look at: http://brainking.com/game/ArchivedGame?g=976635&i=74 - with the last rook move from me my opponent came into "zugzwang".

I won in the next moves - but can red defend?

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.

Hi,
considering the fact that perpetual checking is not allowed, what measures Red could have taken if he were not satisfied with a draw in http://brainking.com/de/ArchivedGame?g=983380 ?

kleineme: He probably didn't read the rules carefully.

kleineme: ARGH! I threw away a won game - according to the rules: "# Perpetual check is forbidden. A player cannot check opponent's king more than 3 times in a row with the same piece and the same position."

OK, I thought it would be the same as in chess.

Hi,
sorry for pointing you to that game ;) My question was more in the direction of the enforcement of this rule. On other sites this rule is automatically enforced by the "system" itself. Whom would I have to address here if my opp doesn't want to quit checking?

kleineme: I want to add a check of repeated positions.

chessmec: So sorry, I feel shameful for having stolen a deserved victory on your part. I apologize. Could you believe, I completely forgot that rule, because it is the truth.

I prefer the chinese names for the pieces;also what they look like. I have my own set and pieces plus a few English translations of Chinese Chess books on how to play. I am very glad they finally included the only other versions of chess I like besides Gothic.

Spirou: no problem. we both did not know it ... but we will play a lot games in the future, so ....

There's a mini-xiangqi invented by the inventor of gogo shogi (I've forgotten his name), if you're interested in bringing it to BrainKing I'll see if I can find the rules.

ughaibu: it's not the one on zillions, is it?

I dont know, I haven't got Zillions.

I note that, for the moment, we do not have Asian players who came played xiangqi on Brainking. It is probable that it will be the case as long as we will not have the possibility of choice between the Western symbols and the Chinese symbols for the representation of the pieces. That is a pity very because we deprive ourselves of the knowledge of the very good players to this game.

jian: Can you provide a nice set of Chinese xiangqi pieces? I cannot draw them.

Fencer: Can you use the same symbols as on the Chess Variants page? The pieces currently in use look remarkably similar to the westernized pieces on the same page.

AbigailII: Yes, I can. But maybe someone could draw a better looking set. I use them only because I don't have anything else.

If I send you separate images (at the format JPG for example) representing each piece, you could use them?

jian: If I like them, yes :-)

Fencer:
OK, I prepare you that and makes you the sending in file attached to an email from here this evening.

jian: Thank you.

Fencer: The Chinese symbols from Alpine Electronics Beijing font, whose international set your current xiangqi pieces most resemble, has a nice set of traditional Chinese characters, as well as alternate internationalized pieces.

Would it be out of place, as you consider variants for xiangqi, to mention that Korean chess janggi is a lot of fun and is similar but not identical to xiangqi.

See http://www.chessvariants.org/oriental.dir/koreanchess.html
for rules and http://www.chessvariants.org/oriental.dir/koreanchess2.html for a nice set of piece characters.

I was just thinking, is it possible to have a position in which the two players conspire to repeat the position? I mean, if someone moves to attack, and a player has several choices and so is not forced to repeat, but his move forces a repeat so that the first player does not lose material/initiative, does the onus fall on the first or second player to stop the repetition? I suppose I've answered my question, the first player since he began the repetition, but it is an interesting to think about.

bobwhoosta:
Hi,
the rules about repetition can become rather complicated. If you want to delve into the details you may go to the bottom of http://www.geocities.com/xqlearner/manual/rule/index.html where you can download an english translation of the Asian rules. Which can be different from the Chinese rules ;)

As a direct reply I want to say four things:
1) If the two players want a draw then they can agree upon a draw, they do not have to conspire to repeat moves ;)
2) Usually you are allowed to repeat moves which do not consist of checks and chases.
3) Usually the player who starts the repetiton has to deviate.
4) Usually you are allowed to attack protected pieces repeatedly.

Fencer: itsyourturn.com uses traditional Chinese Chess Symbols and names.

tedbarber: So what? This is BrainKing :-)

Please, it's not necessary to ask me individually to add Chinese symbols to the Xiangqi pieces. When I have time for it, I'll do it. Everything has its priority.

Fencer: I know;but I just thought maybe you wished to know what the pieces looked like;no offense was meant.

tedbarber: It wasn't against you, I just wanted to reply to about 10-12 messages of the same kind I've received.

Fencer:
If you receive so many messages on this subject, it is thus that
corresponds to a real need.

<jian> I don't know if you have created the symbols already, but at www.clubxiangqi.com they have very nice symbols. The nicest I have seen thus far.

Yes, I sent Chinese symbols to fencer but it cannot use them
without modifying them.
I thus proposed others of them to him but it did not answer me. Consequently, I do not insist any more.

<jian> I see. Well, I guess when the time is right Fencer will bring up the subject again. I have some experience with making symbols on the pixel-level, to get the right size. Reducing the size often 'blurs' the picture.

P.S. It's better to call male persons 'he' instead of 'it'. Otherwise they might be offended and refuse to answer at all ;)

<playBunny> Ok! I thought maybe there isn't a sex-specific pronoun in Russian. Hungarian people also call every-one 'he' instead of he/she etc.

Please verify the pieces are correct, I am not sure because I don't speak Chinese :-D

Fencer: yes, basically correct. Two minor things, the kings, horses, chariots are simplified rather than traditional characters. Stylistically, it doesn't look as good and, as far as I know, no sets are produced with the simplified ones. But they are correct.

Also, at the top of the selection page, it says shogi rather than xiangqi.

redsales: If there is a volunteer, I can send the pack of current pieces and he can change the simplified ones.

but from what I read, many people suggested text sets. Where did you get these?

redsales: I've found them somewhere. But I was told by a Chinese guy that almost nobody uses traditional characters nowadays.

redsales: you can get them at yutopian.com.

<Fencer> Can you send the pack to me? I think I'm able to improve the pieces.

Fwiffo: Sure, give me your e-mail address.

Fencer: well, they are common in Hong Kong, Taiwan, korea, singapore. But not in mainland China. However, traditional characters are almost exclusively used for chess sets, mostly for stylistic reasons

redsales: Uh-huh, I see. Well, as I said, I've just provided a set of pieces and I don't have time to improve it. Fwiffo already received the images from me and hopefully he will do the job better.

Red is lost. Full defence in most cases is draw vs. one rook, but if one defender is gone the defending player is lost. So in your example black can sacrife a rook for any defender and will win the game. Just try it out at home or try rook vs. two guards at http://www.stosszahn-franken.de/xq-kurs/uebung-lw2.html

Hi Fencer,
did you see my message at the Bug Tracker section?
http://brainking.com/en/ReadBug?bgi=528
It's a small change, but senseful, because otherwise you would have invented another notation system, which nobody else uses.

gringo: Sure, it can be easily changed. But I am not sure if I fully understand. You write "from 1 to 0", didn't you mean "from 1 to 10" instead?

It's the same. 0 is just shorter than 10, but you may use 10 as well, if you consider it to be less confusing.

Done.

Great.