From: wchang@phage.cshl.org (William Chang in Marr Lab - CSHL)
Subject: Re: Xiangi notations & rules
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Lab, Long Is New York
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:46:35 GMT

There _is_ a book in English, Chinese Chess by H.T. Lau, that contains
many exercises and the two most famous classical compilations.  I will
post the publisher info later.

It appears to me that what you want is a hybrid notation, i.e. Cb3-e3,
which is not any less feasible than the one proposed to AXF.  But I don't
think notation is that big an issue; I would be willing to use almost 
anything.  The problem as I see it is not notating a game, but variations
and other aspects of analysis.  My intuition tells me there are more
"good" moves compared to western chess, so most lines of variation
must end with a reference to some winning _technique_, instead of the
actual moves (which can be drawn out--see Lau's book for actual examples).
In western chess this is written "the rest is a matter of technique."

I thought of responding to the game posted in r.g.chess (in fact sort
of did, by emailing the question whether the game was played out later).
But it seemed hopeless to try to discuss the game by email.  When two
people sit down, one can just "motion" a strategy; not possible here.
I think xiangqi is not as popular as it could be because people hadn't
figured out how to _discuss_ the game.  The "jargon" book to be published
(is any information available?) should certainly help.

I think r.g.abstract is the right forum, provided somebody is willing
to post the rules of Xiangqi so others know what we are talking about.
I'm including below my posts to r.g.chess regarding Xiangqi notation.

-- Bill Chang (wchang@cshl.org)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Standardized Notations for Xiangqi
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Lab, Long Is New York
Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep29.045938.7057@nuscc.nus.sg> engp2063@nusunix1.nus.sg 
(NG CHEE MUN SIDNEY) writes:
>
>Xiangqi games to the group, let me briefly explain the notations I will be
>using.
>

[Suggestion: RACER instead of rook]

Please give some more detail, since CHARGES +-= can't describe some moves
unambiguously.  

There's a very nice book, Chinese Chess by H.T. Lau, that uses 

  P P P P P
   C     C

  RNMSKSMNR     [I prefer RNBAKABNR]

and f (forward) b (backward) h (horizontally) [I prefer s for sideways]
Also if two pieces of the same type are on the same file, they are
denoted f (forward) and r (rear), as in fRf2.  

I'd rather use a system based on pinyin and +-_ ; and I'd guess that
non-Chinese-speakers would prefer a system that's closer to chess
and uses f b s instead of +-= (for pronouncibility).  CHARGES seems
unnatural to me--I will have to translate H back to "ma", and I suspect 
others will have to translate it to "knight".

Is this a big deal?

-- Bill Chang (wchang@cshl.org)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Standardized Notations for Xiangqi (LOOKING AHEAD)
Summary: Double chariots through the heart; Canons behind the cavalry
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Lab, Long Is New York
Keywords: 

In article <1992Oct1.060021.4451@nuscc.nus.sg> engp2063@nusunix1.nus.sg 
(NG CHEE MUN SIDNEY) writes:
>I don't know what is the unambiguity you are referring to. 

I just meant situations where pieces of the same type sit on the same file:

  fR+2 [ front racer forward two ]
  bR=4 [ back racer to fourth file ]

  [ f and b instead of the initial file number common to both pieces ]

Same with most other pieces.  But what happens when three or more 
soldiers/pawns sit on the same file? 

Re: RNMSKSMNR     [I prefer RNBAKABNR]
>That's the different notations I have been referring to. But I believe
>that Xiangqi should have a distinct identity of its own and should not
>be 'younger brother' of International Chess all the time. Of course, the
>initial adjustments would be painful....but isn't this what we have to
>go through when we first learn something new?

I see your point.  Nevertheless, I would argue that a pinyin system
is not hard for non-Chinese-speakers to learn (after all Go terminology
is Japanese and quite popular).  Please accept my "criticism" as
constructive--I'm willing to use any system (so long as I get to play :-)
but if it's hard who else would use it?  Every existing player learned 
the game either as "XiangQi" or as "Chinese Chess"; it is up to them to
decide what notation to adopt.

There's really only one way to do this.  Please publish some positions
or games/analyses (with graphics, in each of these notations).  The choice 
might become clear--or perhaps there's no single best choice.

Here's another point I would like to make.  Notation consists of both 
symbols and descriptive words/idioms: "rank"; "file"; "crossing river";
but more importantly there's a rich vocabulary of tactics (similar to 
chess openings) that must be translated.  These allusions and compressions
are poetic phrases carrying cultural/historical context, and are to a large 
extent what makes the game (indeed the Chinese language) so interesting!  
A typical attack LOOKS AHEAD TWENTY MOVES, but only a few tactical steps:
if such and such then "double chariots through the heart"; if so and so 
then "canons behind the cavalry"; etc.  

I'm sure you hadn't planned to deal with this whole can of worms :-) 
but you might want to propose such a project, and in this context 

  RHMAGAMHR+C+S (i.e. CHARGES) might make more sense than either 
  RNBAKABNR+C+P ("Chinese" chess) or
  JMXSGSXMJ+P+Z ("XiangQi"--pinyin, making allowance for "Giang"). 


Good luck and best regards,

-- Bill Chang (wchang@cshl.org)