Nome utente : Password :
Registrazione di un nuovo utente
Moderatore: 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.
___________________________


Messaggi per pagina:
Lista delle discussioni
Non ti è possibile inserire messaggi in questo forum. Il livello minimo di sottoscrizione per linvio dei messaggi è {0}.
Modalità: Chiunque può inviare messaggi
Cerca nei messaggi:  

12. Ottobre 2006, 22:31:55
Kili 
Argomento: 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. Maggio 2006, 01:09:25
Kili 
Argomento: Re: Enough to win?
Modificato da Kili (1. Maggio 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. Aprile 2006, 23:59:48
Kili 
Argomento: 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. Dicembre 2005, 22:35:07
Kili 
Argomento: Re:
BIG BAD WOLF: Yes, it´s totally safe.

21. Agosto 2005, 01:20:47
Kili 
Argomento: Re: interesting endgame with zugzwang
Modificato da Kili (21. Agosto 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.

Data e ora
Amici in linea
Forum preferiti
Gruppi
Consiglio del giorno
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved.
Torna all'inizio