[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Xiangqi: Chinese Chess. Links and rules for Xiangqi (Chinese Chess). (9x10, Cells: 90) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I disagree. We shouldn't have Checkers listed here for the same reason.
I would also disagree with Go having an entry on here. It isn't part of the same family of abstract strategy games Chess is.
Checkers might be considered trivial, while Go is quite complex. Though a simple reference link would suffice.
Not sure triviality or not is an issue here. What may be beneficial is if the CV site had a place to reference other games that aren't in the same family as chess. I do believe the Courier system does enable people to play Go on it (and checkers also).
I agree with the reasoning for why Chess has a greater state-space complexity and a greater game-tree complexity than Chinese Chess. Having programmed the rules of both games, I will add some thoughts on computational complexity. This is primarily a factor of the number of possible moves available to a player each turn. Since Chess pieces all have greater powers of movement than their Chinese counterparts, a computer playing Chess may have to make more calculations to evaluate a move to the same depth. The main factors in favor of greater computational complexity for Chinese Chess are the larger board, the presence of Cannons, and the rule against opposing Generals. The larger board affects mainly Cannon and Chariot moves, since other pieces have limited ranges, and the opposing Generals rules. A Cannon is less computationally complex than a Rook, because it normally has fewer spaces it can move to. A Bishop is also less computationally complex than a Rook. Although the code for a Bishop move will be nearly identical to the code for a Rook move, it has as many possible moves as a Rook only from some positions. A centered Bishop has 14 possible moves on an empty board, the same as a Rook, but as a Bishop moves toward the edge, it has fewer possible moves on an empty board. I haven't done the math to tell which is more complex, but I suspect the Cannon is. Although a Horse sometimes has fewer moves than a Knight, it adds the computational complexity that comes from being able to pin pieces. A horse move can affect the possible moves of the opponent in ways that a Knight move cannot. The main source of greater complexity for Chess comes from the greater powers of the King and Queen, the ability of Pawns to promote, and the rules concerning castling and en passant. A Queen may have as much complexity as two Cannons, maybe more. A King normally has more moves than a General, and the opposing Generals rule only adds one more move to consider. Based on these considerations, I suspect that Chess is more computationally complex, but I have not done the math that a proof would require.
An aspect of Chinese Chess is that certain pieces are primarily defensive(Elephants and Ministers). Also that the both players need to maintain offensive pieces to prosecute the game. These values can tax a simple depth-search program. Demanding at least a few extra computational considerations.
H. G. Muller wrote on Sat, Oct 31, 2009 10:14 PM UTC:The defensive pieces required a new approach in material evaluation, in my Xiangqi engine HaQiKi D. Rather than having a fixed value, their value is strongly dependent on the attacking material the opponent has. To implement that I use a material table that is indexed by the number of attacking pieces of each type for one side, and the number of defensive pieces of the other side. In my simpler engine MaxQi (a dedicated version of Fairy-Max that can only play Xiangqi) I just use fixed piece values, and then itregularly happens that it converts its entire advantage to defensive pieces, thinking it is 800 centi-Pawn ahead, while in fact it has zero winning chance...
We need a link to where we can find someplace to both learn how to play, play with others and play with others at our same level.
Skye, Have you noticed the column of links on the right side? It provides links to sites where you can play against other people. Determining whether other players are at your own level is something you'll have to determine on your own. If you use Game Courier, Game Courier's rating system can help you identify who plays at your level once you have played enough games to have a meaningful rating. This page describes the rules, and if that isn't sufficient for helping you learn how to play, there are links on the right side to other sites describing how to play, as well as to software you can use to learn and play the game.
I have question: what are early variants of Xian-qi?
Do someone know something about ancient Chinese game 'Semedo'? I read that it's early variant of Xiang-qi, but i don't know exact rules and can't find it.
This is very good introduction to ÏóÆå¡£Thank you! I have one suggestion here about the meaning of ½«. it is not 'will' or 'going to' here, although it does have such meanings. The character by itself means something similar to 'to lead' as a verb, or it could mean 'leader/general' as an abbreviation for ½«Áì. It is also a military rank nowadays. ½« is pronounced with the fourth tone here whereas when it's used to express the meaning of 'will' or 'going to', it's pronounced with the third tone.
'Junk Kay' Actually, it's pronounced without the 'k' sound in the first word. So you might want to revise the sentence to read 'Jun Kay' (although it sounds more correct pheonetically as 'Jerng Kay'.)
Here's my new video on how to play Chinese Chess:
Fergus, one very important rule is not implemented in your Xiangqi preset. Players are not allowed to move back and forth so that the position is repeated three times (immediately after one another, not overall, as in Fide-chess). If there were no such prevention of repetition, then Xiangqi would be much more drawish. Would it be possible to implement this rule so that the player who tries to repeat the position for the third time is prevented from doing this move? Exceptions are if he makes the move with a soldier, or with the general, when he can continue play. There are cases when players are allowed to go back and forth, when they both go back and forth between different squares, but in this case the players can agree on a draw, so your prevention of the third move only serves as a reminder that it is a draw. /Mats
H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, Jan 21, 2011 01:37 PM UTC:I don't think you give a correct summary of those Xiangi rules. At least, not for the rules I know ('Asia rules'). For one, the condition is for causing any repeated position, not just consecutive. (So just like in FIDE Chess.) The difference with FIDE rules is that a 3rd repeat is not automatically draw, but can also be judged as win or loss. A side that is somehow forcing the repetition will be ruled to lose, where forcing by checking is considered a worse offense than forcing by merely attacking a superior or unprotected non-royal piece ('chasing'). So that if both are continuously forcing each other, the checking side loses. To be counted as a perpetual check or chase, every move of the repeat loop must be a forcing move threatening the same piece; if there is only one 'quiet' move (even a mate-in-1 threat) in the loop, or a move that only threatens another piece, (even if that is a check amongst chases), it is not considered perpetual check or chase.
The exact rules for which moves are to beconsidered forcing, and which not, are so complex that it requires a sizable AI to implement them. (See http://www.clubxiangqi.com/rules/asiarule.htm )
China mainland rules seem to be even more complex (even mate threats counting as forcing), and I have never been able to find an English description of them.H.G., I think my summary is good enough, because it is only a matter of putting an end to the repetition process. Whether the third repetition should result in a draw or a win, needn't be evaluated by the preset. The preset merely prevents the third repetition, if it isn't made by a king, or a soldier. It's a clever solution. The players can decide to continue, or the losing player may give up instead of continuing the repetition, or the players could agree on a draw, depending on what the rules say. I have played on the Xiangqi sites, and they brutally prevent three-fold repetition, or judge it as a loss to the repeating party. /Mats
H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, Jan 21, 2011 03:20 PM UTC:Well, Xiangqi servers are infamous for poor implementation of the rules (not surprisingly, when these rules are next to infinitely complex). One of my points was that it is not just for moving back and forth, but for any repeat, no matter how far in the past. This in definite disagreement with what you said. But your idea of providing a warning is a good one, I think. Except that I think it would be better to give the warning already on the first repetition, and terminate the game (with unknown score) on the third repetition. Even if the moves were with a King or Pawn (because it is still a draw then, and only if the King or Pawn did not discover threats by other pieces, which is again complex to test.) The warning could be something like: WARNING! You are repeating a previous position. If both of you will keep this up, the game will be declared lost to the side which is forcing the other to repeat (by checking, or perpetually threatening a favorable capture of the same piece).
Is the repetition rule really valid for *all* moves, and not only for consecutive repetitions? I didn't know that, because then the notion of 'chase' loses its meaning. Anyway, I don't think it's necessary to check other repetitions than the consecutive. This is the form of repetition that causes problems, and non-consecutive three-move repetitions are nearly non-existent. /Mats
H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, Jan 21, 2011 04:50 PM UTC:I agree that longer repeat cycles are quite rare. Although they would get more frequent when you allow them, but not 4-ply cycles, because the losing player would start to especially seek them in order to dodge the 4-ply rule. I tested in engine games, and between an engine that knows the rule, and one that doesn't, about 13% of the games end in a perpetual chase. (when both know about perpetual checking. If one of them does not know that rule, he would lose almost every game by doing it.) The point is of course that it becomes progressively more difficult to keep chasing the piece for a longer number of moves. But this would typically occur when the chased side does not know that chasing is illegal, and desparately tries to escape it. (E.g. a passed Pawn chased by a Rook along files, running back and forth over the full width of the board.)
A very nice well put page. However my only minor remark would be that the there is not a western symbol on the page for the chariot. I see the rook which is the same thing, but it does not have the same feeling. I remember growing up and always seeing a picture of a chariot on the piece.
Game Courier, Coffee Chinese Chess, and my ZRF for Chinese Chess all give you the option of using a wheel image for the Chariot. The Rook is used on this page to more easily introduce the game to Chess players who are new to the game. The Chess pieces used on this page are not targeted at people, such as yourself, who have already been playing the game for years. They are here mainly for Chess players who have no prior experience with Xiangqi.
great introduction :D i feel that to win in xiangqi you should think more about what your opponent can move and counter it as you are advancing your pieces over the river. thinking more can make you more experienced in the game too as it you can know how to react to certain moves of the opponent
I found an image of a Chinese chess variant (http://www.hudong.com/versionview/idl,pAUWBxBWVKVEd2U,kVZZA) that I don't recognize and wonder if anyone knows what one it is. I have searched on the Chessvariants' website but have found nothing similar. From what I can see, the board has been lengthened by two ranks on each side of the river, the extended range of the elephant inscribed on the board, and the governor used for both sides as the royal piece in the fortress; the generals (two per side) are positioned for a new function, it seems, outside the fortress.
That is interesting. One could post to a Chinese chess forum and ask somebody to translate.
Large Chinese Chess
/Mats
Large Chinese Chess
/Mats
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.