Check out Glinski's Hexagonal Chess, our featured variant for May, 2024.


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

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order LaterLatest
Xiangqi: Chinese Chess. Links and rules for Chinese Chess (Xiangqi). (9x10, Cells: 90) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Charles Gilman wrote on Sat, Jun 14, 2003 07:25 AM UTC:
An anonymous contributor makes some implausible claims about the symbols in Xiang Qi in the 'Which came first' debate on the comments on the Chaturanga page (and I see a similar debate is going on here). He describes more pieces as having different symbols on each side than are so shown on this page. Is there any historic truth to what he says about the symbols?

John Lawson wrote on Sat, Jun 14, 2003 02:54 PM UTC:
Good question. Certainly the modern sets that I own only distinguish between the Kings, Elephants, and Pawns. However, book illustrations vary. Most only show the diffences noted, but some also differentiate the Cannons and Advisors. 'The Chess of China', Dennis A. Leventhal, 1978, shows all the pieces with differences between the sides. This book was published in China, and reprinted in Taiwan. What the actual historical usage is, I do not know. I also referred to 'Schachspiele in Ostasien', Peter Banaschak, 2001. I found no reference to it, but my German is weak, and I could well have missed it.

gnohmon wrote on Sun, Jun 15, 2003 03:52 AM UTC:
I have a set in which only Rooks, Knights, and Cannons are the same for the
two sides; however, I believe that I bought this xiang qi set in the late
1960s, and that the date of purchase predates the great simplification in
which Mao's government reduced the number of ideograms in everyday use
from 50,000 to 5000.

Perhaps the great simplification changed the look of Xiang Qi?

Zdeno wrote on Sat, Aug 23, 2003 08:34 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
Hue liako gojuik ask mail [email protected] . Kopta liu ertunduji eh djd Zdeno. Chess ji playing long time. [email protected]

hi wrote on Tue, Aug 26, 2003 05:26 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

Anonymous wrote on Sun, Sep 7, 2003 05:04 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

pitstone wrote on Mon, Sep 8, 2003 04:56 PM UTC:Poor ★
I do not play for a very long time. That is why I rated myself poor.

Chen wrote on Fri, Sep 26, 2003 12:51 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
The Cannons are the most interesting and difficult to use pieces in
Xiangqi, and add much to the tactical potential of the game. The earliest
versions of Xiangqi did not have the Cannons (gunpower was not invented
back then), which made them much less tactically interesting than modern
Xiangqi. Without the Cannons, one's attacking potential is a lot
smaller.
Cannons improved Xiangqi in a similar way to how the increased powers of
the Queen improved Chess. Cannons were added to Chinese Chess during the
Song Dynasty (960 - 1279 AD) when gunpower based weapons were first used.


The Cannon is a great Chinese invention (both on and off the Xiangqi
board!). The Cannon as a chess piece is unique to Chinese Chess and
variants derived from its lineage. (Such as Korean chess) If the primary
European contribution to chess games is the invention of the powerful
Queen, and the Japanese contribution is the invention of rules which
allow
one to use captured pieces as his/her own, then the Cannon, I believe, is
the major Chinese contribution to the chess family of games. This piece
combines the long-range mobility of line pieces and the penetrating power
of leapers. It can strike at the opponent's positions from a distance
like a Rook and penetrate through defensive lines to attack pieces behind
them like a Knight. Rooks have long-range attack ability but can be
obstructed easily with well defended pieces in their line of sight.
Knights can 'see through' the opponent's defenses but can only attack
from close range, where itself is often vulnerable. The Cannon combines
the advantages of both line pieces and leapers in its attack. 

Tactically speaking, the interesting thing about the Cannon is that it is
the only chess piece that can pin TWO pieces at the same time. This also
means discovered attacks involving the Cannons can be more unpredictable.
Two pieces in front of the Cannon have the potential to move off for the
Cannon to strike at the opponent (With other chess pieces, only one piece
would have this potential). When the Cannons double up to form a battery,
their advantage over the Rooks is that they can directly strike two
positions at once, with the Cannon at the rear using its companion in
front as its screen, where the doubled Rooks can only attack one point.

Tony Quintanilla wrote on Fri, Sep 26, 2003 05:17 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
Very interesting comments. I have to admit that I have not easily adapted to cannons, but your observations will make me take a fresh look at them. Thanks, Chen.

vivian yang wrote on Mon, Sep 29, 2003 10:07 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

vivian yang wrote on Sun, Oct 5, 2003 05:38 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

random wrote on Thu, Nov 27, 2003 04:52 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
It's pretty good. Do you have the rules of Chinese Chess that Korean people play with? If you do, that'll be great!

Tony Quintanilla wrote on Thu, Nov 27, 2003 03:01 PM UTC:
random: please submit any descriptions of game variations to the editors
using the 'contact form' at the top of the page. 

http://www.chessvariants.com/xiangqi.html

Thanks!

🕸📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Thu, Nov 27, 2003 04:49 PM UTC:
Tony, I think you misunderstood what random was asking about. He's not
offering a new variant; he is asking if we have the rules for Korean
Chess. We do have them here:

http://www.chessvariants.com/oriental.dir/koreanchess.html

John Ayer wrote on Tue, Dec 2, 2003 04:53 AM UTC:
I have a conjecture about the origin of Chinese Chess. It is known that there was an earlier version, played on a board ten squares by ten, uncheckered; Murray reproduces a reconstructed arrangement by Karl Himly, with the 'king' and 'queen' arranged fore-and-aft in the nine-castle. This is a crucial (in many ways!) error. The current Chinese Chess board, eight squares by nine with a nine-castle at each end and a river across the middle, is known to be older than Chinese Chess, and to have been used for two previous games. There is therefore no basis for drawing the nine-castle on the ten-by-ten-square board for the earlier version. There is also no basis for believing that the earlier board contained a central river. Take them away, and we have the plain ten-by-ten-square board of so many variants, including Shatranj al-Kamil I. It also has the same pieces as Shatranj al-Kamil I: A king, his attendant minister, two elephants moving as alfils, two knights or horses, two rooks, and two orthogonal leapers, with a front rank of pawns. I think therefore that when Chaturanga was introduced into China in the time of the Wei-ti Emperor, and he had the two players beheaded and forbade the use of any game with a piece representing an emperor or called such, Chaturanga was indeed driven out of China. A couple of centuries later Shatranj al-Kamil Type One was introduced along another trade route from Persia. Perhaps the players were informed of the previous edict, or perhaps it was just their native prudence that persuaded them to demote one king to governor and the other to general, each with his appropriate officer. They then moved the game to a native board, abandoning the race game for which that board must have been quite inconvenient. Since the commander-in-chief and his adjutant were now inside a fortress, they were forced to stay within its walls. The elephant, huge, heavy, and one imagines heavily laden, was ruled unable to cross the river. The orthogonal leaper was changed from a camel to a catapult, or cannon, capable of destroying its victim even past a screen, but moving along the ground. The rook, or chariot, was left unchanged, and the pawn and horse were slightly modified for reasons that I don't see. <p>The odd thing is that Murray almost worked this out himself; he remarked on the great similarity between the earlier Chinese game of chess and the Persian variants. I think it was only the spurious nine-castle on Himly's diagram that prevented him from seeing the obvious.

Bjorn wrote on Wed, Dec 10, 2003 06:06 AM UTC:Poor ★
How to Download the game Xiangqi

Charles Gilman wrote on Sun, Dec 14, 2003 10:53 AM UTC:
John Ayer's 'orthogonal leapers' are presumably the piece now called a Dabbaba as that was the extra piece in Shatranj Kamil, to 'complete' a family with the diagonal Elephant and oblique Knight. However the Elephant and Knight of present-day Xiang Qi are steppers - they need to pass through a square adjacent to both start and destination. Would the Dabbaba of the intermediate game have been a stepper rather than a leaper? is ther any evidence of Xiang Qi ever having leaping pieces?

John Ayer wrote on Tue, Dec 16, 2003 12:21 AM UTC:
Yes, I was speaking of the dabbaba(h). As for whether Chinese Chess ever had a leaper, I doubt anyone knows. Murray quotes a later Chinese work on chess, I suspect from the Ming dynasty, remarking on how little they knew of how chess was played in the Tang and Sung periods, except that it was obviously different.

benjamin wrote on Tue, Dec 23, 2003 02:20 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
You discribe the stuff very good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 comments displayed

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order LaterLatest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.