, the relation between these three words is clear and undoubted. but i havent found authentic proof on this issue.

the character 象(xiang) in xiangqi doesn't nessasarily mean elephant. the original meaning is uncertain.

i guess that the words for chess across the world have the same origin. Shatranj,Chaturanga,xiangqi derived from the same word. but i could be wrong.

and sorry for my poor english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick2008 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Chaturanga means "fourfold army", so it seems highly unlikely that its name is cognate with xiangqi. Shatranj is just a Persian borrowing of Chaturanga. Janggi is pretty clearly cognate with xiangqi. "Shōgi" is again a separate word, meaning "general's chess", although it uses the same character for the second syllable. — Gwalla | Talk 19:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cultural references

I would think a section on cultural references would be interesting, including items such as the movie "The Black Cannon Incident." DOR (HK) (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary using a table (under expansion)

If I understood well :

Piece	English	Moves	Lenght	Jump	Area of action	Point(s)
	Soldier	Own place: Forward. Adversary place: left, forward, right.	1	no	all	1
	Horse	30° and 60° diagonals*	2 cases	no	all	4 - 5
	Cannon	vertical and horizontal	all	yes (1) when capturing	all	4 - 5
	Chariot	vertical and horizontal	all	no	all	9
	Elephant	45° diagonals	2 cases	no	place	1 - 2
	Advisor	diagonals	1	no	palace	2
	General	vertical and horizontal	1	no	palace	give victory
* = see images and explanations bellow.

• 
  Capture by the Cannons
• 
  Move by the Horses

Yug (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Confused

it is known as "blocking the elephant's eye" (塞象眼): Does the phrase 塞象眼 means blocking eye(眼睛)? Or blocking nares(鼻眼儿)?

I think we need some reliable source. --61.237.234.142 (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

眼here means the hole at center, just like it is used 井眼(the space inside a well) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.120.226.133 (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Computer Servers and Computer Programs

Why is there no list of computer servers where people play Chinese chess? Why is there no list of computer programs that play Chinese chess?

I saw Thumperward deleted information about computer programs that play Xiangqi on September 26, 2008. He said they couldn’t be notable because they have no articles. Computer programs can be notable even without articles. He also deleted information about computer servers where people play Xiangqi on October 3, 2008. He said game links are not appropriate. Links to computer servers were people play Xiangqi are appropriate. Anywhere many people play Xiangqi is appropriate. We should revert these changes. What do other people think? Mschribr (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's dumb not to include them if they exist.

Miscellaneous suggestions for improvement

I've combined the "Tactics" section with "Gameplay and strategy". Firstly, so the description of notation comes before the part that uses notation, and secondly since most of the "Gameplay and strategy" section was tactical. I think the article could benefit from more improvements, but I know little about this game so I think it better to leave it to more knowledgable editors. My suggestions:

Specific

• Some more diagrams to illustrate the positions described by lists of moves.

* For each piece, having described it and the various names choose one and stick to it for the rest of the article. e.g. either always say "chariot" or always "rook". * "A chariot can threaten one just by moving to a space where all brown spaces available to the elephant are threatened." Seems to be a diagram missing here. * Capturing. Presumably pieces generally capture using their normal move, unless specifically otherwise described, but it would be clearer to state this for each piece. * Perpetual checking and chasing. Article says you can't continue these indefinitely. How many moves can you continue them? * Check and checkmate (and by extension stalemate) are specifically chess-derived terms from the name of the king. Are there Chinese equivalent terms for this game? Do English speaking players usually say "check" and "checkmate", however? Would be useful to clarify. * As a novice I found the many names of pieces confusing. I think each piece's description section should be labelled with its common name (Advisor, Elephant, etc) and the rest relegated to the descriptive text.

• Some names are specifically confusing.
  • Why is the advisor never called "scholar" although the character on both sides' pieces means that?
  • Advisor is also called "minister", but that is also the character used on some of the elephants. That's confusing. Would a player ever say "he took my minister", and if so would he always mean "advisor"? Clarify please.

** Is it "elephant" or "war elephant"? ** Is it really called "rook"? This is a very chess-specific name for an English speaker (although it apparently comes from the Persian for chariot.) If so, should it say "by analogy to the similar piece in Western chess, the chariot is sometimes called the rook"? ** Cavalry. This is a plural word for a group of horse soldiers. Is the individual piece called "a cavalry" or would this only be used to mean "both horses"?

• check & checkmate have descriptions of the Chinese words and characters, and audio files. The same should be done for stalemate - or is it just the same word as checkmate?

More broadly

• Gameplay section could be divided into sub-sections e.g. "checks", "formations", "control", "strategies". Those might not be the best divisions.
• More strategy information would be nice, if there are acknowledged strategies in a similar fashion to chess.

* Article assumes the reader understands chess. Concepts such as "fork", "pin", "windmill" etc should be described. I think it would be better to describe them here in Xiangqi terms, and not keep saying "like chess/unlike chess". There are a few specific points chess players will wonder about which it would be sensible to leave. (e.g. about not being able to promote soldiers)

• Actually, I don't see the value of comparing it point by point to chess - anyone who knows that game can read the article and work it out for themselves. However, if there are subtler or strategic considerations that are interestingly different from chess, perhaps a section on those would be useful to readers familier with chess. (Perhaps a similar section in the chess article would be useful for people who play Xiangqi.)

Lessthanideal (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No-one has made any comments, so I have been bold and started making some changes. I've crossed out above what I've done. I've also settled for consistency on upper-case X for Xiangqi, and "Western chess" for that game. I've added in some basics about moving in turn, and capturing, and moved the section on ending the game to the rest of the game description sections, i.e. above the individual piece descriptions. Lessthanideal (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Could Section History be seperated from the article...???

to become another artile titled as History of Xiangqi, because it is of archaeological value???--222.64.27.120 (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that it isn't large enough to make another article, at present. Bubba73 (talk), 06:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It certainly could (and should) be a separate article if someone has the time to do all the work to expand it to cover everything that is known about the history of the game. Of course, it would need to address all the rubbish about Xiangqi dating back thousands of years. BabelStone (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)