According to Wikipedia Xiangqi is slightly more complex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity#Complexities_of_some_well-known_games

According to Wikipedia Xiangqi is slightly more complex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity#Complexities_of_some_well-known_games

Don't forget Singapore!

Complexity can be defined in several ways. If we just talk about legal board positions, xiangqi has about 10 times that of chess. But because the board is larger, game tree complexity of xiangqi beats that of chess by 37 orders of magnitude.

From personal (patzer) experience of both, chess seems more complex but xiangqi is way harder. Chess has many principles, such as pawn structure, endgame conversions, endgame breakthrough techniques, opening ideas etc. A larger variety of piece moves, the ability to castle, en passant and promotion increase possibilities and make the game more complex.

Xiangqi's "positional play" is very vague and much harder to evaluate, as it is mainly about piece mobility and attack potential, rather than pawn structure. The endgames in xiangqi are very technically demanding (单马胜单士，双兵对双士 for example) and usually it's easier to win in the middlegame than an endgame. Not to mention that tactics and attacks feature heavily at every move in the game, almost more so than material concerns. The ideas in xiangqi are simpler (not quite "sac, sac, mate" but close) but much harder to execute.

Xiangqi is a lot harder, the pawn capture forward and they don't interlock, so it is  a lot open position, basically it is all about mobility and attacking the general. The endgame is extremely complex and pawns don't promote.

no comparison

围棋 is the most complicated game in the known universe.

As a Chinese who plays amateur Xiangqi, I have to say that Xiangqi is simpler, but much more tactical than chess. Tons of dynamic play in XiangQi.

No! Wei qi (Go) is a lot harder and complex game than chess or Xiangqi.

Stratego has the most possibilities if you follow the link to Wikipedia. 

10^535 possibilities!

I've played chinese chess once or twice. It was fun but didn't lead me to take up the game. The fact that chess has spread worldwide but chinese chess has stayed mainly at home may not answer the OP's (slightly odd) question but it does suggest chess is the more engrossing.

Probably it should be 陆战棋。Land warfare chess. I think. I haven't actually played that variant before, though.

As for why xiangqi is not more international, it's probably to do with the pieces used. For chess we have these fancy ponies and castles, but xiangqi just has chinese characters on flat discs. Not so much to do with the gameplay itself, which is plenty engrossing and tricky. Tactical attacks can be conducted with as few as 2 pieces, and even 3 pieces can mean mate sometimes (三子归边). The calculations needed for a 3 piece attack, in my opinion, are far more complicated than the daily ~2300 tactics trainer puzzles I do here.

Is this a real question?

Of course Xiangqi!

In china... everything is more complex.

i agree to Benzodaizepine

This is mathematical complexity. It doesn't account for strategic and positional complexity.

That wiki page people keep referring to is nonsense. Chess has mathematically much, much, more possibilities. In chess pawns promote. And in XiangQi the general doesn't leave the palace, just to name a few factors.