Single Comment

Yesterday, I read two parts of a three-part interview with David H. Li, the author of several books on Xiang Qi: part 1 part 2 part 3. In this interview, he maintained that Xiang Qi was a superior game to Queen-Qi, his term for what we normally just call Chess. This name refers to his criticism that Chess pays too much attention to the Queen. He added that since Pawns can promote to Queens, it also pays too much attention to the Pawns. He also complained that Chess was more drawish than Xiang Qi and also more congested. He maintained that Xiang Qi was a better model of actual warfare than Chess, which tied into his claim that the earliest form of these games was originally invented by an associate of Sun Tzu to teach principles in the Art of War. One example he gave of this was that the Horse in Xiang Qi is more realistic for not being able to leap. He maintained that 'Draws are a function of spatial manoeuvrability.' Since Xiang Qi gives its pieces more space to move around in by having a larger board and by having more gaps between pieces in the opening position, it gives pieces greater spatial maneuverability and is, according to Li, less drawish.

First of all, his complaints about Chess, whatever their merits, echo some of the points I made in this article. A game should be decisive rather than drawish, and a very powerful piece can throw off the balance of the game. I complained about pieces more powerful than the Queen, such as the Amazon and the Cavalry Chess Knight. Nevertheless, he might be onto something. Last night, I ran a game of Univers Chess between SMIRF and ChessV. This is a 10x8 Capablanca-based variant with the Rook/Knight and Bishop/Knight pieces in addition to the usual pieces in Chess. For a while, the game was very congested. Towards the end, each side had a Queen, a Knight, and some Pawns. I eventually gave up on the game when the SMIRF Queen kept checking the ChessV King without getting any closer to checkmate. I don't remember a game of Xiang Qi ever ending like this. In my experience, Xiang Qi is normally won or lost, whereas I have frequently drawn in Chess. Another criticism of his amounted to this. I may be paraphrasing. Chess is largely a game of attrition, focused on material difference. Between two equally skillful players, the difference of a Pawn can decide the outcome. In Xiang Qi, material count is less important, and it is more about being able to attack your opponent better than he can attack you.