用户名: 密码:
新用户注册
监管者: rod03801 
 Chinese Chess

Xiangqi - Chinese Chess

Knights and Rooks may join the Xiangqi Fellowship which has additional boards for discussion and resources (links to other sites).
Pawns may not join the fellowships, but links from the Xiangqi resources board are have been copied to a Resources message.
Create a New game of Xiangqi,  Established ratings,   Provisional ratings,  The Rules of Xiangqi.
___________________________


每页的消息:
讨论板列表
您未权限在该板张贴消息。只有最低脑兵级别的会员才允许张贴在该板。
状态: 所有人能发表
帖子搜索:  

12. 十月 2006, 22:31:55
Kili 
题目: Re: non chinese play chinese chess
435152: In chess you can play 1.e4,e5 2.Qh5 (as some strong Gm) and if your opponent does not take advantage of this then you can get a playable position beacuse your structure of pawns is good and the material is equal. As Philidor said, pawns are very important in chess. The initiative is volatile, if you don´t get a mate or a material advantage then when the initiative dissapears the static elements of the position (material and structure of the pawns) say who has some kind of advantage. Of course, this doesn´t mean the initiative is not important in chess.
In XiangQi this is different, a tempo has more importance than in chess and therefore the move and properties of the pawns are rather differents. But i am not an expert about XianQi though i like it.

1. 五月 2006, 01:09:25
Kili 
题目: Re: Enough to win?
Kili修改(1. 五月 2006, 01:10:36)
Beren the 32nd: King + one soldier against King is a win because the stalemate in XianQi is a win. Chariots, Horses, Canyons, Soldiers and the King too can attack to the opponent king. Elephants and Advisors just can defend.

29. 四月 2006, 23:59:48
Kili 
题目: Re: Enough to win?
Beren the 32nd: If you get a chariot for a horse (canyon) and your opponent doesn´t get any compensation in exchange for it, then you get an enough advantage for winning the game.

8. 十二月 2005, 22:35:07
Kili 
题目: Re:
BIG BAD WOLF: Yes, it´s totally safe.

21. 八月 2005, 01:20:47
Kili 
题目: Re: interesting endgame with zugzwang
Kili修改(21. 八月 2005, 01:25:12)
chessmec:
In my opinion white (red) hasn´t a good defence.
Black needs the two rooks for winning.
Are they enough in this position?
Think us about this:
We are going to suposse the black player can capture the two bishops then
Can white do a fortress with the two guards and his king?
The candidate fortress could be "King in e0 + Guard in d0 + Guard in e1" against this Black put his rooks in the squares b0 and e3
What can white player do?
Nothing if the black king is in the column f and it´s the only piece in this column. In this case the move 1.Kf0 is an ilegal move and the white player is stalemate and lost.

In this game white has still two bishops, but it´s not difficult capture first one of them and later the other. After 37...Rd1 the first bishop is captured then white player try doing the fortress against it, the black player puts his rooks in b0 and e3 and his king in f9 without more black pieces in column f, we can suposse the white bishop is in g4 and then
1.Bi2, Re4
2.Bg0, Rb2 and the bishop is lost
If i am right two rooks is enough against two bishop and two guards.

日期和时间
在线的朋友
最喜欢的讨论板
朋友群
每日提示
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, 版权所有
回顶端