| More Information on this item |
Marseillais Chess is February's Recognized Chess Variant of the month.
The following are readers' comments and ratings for the page Xiangqi: Chinese Chess.
| Date | Rating | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 6 Mar 2002 | Excellent | Very useful and informative. Thanks for your effort. |
| 9 Jan 2002 | Good | Thanks for the initial overview of this unknown game. I hadn't heard of Chinese Chess until tonight and simple curiousity sent me to your website. Now...I just want to play! With appreciation, tt |
| 1 Jan 2002 | Good | No comment. |
| 2 Oct 2001 | Good | No comment. |
| 5 Aug 2001 | None | Informative overview for the newcomer to Xiangqi, however, the descriptions assume the reader is already familiar with regular chess. Kim, Cape Town, South Africa |
| 27 Jun 2001 | Poor | No comment. |
| 4 Jun 2001 | Excellent | No comment. |
| 2 Jun 2001 | Poor | No comment. |
| 28 May 2001 | Poor | No comment. |
| 17 May 2001 | None | No comment. |
| 16 May 2001 | None | No comment. |
| 8 May 2001 | Excellent | Make sure you add something about who made/created it and what year it was created. |
| 24 Apr 2001 | None | No comment. |
| 11 Apr 2001 | None | No comment. |
| 29 Mar 2001 | None | Hi: The statement that "You cannot put the opponent in check more than 3 times in a row with the same piece without either side moving any other piece" is incorrect. Rather than the number of checks being limited, it's the number of repeating "cycles" (which is three cycles, or a triple-repetition, which in most cases, six checks). This common misconception seems to stem from Lau's book, Chinese Chess. We would be glad to discuss with you further on this issue. My e-mail is cci_(email removed contact us for address) mail.com Dave Woo Chinese Chess Institute USA |
| 31 Dec 2000 | Excellent | No comment. |
| 29 Dec 2000 | None | very good |
| 5 Dec 2000 | Good | it took me at least 15 mininutes to complete download of this website. So far, not finish yet. Thanks |
| 3 Nov 2000 | None | Hi Matt, thanks for the correction. I've modified the description, and also provided links into our piececlopdia. --D. Howe |
| 1 Nov 2000 | None | No comment. |
| 18 Oct 2000 | None | Your instruction on Knights or horses is confusing. If the piece moves as in orthodox chess, then this is understandable. But your comment that he effectively moves one square horizontally or vertically and then one diagonally is the problem. This allows for two uncertainties in my mind. First the second description has the knight passing over only 2 points instead of 3, allowing him to avoid pieces he would be blocked by if he were making the international move of 2 points (or squares)horizontally or vertically and then 1 points more in the other direction, as it were. So it is important to know which definition of his move must be observed when calculating which moves are available to the knight. Secondly if your definition is correct does this not mean that the Knight may in effect move one square to his left for example and then take his diagonal move back towards his original position bringing himself to rest in the square behind or in front of his original starting position. I will assume that the knight does indeed move in exactly the way he does in orthodox chess without the jumps. But I thought that you might like to be made aware of this slight glitch in your otherwise cool page. For players new to Xiangqi who are not so familiar with orthodox chess, it can cause a few headaches. Redcouch dreams Matt Coles (email removed contact us for address) oo.com |
| 14 Sep 2000 | None | No comment. |
| 5 Sep 2000 | Excellent | No comment. |
| 21 Aug 2000 | None | No comment. |
|
|
Last modified: Monday, August 23, 2004
