Talk:Xiangqi/Archive 1

message: I believe that I recall that in Korean chess, (1) a stalemate is a draw, and (2) there is no problem with the kings being open to each other down the rank (which really does affect a close end game).
:There's an article on Korean_chess which says that the rules are a bit different, but doesn't say what. To what extent do the two Xiangqi/Janggi differ? I'm inclined to turn the stub at Korean chess into a redirect... Kokiri 13:20, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I did my own research; the two are definitely different, alhough Korean chess (Janggi) is derived from an old version of Xiangqi. Kokiri 13:38, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean variation 

message: It's my humble observation that this article is lacking a pronunciation for Xiangqi. →Raul654 19:10, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
::Maybe the pinyin article will help? I reckon something along the lines of she-ang chee.
----
XQ and Jianggi is NOT the same game and should have separate articles! // Wellparp 10:44, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It doesn't make much sense to cover them in the same article, as the differences are too large. There is already a separate article at Korean chess, though it's just a stub. Obviously this needs sorting out, preferably by someone who knows the game fairly well. --Zundark 11:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Kokiri 13:38, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've sorted out some of the major errors in the Janggi page, and now I'm confident it stands well on its own. And as a Korean who was introduced to Xiangqi about a year ago, I can tell you that Janggi and Xiangqi are completely different games in terms of strategy and so forth, although many Koreans do not know that the Chinese play such a different game. I was surprised as well at the differences when I first saw the board and pieces and learned the rules of Xiangqi. Anyways, I would like to suggest that the constant reference to the different Korean rules be cleaned up in this article. --Iceager 13:27, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the corrections to the Janggi article.  I think it is time to cleanse the Xiangqi article of its persistent references to Janggi.  It should mention Janggi no more than it mentions shogi or chess.  The only reason we listed all the differences was because we didn't have a separate Janggi article at that time, so this one had to do for both.  --Fritzlein 20:43, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done this now. --Zundark 13:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: This is the conventional view. Chess is certainly derived from the Indian game of Chaturanga, and it's usually assumed that Xiangqi is also derived from Chaturanga. In any case, there are so many similarities between Chaturanga and Xiangqi that even if Xiangqi isn't derived from Chaturanga itself, it must at least be derived from an ancestor of Chaturanga. --Zundark 13:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: "The horse 馬 or 马 (mǎ) is similar to the Knight in Western chess. It is important to distinguish that, the horse moves one point vertically or horizontally and then two points horizontally or vertically respectively, away from its starting position. Thus, the horse cannot jump over certain pieces as the knight in Western chess."
i don't know how to describe it....
but the horse moves one point vertically or horizontally(point A) then one point diagonally forward with respect to the point A(can not land to the point next to the origional point).
players can block the horse by place a piece on point A.
Moved my comment to below "Movement of the Horse." --Fazdeconta 18:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewording the part with horse please? 

message: Anyone have perhaps a few more openings than the standard one? Since International Chess has a huge set of openings. 70.111.224.85 20:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For that purpose, you could try create a new wiki page. Just Middle Cannon vs Screen Horses (Zhongpao dui PingfengMa) opening easily expands to several megabytes in text. Tac ke 09:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Openings 

message: The game tree is listed, but what about the state space? I'm trying to verify the numbers on the game complexity article. 70.111.251.203 14:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Complexity

message: Please take a look at my website:  
The Elephant Chess Club
The redesigned xiangqi set features double-sided playing pieces.  There are traditional Chinese characters on the obverse sides and intuitive characters on the reverse sides, so anyone can play xiangqi.  When I returned from China in 1997, I found that it was very difficult to teach people the game because the Chinese ideograms were too intimidating.  I appreciate your feedback.
I would like to add this site as a link from the Wikipedia Xiangqi article.  Could you help me with this?
Thanks
Michael
:Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a strict policy on external links. As a general rule of thumb, sites that do not add significantly to the article should not be added or included, and placing links for promotional purposes is also frowned upon as spam. Thus, the website you cite is probably not appropriate as an external link on this article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internationalized Version of Xiangqi 

message: "While their origin is probably not the same as that of the queen in Western chess[2], their powers are distinct from those of the queen[3]."
What.  This sentence is nonsensical.  It basically says: "Although they are different, they are different."  Perhaps it should be "because" or maybe that they did come from the same origin.  I don't know the history, though, so someone should fix the sentence. 70.110.191.29 (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an extraneous "not" there. They likely derived from a common ancestor of the Queen (which derived from a piece that could move one square at a time diagonally). — Gwalla | Talk 23:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queens and Advisors 

message: I don't see how it can be avoided by 
:have 1 advisor move diagonally forward prior to double cannon being set up. This allows the general to move sideways to avoid the check.
If the player is threatened by double cannon where the first cannon is already in place then moving the guard up would be an suicide move since the guard would serve as platform for the cannon.  Can anyone think of a situation where moving the guard is possible?  I've removed the text in the mean time.  NYCDA 16:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Cannon Technique Under Gameplay and strategy 

message: I would think a section on cultural references would be interesting, including items such as the movie "The Black Cannon Incident." DOR (HK) (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural references

message: If I understood well :
Piece                                	English                              	Moves                                                    	Lenght                               	Jump                                 	Area of action                       	Point(s)
                                     	Soldier                              	Own place: Forward.Adversary place: left, forward, right.	1                                    	no                                   	all                                  	1
                                     	Horse                                	30° and 60° diagonals                                    	2 cases                              	no                                   	all                                  	4 - 5
                                     	Cannon                               	vertical and horizontal                                  	all                                  	                                     	all                                  	4 - 5
                                     	Chariot                              	vertical and horizontal                                  	all                                  	no                                   	all                                  	9
                                     	Elephant                             	45° diagonals                                            	2 cases                              	no                                   	place                                	1 - 2
                                     	Advisor                              	diagonals                                                	1                                    	no                                   	palace                               	2
                                     	General                              	vertical and horizontal                                  	1                                    	no                                   	palace                               	give victory
= see images and explanations bellow.	= see images and explanations bellow.	= see images and explanations bellow.                    	= see images and explanations bellow.	= see images and explanations bellow.	= see images and explanations bellow.	
Image:XiangqiCannonJumpToCapture.png|Capture by the Cannons
Image:MovementOfHorsePiece.png|Move by the Horses
Yug (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary using a table (under expansion) 

message: I've combined the "Tactics" section with "Gameplay and strategy".  Firstly, so the description of notation comes before the part that uses notation, and secondly since most of the "Gameplay and strategy" section was tactical.  I think the article could benefit from more improvements, but I know little about this game so I think it better to leave it to more knowledgable editors.  My suggestions:
===Specific===
* Some more diagrams to illustrate the positions described by lists of moves.
* For each piece, having described it and the various names choose one and stick to it for the rest of the article.  e.g. either always say "chariot" or always "rook".
* "A chariot can threaten one just by moving to a space where all brown spaces available to the elephant are threatened."  Seems to be a diagram missing here.
* Capturing.  Presumably pieces generally capture using their normal move, unless specifically otherwise described, but it would be clearer to state this for each piece.
* Perpetual checking and chasing.  Article says you can't continue these indefinitely.  How many moves can you continue them?
* Check and checkmate (and by extension stalemate) are specifically chess-derived terms from the name of the king.  Are there Chinese equivalent terms for this game?  Do English speaking players usually say "check" and "checkmate", however?  Would be useful to clarify.
* As a novice I found the many names of pieces confusing.  I think each piece's description section should be labelled with its common name (Advisor, Elephant, etc) and the rest relegated to the descriptive text.  
* Some names are specifically confusing.
** Why is the advisor never called "scholar" although the character on both sides' pieces means that?
** Advisor is also called "minister", but that is also  the character used on some of the elephants. That's confusing.  Would a player ever say "he took my minister", and if so would he always mean "advisor"?  Clarify please.
** Is it "elephant" or "war elephant"?
** Is it really called "rook"?  This is a very chess-specific name for an English speaker (although it apparently comes from the Persian for chariot.) If so, should it say "by analogy to the similar piece in Western chess, the chariot is sometimes called the rook"? 
** Cavalry.  This is a plural word for a group of horse soldiers.  Is the individual piece called "a cavalry" or would this only be used to mean "both horses"?
* check & checkmate have descriptions of the Chinese words and characters, and audio files.  The same should be done for stalemate - or is it just the same word as checkmate?
===More broadly===
* Gameplay section could be divided into sub-sections e.g. "checks", "formations", "control", "strategies".  Those might not be the best divisions.
* More strategy information would be nice, if there are acknowledged strategies in a similar fashion to chess.
* Article assumes the reader understands chess.  Concepts such as "fork", "pin", "windmill" etc should be described.  I think it would be better to describe them here in Xiangqi terms, and not keep saying "like chess/unlike chess".  There are a few specific points chess players will wonder about which it would be sensible to leave. (e.g. about not being able to promote soldiers)
* Actually, I don't see the value of comparing it point by point to chess - anyone who knows that game can read the article and work it out for themselves.  However, if there are subtler or strategic considerations that are interestingly different from chess, perhaps a section on those would be useful to readers familier with chess.  (Perhaps a similar section in the chess article would be useful for people who play Xiangqi.)
Lessthanideal (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one has made any comments, so I have been bold and started making some changes. I've crossed out above what I've done.  I've also settled for consistency on upper-case X for Xiangqi, and "Western chess" for that game.  I've added in some basics about moving in turn, and capturing, and moved the section on ending the game to the rest of the game description sections, i.e. above the individual piece descriptions.  Lessthanideal (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous suggestions for improvement 

message: * Gameplay section could be divided into sub-sections e.g. "checks", "formations", "control", "strategies".  Those might not be the best divisions.
* More strategy information would be nice, if there are acknowledged strategies in a similar fashion to chess.
* Article assumes the reader understands chess.  Concepts such as "fork", "pin", "windmill" etc should be described.  I think it would be better to describe them here in Xiangqi terms, and not keep saying "like chess/unlike chess".  There are a few specific points chess players will wonder about which it would be sensible to leave. (e.g. about not being able to promote soldiers)
* Actually, I don't see the value of comparing it point by point to chess - anyone who knows that game can read the article and work it out for themselves.  However, if there are subtler or strategic considerations that are interestingly different from chess, perhaps a section on those would be useful to readers familier with chess.  (Perhaps a similar section in the chess article would be useful for people who play Xiangqi.)
Lessthanideal (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one has made any comments, so I have been bold and started making some changes. I've crossed out above what I've done.  I've also settled for consistency on upper-case X for Xiangqi, and "Western chess" for that game.  I've added in some basics about moving in turn, and capturing, and moved the section on ending the game to the rest of the game description sections, i.e. above the individual piece descriptions.  Lessthanideal (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More broadly

message: The description of which character is used to represent the two generals is reversed from the characters which are displayed on the images. My guess is the description has it backwards.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by F4hy (talk • contribs) 11:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description and image do not match color for generals 

message: There's an claim about black moving first in the article. The claim is made by weasel words, unreferenced, and the source given for the paragraph says very clearly that "Red moves first". I also play xiangqi myself fairly often since I was still 5 years old, and absolutely never heard of a rule under which black moves first... (Except, of course, if black is handicapped, then black moves first.) I've slapped a CN tag on the claim, and if no one objects, I'll remove it. Blodance the Seeker 07:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Black moves first?

message: In this article is the elephant (piece) supposed to represent an elephant?  I'm pretty sure they represent officers.  (I'm sorry if this has been mentioned before above)
Hyper Zergling (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article itself says pretty enough. Blodance the Seeker 07:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Elephant piece

message: I heard that it was the most popular board game in the world. Can a reliable source be found to confirm this?  Also, it would be important to note how it qualifies.  Greatest number of people who know how to play?  Greatest number of people who have played it at least [some number of times] in their lives?  Greatest number of games played over a period of time?  Greatest amount of time playing?  Thanks.  206.9.209.83 (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: it is not. It is #2 behind Go (game) but it hsa some stats from the IMSA bodies I believe the normal official figure is around 100 million.Tetron76 (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it really the most popular board game in the world? 

message: The article stated that: The earliest literary reference to Xiangqi comes from the 6th century and gives as reference: Needham, Joseph. Thoughts on The Origin of Chess, Cambridge, 1962.
This is out of the standard timeline of Chess games and it would have to be marked as such. However, it seems that the game of this reference is not the Xiangqi which is the subject of the article. Other than that, it is difficult to locate the Chinese source in question. The reference itself (Cambridge 1962) is pretty thin, too. -- Zz (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest Reference 

message: Six books by one author in the book list makes it look like someone is promoting that author.  Could it be reduced to one item, perhaps that points to the series of books? 206.53.197.12 04:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without looking, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that the author in question is David H. Li.  If we have (or had) a list of books that was dominated by his works, it's because he's the only well-known author to write about the subject in English.  Heather (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books 

message: Wondering...can the advisor attack and how?  The article does not really specify on that...thanks...CharlesZ 15:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The advisors can't leave the palace/fortress (Whatever you wanna call it), so not really.  The general is the only piece that can "attack", per se, from the palace due to the rule of them not being allowed to face each other on the same file.  You could have a chariot in one file checking the enemy general on the edge of its palace and your own general in an empty file next to the chariot's and that would be a checkmate since the enemy general is being checked by the chariot and it can't move into the file where your general is.  But as far as the advisors go, there aren't any rules about them not being able to face each other.  The advisors can capture other pieces, if that's what you meant...  Hope that helps. --Sivak 13:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Advisors is used for protecting King, and that is their main purpose. They could be used as screens for the Cannons to attack, especially in endgame. Tac ke 05:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Advisors are allowed to attack as any other piece. They attack how they move.--89.14.96.139 (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advisor attacking 

message: In most Chinese formal tournaments, there isn't a fixed round-time limit for blitz games. Player have to make a certain number of moves (instead of finish the game) in a certain time. I have seen two common forms: "Blitz", where players have to do 40 moves under 10 minutes and "Super Blitz", where a play have to do 30 moves in 5 minutes. Times gets accumilated; that means if a player did 40 moves in 8 minute in a "Blitz" game, the player will have up to 12 minutes for the next 40. I cannot find a internet based source for this; but this type of game is aired on TV in China played by highest-ranking masters. Any comments?Rockvee (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time limit in blitz games 

message: A sinologist friend pointed out a mistranslation in the current Xiangqi article, which claims, "The Indian name "king" for this piece was changed to "general" because China's rulers objected to their royal title "king" or "emperor" being given to a game-piece." The reference cites, "A History of Chess, p.120, footnote 3 says that Ssŭ-ma Kuang wrote in T'ung-kien nun  in AD 1084 that Emperor Wen of Sui (541–604) found at an inn some foreigners playing a board game whose pieces included a piece called "I pai ti" = "white emperor"; in anger at this misuse of his title he had everybody at the inn put to death." The original Zizhi Tongjian passage reads: 帝既喜怒不恒，不复依准科律。信任杨素，素复任情不平，与鸿 胪少卿陈延有隙，尝经蕃客馆，庭中以马屎，又众仆于氈上樗蒲，以白帝。帝大怒，主客令及樗蒲者皆杖杀 之，棰陈延几死 。(資治通鑑/卷178) This context concerns playing chupu 樗蒲 "ancient Chinese gambling game roughly resembling today's dice" on felt, which was yibaidi 以白帝 "reported to the emperor".  Chupu was a variant of Liubo, see Chinese WP article, but it apparently does not involve "emperor". Although Baidi literally means "white emperor" (which was a name of Emperor Guangwu of Han, see Baidicheng), in this context it obviously means "make clear/plain to the emperor". This classical Chinese expression 以白帝 "report to the emperor" occurs 36 times in Wikisource Chinese histories. For instance, the Sui Shu tells this same Emperor Wen story with 旋以白帝, adding it was xuan 旋 "soon; before long" reported to the emperor (隋書/卷25). Does anyone have access to A History of Chess? If so, we could follow up on the source of this mistranslation, which many websites have copied from Wikipedia. Keahapana (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious source 

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

message: I reverted this text out of the Ending the Game section:
"If one player puts the opponent into a situation where it cannot make a move without moving its king into an attacked square (but the king isn't attacked itself, just like the Stalemate in Western Chess), the game ends in a win for the offensive side. (In short, Stalemate = Checkmate)"
An earlier paragraph already makes the stalemate = checkmate point, and in any even doesn't need to be bulleted as part of the repeat positions. -- JHunterJ 12:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stalemate and Repeated Moves

message: The rules quote in this section to end game is either completly wrong or not needed.  I know they are from http://www.clubxiangqi.com/rules/asiarule.htm but clubxiangqi seems to have invented those rules for the sake of tournaments.
From http://www.chessvariants.com/xiangqi.html the rules is
:3. Perpetual check is forbidden. You cannot check your opponent more than three times in a row with the same piece and same board positions. 
which is also not correct.  The rule is simply you cannot check your opponent more than 3 times in a row.
There is no rule regarding perpetually chasing because in this situation, either both sides can't afford to lose the chase there by ending the game in a draw or one side has enough advantage and will concede the chasing to the weaker side.  -- 18:41, 26 Jan 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute

message: I'm not very familiar with the game, but couldn't the "checkmate" as depicted in the image be avoided by moving the left minister piece down? → Synook 讲讲 11:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, ignore me, I read the article more closely. → Synook 讲讲 21:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Checkmate?

message: Documenting my FAC research...
* A Wikipedian brought up the sentence claiming that Xiangqi was the most popular form of chaturanga. I could find no concrete evidence for this- not a surprise! I doubt that there is a way to count the entire number of players, because of the millions of casual players out there. Also, what defines a player? The closest I could find to upholding that sentence came here, and it seemed more like a casual, offhand statement than fact. Thus, I've changed the sentence to say that xiangqi is one of the world's most popular forms of chaturanga, especially in Asia. This seems to be agreed upon. Flcelloguy 00:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean. From the FAC: "Also I think there needs to be a section about the way Xiangqi is played today, what are the major tournaments, and who are the best players. Deepak 21:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should share a section. Probably "Xiangqi tournaments and leagues"  (as it's a Chinese game, "international" would mean "outside of China" rather than "outside of the U.S." anyway). China should come first, since it's the place of origin. Then the rest of Asia, then Europe. U.S. should probably come last because it's the least organized. Rankings should be a subsection. My latest edit moves towards this arrangement.  — Gwalla | Talk 22:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Gwalla! Looks good now. Flcelloguy 16:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Documenting my research

message: On a different note, on xiangqi's FAC site (here) another Wikipedian comments that the template for sources (I think she's talking about the external links in  ==Xiangqi Tournaments and Leagues==  are incorrect. I'm not familiar with doing the external links/sources- could someone with experience help us out here? Thanks in advance! Flcelloguy 17:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates incorrect

message: Also, the Wikipedian also commented that the Table of Contents seemed to be lopsided with too many subheadings. Again, I personally think that it looks OK- any comments, suggestions? I'm always open to more input. Thanks to everyone for helping out! Flcelloguy 00:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They're probably referring to the subsections on each type of piece, which results in a relatively long string of subheadings in the first section. I think it's fine. The important thing isn't how many subheadings there are, but whether they are the result of a clear and logical structure. I think they are. Each section on a piece has a few paragraphs, so it makes sense to divide them like that.  — Gwalla | Talk 06:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it would be too much just as you read through, but you can edit the TOC to remove those entries. Fixed. — LlywelynII 10:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many subheadings?

message: Thank you to all who helped write and edit this article and helped make this a featured article. Your work is truly appreciated- keep up the excellent work! Flcelloguy 01:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks!

message: Xiangqi was featured on the main page on Wednesday, July 13! Once again, thank you to all editors and contributors. Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk  17:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an excellent article.  A refreshing read. Thanks! --LeoTheLion 19:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article on Main Page

message: Someone might want to mention it's similarity to Korean Chess, perhaps just provide a link and let them find out that the differences are only in the setup and movement of some pieces. 70.111.224.85 20:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Janggi (Korean chess) is already mentioned in the lead. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Korean Chess

message: Since there is an article about the Korean variant/version of this game, should there not be one of the Vietnamese variant? The Chinese version is played in Vietnam, (or was when I was there), but there is a local version with slightly different rules for some of the pieces, about as different as the Korean version from what I recall. The set up may differ also. Someone could check this out? Halfelven 04:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you could do that. 209.131.226.58 (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be very surprising. All sources and all testimonies show that co tuong in Vietnam is the same than xiangqi. Which is not true for Korean janggi which presents significant differences. Any clues supporting that a local vietnamese variant exists somewhere would then be very appreciated.Cazaux (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Vietnamese Chess

message: I'll create some new nice images for this article. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice images!  Did you use a Xiangqi font to do it?  I have one, though mine doesn't do the red pieces (chariots and horses) with that extra character on the left nor the black cannon with the different character on the left.  If you did use a font, maybe you should post it. -- Sivak 13:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New images

message: There is an error on image "Checkmate.png". The "bishop" is at the wrong place, and it will never reach that spot. :-( Jason Soong 13 July 2005 (EST)
:Which one is the "bishop"? You mean the elephant? I'll correct it later... -- Jerry Crimson Mann 10:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Error

message: Just wanted to announce, for those who know of the templates Template:Chess position and Template:Game of Go Position - I have a similar template coming up for xiangqi very soon...just have to get every single combination of squares (corner, side, middle, etc.) can be on, which is about 8 per piece....I will submit it very soon! -- Natalinasmpf 16:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template 

message: Following Go with Template:Game of Go position and chess with Template:Chess diagram, I have made a template for Xiangqi.
The template is transcluded by



It works just like the other templates: r stands for the chariot/rook, h for horse, e for elephant, a for advisor/guard, g for general, s for soldier, and c for cannon. D denotes "dark" for black, and l denotes "light" for white.
You can adjust the parameter where it says "30" to control the size of the board (the size of each image). It works roughly like the previous templates mentioned.
The characters are a tad ugly, but that's because I don't have good calligraphy on a computer. That can be fixed later, if needed. Adding something for arrows, etc. might be a tad more complex, but it is workable. Other possibilities include portions of the board (ie. like the middle, or a quarter of it, for individual examples). Tell me what you think! -- Natalinasmpf 17:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks decent.  The black pieces look like they are in bold though...  Not BAD, just strange.  Though will we be seeing any USE of it anywhere?  --Sivak 01:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Possibly while documenting games? Currently there isn't an abundance of use to it due ot systemic bias, ie. because we do note individual chess games like the Game of the Century. I put the black pieces in bold to distinguish it from the red, but on hindsight I'm not sure whether I should have done that for the red, too. -- Natalinasmpf 16:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I guess it could be used for articles documenting individual games, but when I first saw this template my thought was - we could have a game over at Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess. Nice work, by the way. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a great template! — Gulliver ✉ 08:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just used it - good stuff Lessthanideal (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: I have just added the Blocked Elephant rule. A picture to explain this rule is highly appreciated. Tac ke 06:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustration for Blocked Elephant Rule

message: The lead image, a copyrighted screenshot from a computer game, is completely unacceptable. I've tagged it as replaceable fair use and it is scheduled for deletion in seven days. If someone made all the rest of the images, someone can make a complete board as well. Regards, howcheng  {chat} 16:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did it myself. howcheng  {chat} 16:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that still a computer game screenshot? A pic of an actual board might be preferable. — Gwalla | Talk 23:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not impossible that he pieced together the image himself... enochlau (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a screenshot. I did the lines in Inkscape, imported them to GIMP, then got all the images used in the article for the various pieces and arranged them on my board image. I can send the GIMP file to anyone who's interested. :) howcheng  {chat} 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead image

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