Talk:Xiangqi

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Xiangqi article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 90 days

Xiangqi is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 13, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 7, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
May 31, 2007	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

China B‑class High‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

East Asia (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia articles

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Board and table games B‑class High‑importance

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Chess C‑class Low‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:China Portal Selected Article

Ending the Game

Flying general

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)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean. "Flying general"? — LlywelynII 10:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It’s right there in the article. I don’t know if that’s how it’s actually referred to in English, but he’s referring to the rule wherein a general with no intervening pieces in the same file can “jump” across the board to capture the other. —Wiki Wikardo 23:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images

"Western" pieces

Isn't it ridiculous that the symbol for generals contains a Christian cross? Most Chinese aren't Christians.--89.14.96.139 (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i am a chinese,i have never seen the western version of pieces until i log in this web site.xiangqi is different from international chess,so i think using the symbol is inappropriate,just chinese word is ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.239.218.58 (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same opinion, bro. Besides, the advisors have slanted eyes? Kinda racist, is it?--89.14.118.189 (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, the actual pieces are just Chinese characters which aren't particularly helpful or attractive to Western players. Creating a Western variant does make the pieces much easier to distinguish. That said, I do think we have an WP:OR problem on our hands, given that these do seem to be Wiki-specific creations. — LlywelynII 11:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The analogy is to the international bishop piece, and as such the cross is iconic part of its standard representation. —Wiki Wikardo 23:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the pieces used in XBoard? That’s free software, and so should be usable on here. Yeah, I’m not totally thrilled with them, either—ideally, I’d use all the same images they use for Western chess, with only the addition of the cannons and the substitution of bishops with elephants. Several other chess programs use Staunton-esque symbols for xiàngqí, but licensing would likely be an issue.

Oh, and I guess probably substituting the mandarins for queens as well. So then the exact same except for the king. They look like Little Lord Fauntleroy winter hats for pudgy Chinese babies, but whaddya gonna do? —Wiki Wikardo 23:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I don’t know whether the chicken or the egg came first, but GMChess does use the same icons, so even if they’re OR, they’re no longer WP-specific. —Wiki Wikardo 23:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

FWEIW, here’s a source. Also. —Wiki Wikardo 05:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notation of the brief game demostrated in notation 3 weighs moves badly.

Revival of the archived text, with a few corrections.

(Original text in the article) An example of a brief game ("the early checkmate") is 1. Cbe3 Che8 2. Ch5 Cb4? 3. Cxe6+! Cxe4?? 4. Ce5#

Some points: -Red move 2 is uncommon. A much better move is to move the horse, e.g. Nb1-c3(I'm using another notation here which will be simple to understand...) -Black move 3 is of course losing, but Red move 3 is a bad move. Should black respond with moves like Af10-e9 and later chase the red cannon away with his/her horse, it would have been advantegeous for black as black could develop his pieces better. For Red, it is not advised to take the middle pawn in the earliest stages of the game, though it's not a bad choice a bit later and with help of other attacking material. Should Red move 2 and 3 be notated with question marks?

Or, if we make Red's move more sensical and still a mate in 4... The game should be played like this: 1. Cbe3 Ch2? 2. Cxe7 Ra9 3. Cb5 Hc8?? 4. Cbe5# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.88.177.22 (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]