which is more complex,chess or xiangqi(chinese chess)?

Thanks.Many guys send messages to me ,I don't know how to deal with.

It is tradition,every country has its own traditions,am I right?   The Chinese plays Xiangqi for more than one thousand years. The Chinese plays Weiqi more than 2000 years(I think). We Chinese didn't know what chess was until about 1900(I guess).

Chess and Weiqi are beautiful. Although Xiangqi is not so beautiful,it is fun and playable.

Chess has just as many principles.

I am Chinese, yes.

wjcsz wrote:

VULPES_VULPES wrote:

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.

Are you Chinese? sorry for my English.I agree with you that xiangqi is simpler.

I think xiangqi and chess are about the same and it comes down to what ever game your better at. I think Shogi is a lot more complicated than both. I'm a lot better at chess than xiangqi but they are very similiar and I think I could get just as good at xiangqi if I put in the effort. Shogi is harder because of all the different types of castles and all the piece dropping.  I've read that the math says that xiangqi is slightly more complex than chess because it simply has a greater complexity tree with a greater number of squares on the board. There are more moves to be made. Shogi has a greater complexity tree than both chess and xiangqi. Everything or at least 99.9999999 percent of the universe can be described mathematically. Chess has been pretty much figured out with computers. Computers will beat the best human chess players in the world easily and have been doing so for years. On the other hand, computers still struggle against the best xiangqi and shogi players but its only a matter of time before computers easily dominate in those games as well; a very very short time.  Another thing to consider is that chess is a more positional game with pawn chains and structures dictating how the game is played. Chess has lots of tactics but the pawns in chess can support each other and they work together. You must know these structures and how to play a given position. You can only use tactics when you have a good position. Xiangqi doesn't have long pawn chains and structures. To be a great xiangqi and shogi player, you must have great tactical knowledge. In chess, there is more knowledge of opening theory and a lot of games are won before they get to the end game. I'm not sure if Shogi and xiangi rely on such a great opening knowledge but I do know they do have opening knowledge. I'm just not sure if its as great as chess. Maybe thats why computers have an edge over human players in chess  and not shogi or xiangqi because the opening theory of chess is progressed much more than the other games.

Yes, Singapore has xiangqi players, and a federation, and a handful of masters. Fewer than chess, I think, but both the federations' headquarters are both in the same rather small building, which shows how popular both of these are. :P There used to be more old people playing xiangqi on the street some years back, but not any more. Probably not on the scale of China/Taiwan/Vietnam.

Yes, I speak Chinese (但没有什么水准。) Well enough to read xiangqi (and non-xiangqi) books, although I prefer traditional Chinese. 繁体字。

I haven't encountered many xiangqi principles. The openings are almost freeform and highly transpositional, and whether to push the 3rd/7th pawn, to use horizontal or vertical rooks, when to rush across the river etc is less obvious than how to develop simply and classically in chess.

Also, I never really understood why xiangqi mating problems are harder than chess. I mean, the king's trapped in the palace, every move you make must be a check, and even then it's sometimes ridiculously hard to see any sequence leading to mate. Probably I'm just bad at it.

But Xiangqi is played on a 9x9 board.

9x10. 9 columns, 10 rows.

O right, my bad. Anyway, that means that Xiangqi has a lot more "squares" than chess, so it makes sense that Xiangqi is more mathematically complicated.

Come on, it's not only the 8x8 vs.9x10. There are so many more other factors to take into account. It's not that difficult.

Think about it. Or calculate it. I don't feel like doing it this weekend.

But I can assure you that the number of possible positions on a chessboard is gigantic. And much, much higher than XiangQi.

I played XiangQi and Shogi fanatically for years and quit because there was hardly any competition in Europe. And to move to the other side of the world was asking a bit much.

Wjcsz; yes, I play xiangqi, I not Chinese but where I live there many Chinese and a lot them play Xiangqi, in parks and Chinese restaurants the waiters or busboy when it is not busy would play xiangqi. 

FM. nobodyreally, I have play a Chinese master from Taiwan, he give me knight odds and beat me, even though I am expert (at the time my rating was 2081 USCF) and this same Chinese master beat my friend who is expect and he give my friend two knights odd, one the for two knights odd you cannot capture the center pawn. Eventually I was able to play against Taiwanese master a pawn odd and later no odds, it took awhile for this. Xiangqi more complicate and you could not give me knight odd, even though you are FIDE master. This Taiwanese master was playing against otb experts not weak players and he still beat us odd of a knight or two. Like Morphy time.

Hi,

Incorrect reasoning. What you're saying just points towards the fact that your rating/playing strength in XiangQi is extremely low. In chessrating terms probably around 1100/1200. I would pretty much win every game against 1100/1200 players in chess, one or 2 pieces down.

Once I played a shogi ex-world champion Aono Teruichi (9 dan pro) a piece up and beat him, albeit with a lot of trouble. Positionaly he completely outplayed me until I outcalculated him in a very deep mating combination.

Which unfortunately means in chess rating terms I was only a 1900/2000 player in shogi even though I was among the best in Europe at the time.

XiangQi more or less the same story.

I stand by my post #29. It just means I suck even more at Shogi and XiangQi than I do at chess.

I agree that chess is more complex than xiangqi in every way but mathematically. In other words, humans find chess harder, but a game-theoretically complete solution (essentially a massive 32-piece tablebase for either game) for xiangqi would be the bigger one.

I also agree that the tactical complexity of shogi (probably not xiangqi) is more complex. It is pretty flipping insane to initiate an attack, then to actually calculate through and finish it, all the while ensuring your opponent has no effective counterattacks. Board vision is also thrown for a ride when you try to visualise and evaluate drops in lengthy combinations. Tactical mate in 3 combinations in chess are hard, the shogi equivalent (mate in 5 [ply]) are way way way harder.

I have asked this question to my Chinese partner at work and he answered, normal chess. Chinese chess seems (for him) a game that he just plays when he has a few spare moments, almost like a social game. 

If we are looking for complexity then we should look at Wei Qi. The ex world champion Emanuel Lasker got blown off the board by mid level Japanese or Chinese players back in the 1920's.

Sorry to say, but incorrect again. I really don't feel like going through the numbers.

Just think about the castling, en passant and (minor) promotion options, plus the generals that don't leave the palace. To me it's clear that mathematically the number of possible positions on a chessboard is way,way higher than on a XiangQi board.

Nope, I think I'm right. Likewise, I don't feel like running through the numbers in detail, but mathematically to me it's clear that the reverse is true. Can we agree to disagree then until such time someone sits down and crunches them numbers?

Anyway, my gut feel is as follows: I think the extra 26 possible spaces in xiangqi makes a huge difference. Roughly speaking I expect that to contribute a roughly at least 26! ~ 10^26 factor to the possible positions. For promotion in chess, one very rough estimate is to say it's a factor of roughly 5^16 (PNBRQ^16 pawns) ~ 10^11. Castling is almost irrelevant, as castling rights are a factor only in a relatively small subset of positions where some K and some R are in the right places. Ditto for en passant. Those 2 don't add much to the possibilities relative to the total. Finally, when considering restricting the 10 xiangqi pieces with limited range, it intuitively doesn't seem enough to make up the 10^15 factor difference.

The numbers I pulled out of a hat, yes, but that's the point of gut feel. Whether or not I'm right is another matter of course. (Wikipedia agrees with me, but I don't vouch for it's accuracy either.)

Maybe I'll do the numbers at a later time.

For the moment I agree to disagree!

Congratulation FM nobodyrally beating Aono Teruichi.

 Before I met the Taiwanese master, I beat most Chinese players, like in chess most xiangqi players don't study and they are weak players.

 I have lost and learn from the Taiwanese master and the other master I lost badly was from Main-land China.

 The Taiwanese master show me a book that have these difficult positions, a xiangqi master will setup these position and a player can pick any side and in these position one side looks like a total lost but it is not losing  and draws. Most player picks what looks like the winning side and xiangqi master will win , even though it look like a lost and should end in a draw.These position go into difficult endgame and you have to be master strength to draw them. We don't have anything like this in chess. I don't mean you, but any player who said chess is more  difficult doesn't know what he or she talking about.