Talk:Xiangqi

Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star

Xiangqi is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

Archived discussion:

• /Archive 1 — Gwalla | Talk 00:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

1 FAC 2 Re: Ending the Game 3 Rename this article? 4 Piece characters 5 More FAC 6 Thanks! 7 Sound and pronunciation 8 History 9 Variants 10 History

FAC

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 (http://www.chesshub.com/faq/cchess/?L=history), 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)

• Also from the FAC review... a Wikipedian suggested adding major tournaments, play today, and best players. Thus I'm going to add a section for that... my source is this (http://www.chesshub.com/faq/cchess/?L=players) for best xiangqi players in the world, and here (http://www.chessvariants.com/chinfaq.html) for how xiangqi is played today (clubs, tournaments, etc.) Thanks! Flcelloguy 00:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why xiangqi in the US gets its own section. Avoid systemic bias. It would make more sense to talk about the main Chinese association(s) first, then the rest of Asia, then the West. I don't know enough about these groups to make the change though (the chessvariants page only gives addresses for them, it doesn't say which are the biggest or considered most important). — Gwalla | Talk 06:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

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)"... So do you think we should make a section for Xiangqi in the East and then one for Xiangqi in the West? Otherwise how would we differentiate between Europe, which actually has xiangqi leagues, and the U.S.? Or should we just put it all in one section, Xiangqi played today? What do you all think? I've been checking on the article on chess as a model; it's already a FAC. The chess article has a section called "Modern Chess" but it deals more with the development of the chess game in modern times rather than how chess is played today. Let me know what you think! Thanks for your comments and suggestions! Flcelloguy 15:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

Thanks Gwalla! Looks good now. Flcelloguy 16:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Another thing: is the word "xiangqi" Mandarin or Cantonese? We need to make that clear, and possibly provide the name in the other dialect as well. Also, it would be great if somebody with good (Mandarin|Cantonese) pronunciation could upload a sound file of them saying the word, and insert the pronunciation template. — Gwalla | Talk 22:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm a mandarin speaker (though I'm an ABC) and I know xiangqi is a term in Mandarin, though I'm not sure if it is also in Cantonese. I would think it originated in Mandarin since it's the putonghua of China, but let me do some research, I'll get back to you on that. As for pronunciation, I would do it but 1) My Chinese has an English accent, since I'm an American Born Chinese (ABC) 2) I have no clue how to record, considering I have no mic on my computer. :) Otherwise that's a good idea! Flcelloguy 16:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

All Chinese terms, regardless of what dialect (Cantonese, Mandarin, etc.) are written the same. Thus, Cantonese speakers would still write 象棋 for xiangqi. However, every pronunciation is different- according to this (http://www.freeworldgroup.com/games/chinesechess/rules/Xiangqi%20Chinese%20Chess.htm) website, Cantonese speakers pronounce it "Junk Kay". The website also says it is written in Cantonese as "Jeuhng Keih"- I think that's the Hanyupin method of "writing". In other words, in Cantonese, it is still written 象棋 but pronounced differently. Flcelloguy 17:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Xiangqi is the Mandarin pronunciation. The Cantonese pronunciation would be different. —Lowellian (talk) 13:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, do you think the above information should be incorporated into the article? Flcelloguy 17:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

Also, on yet another note, the same Wikipedian also commented that the article needed a longer intro. I don't see what else to add in the intro- anyone have ideas? Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy 17:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Ending the Game

The first line of this section reads, "The game ends when one player successfully checkmates the other player—that is, when one player successfully threatens the opposing general with a piece and the player with the threatened general has no legal moves which would prevent the general from being threatened." But technically, doesn't the game end when one person actually captures the other's general? I think this is an interesting difference between International Chess and Chinese Chess. Assuming the losing player does not concede first, I am pretty sure the winner must physically take the opposing general to win the game. --Fazdeconta 17:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting one. I've never heard of that rule- I was taught that if the General is in check and cannot "escape", the game is over. Do you have a source for that? I would be very interested. Thanks! Flcelloguy 13:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't have a source. It's just my impression coming from the way I was taught, and watching other people play. I'm going to try and find out from a reputable source. I'll get back and include it in the article when I do. --Fazdeconta 16:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am a longtime player of the game and I am sure that the game, ends as soon as the General is in checkmate or is unable to move without entering check, not when the General is actually taken. —Lowellian (talk) 13:41, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Rename this article?

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 (http://www.chessvariants.com/xiangqi.html). 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)

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)

Let me bring in this explanation from the Chinese Chess Union, full text here[1] (http://chinachess.sport.org.cn/jzsw/gdxqwh/2004-07-20/gdxqwh338i350i26834.html), 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.

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)

Piece characters

I see in the article that it mentions the characters that are drawn on the pieces. I think it might be relevant to point out that in quite a few sets I've seen, the soldiers, elephants/ministers, and generals are the ones that mainly have the different characters. The guards sometimes do, but the chariots, cannons, and horses rarely do. I also have never seen a set that uses the simplified characters. Do these sets exist?

At one time or another I've owned three kinds of sets: 1) traditional character, 2) simplied and 3) a mix of both--the jū being traditional and the red jiàng simplipied, for example. Chinese players don't seem to care much either way. Though probably in Taiwan there are more sticklers who only want the traditional sets. Same thing goes for distiguishing between the red and green shì, sometimes they add the rén radical, sometimes they don't. It's pretty much at the whim of the maker. By the way, the characters are usually carved into the discs and then filled in with paint. --Fazdeconta 09:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm just saying what I have seen is all. I have seen quite a few nice sets on eBay of China that use the characters in the way I described. I also did notice the carvings in both wooden and plastic sets. Too bad few of the sellers will ship to the US as I've seen a few sets I would buy. Another good point you mentioned: Red and black or red and green seem to be the most common colors for the sets, though the article does cover that. I brought up the point about the characters mainly because I wondered if it might be a neat tidbit to include in the Xiangqi article. --Sivak 12:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More FAC

More updates from the FAC (you can check it out or cast a vote here)...

A Wikipedian has suggested expanding the opening intro before the sections to two or three paragraphs. Personally, I really don't think that's necessary because the opening paragraph is concise and sums up the article really well- there's no point in going into detail if it's going to be covered later on in the article. But that's just my opinion- any comments, suggestions, etc? Flcelloguy 00:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is two paragraphs... — Gwalla | Talk

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)

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)

Thanks!

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)

Sound and pronunciation

The sound file for the pronunciation of "xiangqi" is very nice! Could we maybe get pronunciations for each of the Chinese terms used in the article? — Gwalla | Talk 00:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Actually, I was thinking of recording the entire article. — Chameleon 00:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've added sound to every Chinese word now, using Template:Audio2. Perhaps Template:Listen would be a good alternative. What do you all think?

---

Template:Listen

---

— Chameleon 16:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Nice work! I do tend to prefer template:audio to template:audio2, though; the subscripts set it off from the text nicely. Template:listen doesn't seem appropriate, since it makes more sense for pronunciations to be put inline with the text and that makes a large box set off from the surrounding text.

Having an audio version of the article would be great. I was going to suggest it before, but I kind of want to see the history thing addressed first. — Gwalla | Talk 21:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ugh, I hate Template:Audio. The superscript text would be OK by itself, but the superscript icon looks horrible. Anyway, it doesn't matter. I shall record the whole article at some point soon. Hey, in the meantime check out my other audio contribs: User:Chameleon/Uploads#Audio!

If there are any native Mandarin speakers here, I'd like to encourage you to record your own voice and upload it over the top of my recordings. I'm sure my accent is far from perfect.

Another thing, I've just added simplified Chinese after all the traditional Chinese characters in the article. If anyone adds more characters, please remember to add both varieties. I totally didn't understand the traditional chars until I looked them up (who would have guessed that 當 was just 当?). — Chameleon 10:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

History

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)

Variants

Does anyone know much about variants of xiangqi (besides janggi)? The Rec.games.chinese-chess FAQ (http://www.chessvariants.org/chinfaq.html#question11) lists some, but isn't very clear about which ones are well-established and which are new. There are evidently multiple half-board variants, and CV has rules for the Peng Hu (http://www.chessvariants.org/oriental.dir/penghu.html) variant supposedly invented on the island of Penghu. H. R. Murray is cited for a three-player variant but Murray is somewhat unreliable (then again, a variant described by Murray may be notable even if it isn't an accurate description of an pre-existing variant). The "Who crosses the river first?" (no Chinese name is given) variant "supposedly comes from the area around Chang-an at a caravan crossing point on the Yellow River". The 5 Tigers variant is supposedly popular. A variant with a randomized starting layout is claimed to be popular in Victoria Park, Hong Kong.

We should probably have a section on variants, but information seems scanty. — Gwalla | Talk 00:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

History

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 (talk • contribs)

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 (talk • contribs)

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 (http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%B1%A1%E6%A3%8B) 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 (talk • contribs).

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 (talk • contribs).

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)