chess vs chinese chess - Page 4

On October 30 2006 01:49 ssj100 wrote:
One Page Memory from Bulgaria. Are you pissed that Topalov lost? You know the better player won right? (Kramnik). Oh and Topalov lost 2 back to back games against Judit Polgar. He must be pissed himself. And tired I guess.

Take any classical chess opening. In the beginning, it's RELATIVELY more strategic position based. When more and more pieces are traded off and both side make commitments, the strategy transitions into tactics when there are fewer and fewer pieces on the board. so take classical chess with 32 pieces on the board, take off 16 of those pieces. of the 16 pieces left, say that half of them can't even move across the board. Essentially, you'll have 8 "mobile" pieces which is essentially chinese chess.

So basically, chinese chess STARTS the game in the endgame relative to classical chess. now don't try to argue that the endgame has more strategy RELATIVE to the opening.

yes, you said you don't know much about chinese chess. Don't BS me when you don't know what you're talking about.

On October 31 2006 00:19 jkillashark wrote:
Whoa there Code, it's just a GAME. We are all entitled to our opinions so let's not resort to name calling, preez?

Unforutnately Code, your C_Chess = C_Chinese Chess has a hole in it. Who said they were equal?

Yes, Chinese Chess uses more tactics than strategy in the game, but is the tactics of Chinese Chess more difficult and complicated than the tactics of Chess? From personal experience, I think Chess tactics are FOR more advanced than Chinese Chess tactics. The limited movement of many pieces makes tactics so much easier in Chinese Chess. I only have to worry about a few pieces such as the Cannon or Knight or the Car. Chess tactics can involve EVERY single piece and can occur ANYWHERE on the board. There are MILLIONS of difficult combinative tactical positions that are VERY difficult to solve.



Sadly, you generalize chess way too much. Tactics doesn't happen when only half the pieces are gone from the board. They can happen with all the pieces. That's what's so beauitful about chess. You can utilize every single piece to take advantage of a castled pawn position. You can create a tactic with all the pieces on the board or create a tactic with next to no pieces on the board. You claim that since Chinese Chess has LESS pieces it produces MORE tactics



Endgame in Chess is ruthless logic. No strategy no tactics. Nothing but cold hard calculation. Nearly all strategies' goals are to give you the better endgame position perhaps with an extra pawn or a passed pawn or better King position. Strategy is defined as a general plan for a long term advantage. When you begin an opening, that's when ALL the strategy starts and unfolds. If you still think that endgames have long term effects even though the game is already at its end, you are not thinking about strategy.



I know it's not directed towards me but I know how to play both rather well so I can't BS you, ;D.

An Introduction to Chinese Chess
by (Terence) Peter Donnelly
Author of Hsiang Ch’i: The Chinese Game of Chess (1974)

Chinese Chess, or xiangqi, is perhaps the most popular board game in the world, played by millions of people in China, other parts of Asia, and wherever Chinese have settled. In recent years it has started to become better known among non-Chinese. Westernized sets of boards and pieces sometimes show up in specialty games shops, and there have been several computer versions. But this wonderful game is still not as well known as it deserves to be.

For sheer fun, it’s hard to think of a two-player board game that matches Chinese chess. It exercises the brain in much the same way as Western (international) chess, but it is much faster moving. The movement of the pieces tends to be more fluid, the positions more open. It might be said that Chinese chess is more a tactical game than a strategic one. In a sense, it is all "middle game." There is no careful buildup of pawn structures, the major pieces come into play immediately, and drawn-out endgames are rare. Although the openings have been classified, my sense (as a pure amateur) is that it is possible to become a good player without a lot of rote learning.

[The students ought to be cautious about the strategic versus tactical game aspect in comparing Chinese Chess versus Western Chess. Mr. Donnelly's statement of Chinese Chess is 'all "middle game"' is not because of that Chinese Chess prevents a player to think strategically and build up a careful defense structure, rather it is because of that the Chinese Chess allows faster engagement (pieces tend to move more fluidly and positions are more open, less pawns to block the positions...), hence a careful defense structure (as usually done in Western Chess) can be easily interrupted by the fast engagement from the opponent. The Western Chess has eight pawns and placed in close proximity of the king lends itself to make more defensive positioning. The Chinese Chess, with its King confined in a castle square guarded by the confined bishops (also called mandarins) and the defensive movement-restricted elephants (also called ministers), does not require as much attention as Western Chess in setting up a defense. The castling of the king with either rook on the chess board unique in the Western Chess opens a lot more possibilities of setting up a defense as well as vulnerability of the king to be attacked. Since the placements of the pieces in Western Chess does not allow any fast attack (more pawns and all pieces are placed at the base two rows of the chess board, fast winning attack is difficult; fast trading is possible which tend to make the game a long drawn defensive game), it is natural for players to make careful initial moves to settle up a defense oriented strategy rather than an attack oriented strategy.]

[As to the learning to become a good player, studying game patterns is the best way whether studying alone or by playing with a better player in both Chinese Chess and Western Chess. It is true that the opening game patterns in Chinese Chess are few to dwell on (as they are easily dictated by the opponent's offensive moves, less so in Western Chess) but its middle games and end games are just as challenging if not more difficult to study as the Western Chess.]

When you spoke of my constant C, you refered to chinese chess being a simpler game. I think this is along the lines of how chinese chess can be "solved" more easily relative to classical chess. Though this is a valid point, I think our arguments aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Until chinese chess is definately solved, you can spend 60 hours a week mastering it and still be beat by someone spending 80 hours a week. We can agree that 60 hr/week is hard, no? and that you can still lose to someone of 80 hr/wk, no? Even though for the 2-4 hour long game, your analysis may not be as strategy oriented, you'll be busting your brain to figure out how to win in any way, and still lose. the fact that it chinese chess doesn't make a difference. Competition is the truth for chinese chess, classical, go, or anything. ^___^.

On October 31 2006 07:11 FrozenArbiter wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game-tree_complexity#Complexities_of_various_games

Don't make me link this again t.t!