Talk:Xiangqi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

History

Initial Discussion

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 Roylee (talk · 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)

Revisited

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 68.14.62.73

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 68.14.62.73

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 Kennethtennyson

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 Kennethtennyson

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)

This is a fringe theory at best. Liubo was a luck-based, dice-style board game not unlike the ancient Egyptian Senet. Xiangqi is a strategy game in which luck plays no role. The names alone demonstrate this. Xiangqi, like Weiqi (Go), ends with "Qi", which I've seen translated as "strategy game" (or, more literally, "strategy board game for two players"). Liubo, like Sic bo, ends with "Bo", which I've seen translated as "dice". The games could hardly be more dissimilar. If you really can't find sources debunking the theory, I'd be more than happy to point you at a few.

I'll admit that I haven't actually played Liubo, mainly because it has been extinct for hundreds of years. But I can tell you that it is nothing like Xiangqi (which I have played) or any chess variant. You roll dice to determine a random number, to insert an element of chance. That's how people played Liubo, and that's how people play Sic bo, the major differences being that in Liubo people threw sticks at a layout instead of rolling dice under a cup, and that Liubo (unlike Sic bo) also involves moving pieces around a board, as in Backgammon or Senet. But, regardless, it's still not chess. Heather (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2011 (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)

See above. — LlywelynII 11:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Improperly removed improvements to history

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)

I wrote several books in French about history of games and especially for chess/xiangqi/shogi/etc. I had tried to contribute and bring some knowledge on this page which could be much improved, but alas, it seems that this was not appreciated and I was qualified of vandalism. OK, most of my addition was based on P.Banaschak's works, a German historian who got his PhD on the subject. His website can be found and will provide useful information to the curious reader. As well as my own website history.chess.free.fr Cazaux (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2012 (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)

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)

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)

Cannon Platform in traditional characters

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)

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)

Dubious phrase

Xiangqi#Elephant Seems 塞象眼 should be blocking the elephant's nostril/nasoocular or blocking the minister's eye rather than blocking the elephant's eye. 222.35.85.38 (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Not in the least. FWIW, "象眼" is a phrase by itself meaning a "triangular space", although here it means "small space" like in "the eye of a needle" (see above). 鼻孔 is "nostril" and 眼 would (almost?) never mean that. — LlywelynII 08:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"General" section

• In the footnote in the section "General", will someone who knows Chinese please change the Wade-Giles names and words to pinyin and add Chinese characters for them, and translate the book name T'ung-kien nun? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese character 眼 means "eye". The previous writer is in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.220.187 (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of "Dang tou pao"

(Disclaimer: I am just now starting to learn Chinese.)

The meaning of 當頭炮 is given as "appropriate start cannon". I'm a bit confused, because the reading is given as dāng tóu pào, mǎ lái tiào, and CEDICT says that the reading dàng, not dāng, is used with the meaning "appropriate". It is read as dāng when it means "when", though, which is consistent with one translation I have seen of this proverb: "When my opponent's cannon moves to the middle, my knight jumps up front." Though in that case 當頭炮 by itself wouldn't make any sense...

What's going on here? Is CEDICT mistaken/oversimplifying by suggesting 當 is never read dāng when it means "appropriate"? - furrykef (Talk at me) 03:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked up several dictionaries and believed dāng is right. It means "opposite to","directly","at the time of". In Chinese language sense, I think, dàng and its meaning "appropriate" is quite wrong here, even though "appropriate" is the right meaning of dàng in 当. Betaver (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Now we need a Chinaman to solve this problem, don't we? 當 is the traditional character for 当. Pronounced dàng, it means appropriate. But in this case as in most cases, it is pronounced dāng. This character is very abstract and has several meanings. Here 当头 (當頭) literally means "being the head". So the cannon (炮) is the head and leads/begins the game. Chinese characters are connected to each other, so you have to look at the whole expression. Otherwise we have these wrong interpretations. 当 here is not the conjunction nor means appropriate. It just means "to work as/serve as/be" (should be in your dictionary). By the way, we prefer the simplified version nowadays. In dictionaries, the traditional characters are put in parentheses not the simplified ones.--89.14.96.139 (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right that we have to look at the whole expression, which is how we know that 當頭 doesn't mean "being the head" – it's "direct attack"; "frontal attack"; or, more loosely, "gun to the head". 当 here is "in front of", "in the face of", or "against" and the "head" is the center line and the general on it, not the cannon itself. Your version (just like "when...") works with the characters (and appears on some sites as a bad translation), but not the actual sense of the Chinese which has the synonyms 中宫炮 ("central palace cannon") and 中炮 ("central cannon"). (See, e.g., this site which has the bad English and the Chinese synonyms that belie the true meaning.)

Also, Dude, "Chinaman" is not the preferred nomenclature. — LlywelynII 08:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hobbles horses legs?!

What is this "hobbles the horses legs" stuff?! I have several books on xiangqi, never read anything like that. This is not a children's beginner's book, this is an encyclopedic article. That language is too colorful and unnecessary and unusual. (Duh.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It is the appropriate Chinese language saying used even by professional players, just literally translated into English. 113.253.226.18 (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe it more closely means "blocking the horse's hoof", but the idea is the same. Chinese is just like that; it is very hard to get an accurate translation without losing the color. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

憋马腿 is not informal at all but rather poetic. 马 means horse and 腿 means leg (it doesn't matter if animal or human being). If you look at 憋 (suppress; hold back), you see the radical 心 (heart). So if you can't express your feelings, these feelings have to stay in your heart as they cannot come out. Chinese characters are absolutely logical. In this case, something hinders the horse's legs. Btw, you have also to 憋 when you need to go to the restroom and there is no.--89.14.96.139 (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Chinese characters are not logical, let alone absolutely so. To use your own example, 敝 (㡀, bi, "ragged" + 攵, pu, "tap") has no related meaning but is simply something that sounds somewhat like bie, the word being written as 憋.

In any case, the term is descriptive (albeit not poetic) and should stay if it's well-sourced, but the original grammar is pretty lousy. It'd simply be "hobbled" (adj) or "to hobble" (v) since, in English, the rest of the phrase is already implied. (If we were to keep the rest for a literal translation, it'd be something like "restrain the horse's legs". 憋 is not so narrow as "hobble", which is why the rest of the phrase is there in the first place.) — LlywelynII 07:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to all posters. (I learned a lot.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Postal Atlas spelling?

I don’t know what romanization/topolect it represents, but siang k’i seems to have a fair bit of traction/history. —Wiki Wikardo 09:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's called "Postal Map", but I'm confused as to why you'd think siang k'i has any "traction". Sources? — LlywelynII 11:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22siang+k'i%22

I guess a couple thou really isn’t that much, but a I’ve seen it mostly in older books from before the advent of widespread digitization, which makes me wonder how much more iceberg there is beneath that surface —Wiki Wikardo 17:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Cannon section

I think the section describing the cannon has too much WP:GAMEGUIDE in it. I'm going to remove the extra content in a separate edit from my copy editing, so that if someone disagrees, they can easily undo that edit without tangling up in the other work I'm doing. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

System 1 notation

I'm a little confused by the description in this section: "the ranks of the board are numbered 1 to 10 from closest to farthest away, followed by a digit 1 to 9 for files from right to left". It seems to mean there could be a half line partial notation that looks like this:

卒 (103)–102

—Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Computers versus Grandmasters

How do computers compare to grandmasters in Xiangqi? In international chess, computers are 100s of points stronger than grandmasters. In international chess, Grandmasters have no chance. Do computers play in Xiangqi grandmaster tournaments? Did the number 1 Xiangqi player ever play a computer? --Mschribr (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

tactics

There's a problem with the fork tactic given as an example. In the example the chariot can pin the horse to the rook and win the horse. While it's still a fork it's a little bit confusing if it doesn't really win, it's actually checkmate in two moves for the non-forking side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.117.129.17 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Furthermore the rook still defends the pawn so there can be no win of material even if the general was covered. So we should improve the example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickfransadrien (talk • contribs) 21:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Triple Check

Under Gameplay > Tactics > Bullet 6, the text claims that "No triple or quadruple check can be escaped" but unless I'm misreading things, in the first example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Xiangqi-_cdd.PNG) it appears that the Black General can simply move one point left or right to escape the check. Yes, the Red Cannon would just move left or right to match, mating with a double-check, but technically, the triple check WAS escaped, as it was the subsequent double-check that mated.54.240.196.185 (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that it meant to say "[...] blocked" instead of "[...] escaped". (From context of the example ahead of it.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Blunder in the first sentence

"Xiangqi (Chinese: 象棋, p Xiàngqí), sometimes called Chinese chess, is an strategy board game for two players."

Unless English grammar rules are screwing me up again, strategy doesn't begin with a vowel sound and should be preceded by an "a" and not by an "an". It probably meant to say "abstract strategy".

87.189.152.208 (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thx for noting. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. Why aren't you editing? (It's easy. But not always friendly. Good luck.)

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)

Jasper, it is 1. Che3 Hf7 2. Cb4. --121.7.203.206 (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2009 (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)

Something about the notation about this brief game.

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 knight, 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 white. 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.95.213.143 (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Article name: Xiangqi v. Chinese Chess

Meaning of Xiangqi

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)

1) FWIW – apparently not entirely unknown. —Wiki Wikardo 22:55, 21 February 2012 (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)

Except that the titles of English-language Wikipedia articles aren't determined by (Communist-mandated) "proper" terminology (it's not "xiangqi" in Shanghainese, Hakka, Cantonese, etc.), but by existing common English usage. Trying to proscribe your own preferences for what the English term should be is OR. — LlywelynII 10:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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

No, it's not. Pinyin x is /ɕ/, not /s/. The sound doesn't even exist in English; hence, the patent silliness of people like Illumin. above trying to mandate it. — LlywelynII 10:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Went into a Chinese gift store/grocery once and asked if they had "xiangqi". (Thought I had pronounced it correctly after being coached over the years by Chinese friends.) The employee said "yes, follow me" and proceeded to lead me into the vegetable section (?) until finally arriving at, and pointing out: *cilantro*. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh, "yansui" doesn't sound remotely the same, so something was off. — LlywelynII 10:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

buddy you must have told him xiangcai instead because xiangcai is a common nickname for cilantro. qi and cai should sound nothing alike but then again that's only for Chinese savvy people. no offense or anything but you may want to find a better coach or get him/her to coach you some more. tbh I think these days Chinese people understand westerners don't know much about the culture and can barely learn it when they even want to so Chinese Chess might save both a hefty headache at the end of the day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.122.165 (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Etymology is irrelevant

Etymology is irrelvant. Few of these comments seem to address the topic at hand, which is, what is the most common name in English??? —Wiki Wikardo 09:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This. There is actually nothing above but personal preferences, without discussion of actual use aside from establishing that the Mainland Chinese like the Chinese name (yeah...) and the British prefer "Chinese chess". As far as that goes – per WP:USEENGLISH, WP:COMMONNAME, and avoiding WP:OR, – "Chinese chess" should be preferable, but we need more data. — LlywelynII 10:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of Xiang

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)

Sorry to bring up an old argument, but the reason the game is called "chess" is that the word is etymologically related to the Persian word "shāh", meaning "king". It's not a arbitrary word with no history, as your argument seems to imply.

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)

Ivory chess? FWIW, 29.4 ghits for `elephant chess'. —Wiki Wikardo 08:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of Qi

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.

Qi can denote a piece. Qi can also mean a board game but is usually referred to Chinese or Western chess. Translating qi simply as "game" is not correct. For computer games and outdoor fun activities, the Chinese use 游戏 yóuxì. By the way, there is nothing like monopoly qi. 大富翁 dàfùwēng is monopoly in Chinese, which describes a wealthy person.--89.14.96.139 (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

listen to this guy above me. qi in its pure form means flag like Old Glory. since old military maps use miniature red flags as designations these "flags" are pieces on a board in terms of the game hence xiangqi the "representing" xiang "flags" qi. and it makes more sense than any of the elephant chess elephant games people for w/e reason came up with so far because you really are playing with "flags" or pieces that "represent" things in real life. Chariot = Chariot for instance. or maybe Horse = Cavalryman (you know those soldiers that ride on horseback?)

btw Chariot is not the same as Rook and it actually makes loads more sense than a rook. A chariot in actual warfare does attack by charging straight into enemy lines to break them. just the same the Chariot piece in Xiangqi moves and takes pieces by moving straight. a Rook is a battlement and i don't know about you but I don't know of any battlements in western/indian warfare that can move as quickly as a chess rook or kill only in a straight line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.122.165 (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of 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)

Chaturanga is from a different language family from xiangqi so it almost certainly isn't cognate. That said, I think his point was that Old Chinese 象 could have been a transliteration of some form of the name. Might well be, but we'd need sources. — LlywelynII 09:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi, we made an online XianqQi and we used the chinese characters from this page. The western pieces don't look very good so we made our own. I don't know if that's appropriate to propose this here, but our drawings are available on our own wiki. We were concerned about the problem of the king. We finally kept the cross because we thought chinese people won't use it anyway so it should not hurt their feelings, and it's much easier for western people to refere to classic chess patterns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcfrog (talk • contribs) 18:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

I never play with this rule and have played with my relatives and a friend's relative and have never played with this rule, but according to the official rules (http://games.sports.cn/server/xiangqi/2008-04-22/1442022.html), whoever exposes their general to the opponent's loses: "帥与将不能在同一直线上直接对面，否则走方判负."thedoctar (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requests on 26 September 2014

Because the text "cannons can be exchanged for horses immediately from their starting positions" is lumped in with the rules for piece movement, I initially read it as saying that a player can opt to replace a cannon with a horse, a rule I'd never heard of, and one of dubious value at that. Of course, "exchange" was actually meant in the sense of trading losses in material, and the sentence is merely an observation, not a rule. I recommend rewording to "For example, a player can exchange a cannon for an opponent's horse immediately from the starting position."

75.88.40.61 (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The diagram labeled "Triple check, alternate position" should instead be labeled "Triple check, alternative position". "Alternate" as a synonym for "alternative" occurs only in US dialects and is arguably incorrect even there.

75.88.40.61 (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 16:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

General

Er...there is no concrete proof that all emperors banned featuring themselves as chess pieces. --1/10/14,2.52p.m.202.156.136.157 (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Piece ordering

I am requesting to make consistent the order of pieces in the sections: relative strength of pieces, the introductions of the pieces and the type 2 notation including single latin letters. Perhaps the order to adopt should be from the relative strength section since this provides an objective ordering.

Full Decent (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Chess Tactics

Maybe there is a better example for a fork, since black can simply skewer the knight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALLCAPSWARLOCK (talk • contribs) 01:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xiangqi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070614111609/http://www.csie.ndhu.edu.tw/~sjyen/Papers/2004CCC.pdf to http://www.csie.ndhu.edu.tw/~sjyen/Papers/2004CCC.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xiangqi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050226031808/http://www.getcited.org:80/pub/101996662 to http://www.getcited.org/pub/101996662

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Annotation of Fool's Mate in Chinese chess awards bad move with exclamation mark (bringing this up once again)

Revival of the archived text for the 2nd time:

(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. N(or H for Horse)b1-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 faster after a timely threat on the central red cannon with moves like Hh10-g8. 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#

Here, Cxe7 is a good move but not worth a '!' either, because people who play chess know that achieving this position is an instant royal flush, and Black would either bring his general out (which can be equally unappealing) or risk getting mated by double cannons or material loss by a typical discovered check + attack with another red rook.

As of now I can't edit this article.

W7n (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Setup time

Under one minute is usually not possible. You already have 32 pieces, which leaves you less than two seconds for picking every piece and putting it on the right spot. Setting up the board also takes time away. Even if you have both players, you have to correctly divide the pieces first or make sure that the other player doesn't get in your way. The fastest way to do that is to throw the whole set of pieces of the table, some pieces will end up upside down. You have to turn them, read them and make sure the Chinese characters point to the correct direction. --188.99.140.78 (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2017

117.6.92.136 (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Xiangqui is not just in Vietnam, it's also in Korea and Japan

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 03:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Chariot Check "behind" the King

When I learned how to play Xianqi (Co Tuong in Vietnamese) it was generally frowned upon by Vietnamese from whom I learned the game to allow a Chariot check "behind" opposing King - for example a Chariot on the opponent's first rank giving check to the opponent's King on its third rank (see here ). But the Chinese don't seem to have such a custom and I'm not sure that this custom exists outside of Vietnam/Vietnamese players. Should this be added to the article? Anyone ever heard of this? Tpkatsa (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

About stalemate

"Unlike chess, in which a player unable to move a piece is stalemated, in xiangqi, a player with no legal moves left loses"

This is misunderstanding the word stalemete. In both western chess and Xiangqi, a player with no move is stalemated, that's the very meaning of stalemate. This sentence should be :

"Unlike chess, in which a stalemate (a player being unable to move) results in a draw, a stalemate results in the loss of the player with no legal moves left."

82.242.83.115 (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Chess rating

Should the quality rating for this article from the Chess wiki project be upgraded to a B, to fit with all other associated wiki projects? Also, Xiangqi chess is a very popular form of Chess. Shouldn't its importance be upgraded as well, to mid or even high? I am not a member of the Chess Wiki Project and therefore do not have the right to edit its ratings without consensus. KeeperOfThePeace (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Good observations. No one would object. Ditto for Shogi. Just Nike it. ; --IHTS (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I will upgrade quality to B and importance to mid. KeeperOfThePeace (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Human versus computer

The paragraph "in 2004 it was projected that a human top player would be defeated before 2010" on its own feels outdated, and no more recent information is provided. What is the current status of computer-versus-human xiangqi? This is something I would expect to be mentioned in the article.

--Armin Rigo (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Oh, I didn't notice that. I don't know either. Geekpotato24 (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

potential candidate for pirating japanese chess versions, also chinese chess looks much alike, or perhaps also remix art games, but I am not sure here

The board game figurines look script-wise much not only like chinese chess figurines, but also like the japanese counterparts of Shôgi. For Shôgi, see here: [[2]].

Pirating as antirotarian and antimasonic and antihumanrights! Spread the message!

1. Antipiracy --82.207.238.6 (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Palace vs Castle

Most of the page refers to the Palace, but doesn't explain what it is. There's one reference to a Castle, but that's not used elsewhere. I assume they're the same thing?

Looking at all our References and External Links that are online, I do not see any other references to a Castle, so I don't know where that is from. Most of them use Palace, although I found a website (which we don't cite), ancientchess.com, which uses Fortress. My guess would be that we should remove the reference to Castle, unless someone reading this talk page can point out the "right" thing to do. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2021

Add jyutping to these kinds of pages, because the chinese "dialects" are not mutually intelligible and a cantonese-speaking person cannot have a proper conversation with a mandarin-speaking person in their native tongues. DawnKraken (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Query

• The section about thhe cannon says " Cannons can be exchanged for horses immediately from their starting positions. ". Is this correct? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

yes, it's correct though it's not considered a good opening SmartAlice (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Handicaps

Like handicaps in chess and handicaps in shogi, xiangqi also has handicaps, see [3] and [4]. ——2402:7500:92C:B71D:E5C2:87AE:1BA:504A (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 13:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Xiangqi → Chinese chess – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH this article should be titled as its most common name in English, just like Chinese checkers is. And the most common name for this game in English is "Chinese chess" as is demonstrated by the Google Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The Google Ngrams chart for “Chinese chess” is presumably counting mostly references to chess. The current world champion of chess is a Chinese guy, as well as the current women’s world champion. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the alternate is too easily confused with the topic of chess in China. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Walt Yoder. Would be too easy to confuse with chess in China. JIP | Talk 13:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problematic pronouns in the fourth paragraph of #Rules

There are two occurrences of "he or she" in the bulleted list of ways to prevent perpetual check, and I think they should be replaced with "they", so:

• A player making perpetual checks with one piece or several pieces can be ruled to have lost unless he or she stops they stop such checking.
• A player who perpetually chases any one unprotected piece with one or more pieces, excluding generals and soldiers, will be ruled to have lost unless he or she stops they stop such chasing.
• If one side perpetually checks and the other side perpetually chases, the checking side has to stop or be ruled to have lost.
• When neither side violates the rules and both persist in not making an alternate move, the game can be ruled as a draw.
• When both sides violate the same rule at the same time and both persist in not making an alternate move, the game can be ruled as a draw.

NutronStar45 -- T / C 12:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:Gender-neutral language#Pronouns says, "There is no Wikipedia consensus either for or against the singular they. Though some uses of they with a singular antecedent or referent are well established, some uses remain contentious, and style advice varies." That means that they isn't universally considered wrong, but if you modify existing text to use it, you are asking for an edit war. If the use of "he or she" here is important to you, I recommend that you rewrite to avoid pronouns. For example, "A player making perpetual checks with one piece or several pieces can be ruled to have lost unless the player stops such checking." Bruce leverett (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)