I want to play the game more. Appreciate that you guys put a lot of effort into this channel despite it not getting as much attention as it deserves. There are so few other good English language resources for this game
Nice, I will tell all my friends that gets bored on chess to try out 象棋, which looks tricky for them, also I am native to Chinese, and the first strategy game I've learned about is exactly 象棋.
You should play both Western chess and Chinese chess because they are both descendants of the common ancestor Chaturanga. They are brother and sister. To know one is to only know half.
One thing that bothers me with Xiangqi is the elephant. I mostly find it a wasted piece, it cannot move much, and rarely seems to be involved. I wonder if there were any discussion in the past to change this and why did they limit its moves. Could you please do a video on the value of the elephant and why/how it came to move this way. Thanks. Enjoy the videos.
Extract from the French-language reference book "Xiangqi, l'univers échecs chinois", Praxeo ed: "The elephant is one of the defensive pieces. It cannot cross rivers (historical records tell of war elephants getting bogged down trying to ford rivers). At the start of the game, each elephant is placed on intersections 3.0 and 7.0, on the assistants' outer side of the general. The elephant moves two steps diagonally, reaching a total of seven intersections. However, this movement can only be made if there are no pieces in the way of the intermediate point of the diagonal. The elephant captures pieces in the same way as it moves. An elephant is considered stronger than an assistant. If the elephants defend each other, they can form a solid barrier in front of the general. A complete defense consists of the two assistants and the two elephants. Between the four of them, they can easily neutralize an opposing offensive piece, including a chariot, as we'll see in the section on finals."
@@alainvillesuzanne8613 Understand that. But the elephant movement being unchanged for centuries (I assume) is not good enough reason to convince me yet. Anyway, it is what it is.
The way I see it, the draw rate for Xiangqi would be a lot higher in the beginner’s level of play due to the fact that both players would be unable to know how to win the game. I’d like to know what everyone thinks about this analysis.
One is not better than the other. One is one and the other is another. What is considered a good rule is a bad rule in another. Stalemate, I think is a bad rule in Western chess. We should go back to the older rule that Chinese chess preserves. Perpetual check is a good rule. If you can perpetually harass someone, it is a draw. Example: Everybody who tried to conquer Afghanistan. You should play both so you can deal with both. There is a good and bad to everything, a Ying and a Yang side if you will.
I want to play the game more. Appreciate that you guys put a lot of effort into this channel despite it not getting as much attention as it deserves. There are so few other good English language resources for this game
Nice, I will tell all my friends that gets bored on chess to try out 象棋, which looks tricky for them, also I am native to Chinese, and the first strategy game I've learned about is exactly 象棋.
That's great!
You like xiangqi more than go?
@@plrc4593 what do you mean?
@@L20412 I'm asking about go/baduk/weiqi.
In West, there are many chess players, but few Xiangqi players, so if you play Xiangqi, you will be one of the best!
You should play both Western chess and Chinese chess because they are both descendants of the common ancestor Chaturanga.
They are brother and sister. To know one is to only know half.
Hello, Thanks for the video. I love Shogi , and Chess, now i would like to try Xiangqi as well
Hope you enjoy!
One thing that bothers me with Xiangqi is the elephant. I mostly find it a wasted piece, it cannot move much, and rarely seems to be involved. I wonder if there were any discussion in the past to change this and why did they limit its moves. Could you please do a video on the value of the elephant and why/how it came to move this way. Thanks. Enjoy the videos.
Yeah for a game that literally translates to "elephant game" you'd think the elephant would have better moving abilities
Extract from the French-language reference book "Xiangqi, l'univers échecs chinois", Praxeo ed:
"The elephant is one of the defensive pieces. It cannot cross rivers (historical records tell of war elephants getting bogged down trying to ford rivers).
At the start of the game, each elephant is placed on intersections 3.0 and 7.0, on the assistants' outer side of the general.
The elephant moves two steps diagonally, reaching a total of seven intersections. However, this movement can only be made if there are no pieces in the way of the intermediate point of the diagonal.
The elephant captures pieces in the same way as it moves.
An elephant is considered stronger than an assistant. If the elephants defend each other, they can form a solid barrier in front of the general. A complete defense consists of the two assistants and the two elephants. Between the four of them, they can easily neutralize an opposing offensive piece, including a chariot, as we'll see in the section on finals."
@@Orthodox_GenZ :) yea, one would think so
@@alainvillesuzanne8613 Understand that. But the elephant movement being unchanged for centuries (I assume) is not good enough reason to convince me yet. Anyway, it is what it is.
Because the elephant game in Chinese also can be interpreted as a mirror game. I think it's due to the symmetry of the game.
The way I see it, the draw rate for Xiangqi would be a lot higher in the beginner’s level of play due to the fact that both players would be unable to know how to win the game. I’d like to know what everyone thinks about this analysis.
The draw rate is actually lower in Xiangqi because it is easier to attack and checkmate
Western chess players know what compositions are.
One is not better than the other. One is one and the other is another.
What is considered a good rule is a bad rule in another.
Stalemate, I think is a bad rule in Western chess. We should go back to the older rule that Chinese chess preserves.
Perpetual check is a good rule. If you can perpetually harass someone, it is a draw. Example: Everybody who tried to conquer Afghanistan.
You should play both so you can deal with both. There is a good and bad to everything, a Ying and a Yang side if you will.
спасибо, неплохо