Western Chess, Xiangqi, or Shogi?

[Joaz Banbeck]

Where is the 'bughouse' option? I had to choose 'other'.

[cel70]

I might also add that after playing Chess, shogi and xiangqi, they are all so different from one another that it would be a mistake to assume that because you're good at one it doesn't mean you would be good at another! They may share a common ancestor and some tactics are the same such as forks, pjns etc but they really are like comparing apples to oranges. Shogi for example sometimes can be seen as a race to checkmate, and exchanges don't have quite the same "no going back now" feel to them.

I have also played some of the large variations of chess and shogi and I feel that more pieces does not neccessarily mean more depth, quite the opposite in fact. The largest versions of shogi have so many squares and pieces it would be impossible to figure out what to do or what makes a good move. Really large versions of any chess variant would have only two skill levels- "Bad" and "slightly less bad"

[gowan]

Chess Grandmaster Larry Kaufman (chess grandmaster, one of best wester shogi players) wrote his own opinion: http://www.shogi.net/shogi-l/Archive/1999/Nfeb07-06.txt

Larry Kaufman is also a respectable go player with an AGA rating of 2.88 a few years ago

[Anzu]

Shogi is a great game, and so is Xiangqi.

I still prefer regular chess, because I grew up with it.


*edit: some pictures, this thread needs some pictures

[CutFirstThinkLater]

As someone who hasn't grown up with any of these four but tried them all (I grew up playing Janggi) I guess I can cast a neutral vote, and to me it's definitely Shogi. Because of the 'capture and drop anywhere' rule its complexity level is almost on par with Go and far more dynamic than any other variant of its kind. No wonder it's been held in nearly the same high esteem as Go in Japan - a privilege its cousins in China and Korea couldn't enjoy.

[Faro]

For me its Go>International Chess/Xianqi>shogi

My ratings for these are different for most in this thread. I put Go first because it's my favorite game, and that will contradict what I'm about to say next.

The rest of the ratings are based not so much how I like them, but how likely I am to find someone willing to play. Living in the US most people know Chess, or at least the rules. I don't study Chess but I play it because sometimes someone will want to play. Xianqi is my second choice because it's the most similar to Chess and for someone who knows chess, very easy to pick up and play it the same you would International Chess with a movement variation. And unless you intend to actually study, that's how most people in the West will play, it's natural to try and use the game to already know as a base.
Shogi is a little too different. Learning the characters in Xianqi isn't that hard, but in Shogi you have to learn them, plus their promoted characters, plus keep track of which pieces are facing which way. There are also restrictions on where you can drop a captured piece. I don't see many people I know wanting to take the time to learn Shogi just to play one game, decided they don't like it and never play again.

So for me personally I play Go. Then if a friend wanted to play a game we can play Chess, or Xianqi if they are feeling adventurous. But for most people...I'll just grab Settlers of Catan or Lords of Waterdeep off the shelf and we can all be happy!

[Joelnelsonb]

One question about shogi and xiangqi: How difficult would a seasoned player find it to keep the different pieces strait without any kind of understanding of the languages that the symbols come from? As a serious western chess player, I would never, ever, ever mistake one piece for another. Knowing which piece is which is simply not intended to be an element of the game. I just wonder if this is a thing that English speaking shogi and xianqi players have to account for and deal with. I would imagine that it would actually become more difficult to keep them strait the better you get at the game because a strong player would have trained his eyes to place emphasis on the overall position rather than focusing on any one individual piece (that's how a western chess player sees the board anyways). I have to say, I can get pretty worked up over a loss due to a stupid blunder. If that blunder was due to simply mistaking one character for another than I might very well explode (and probably give up the game altogether). I personally love and appreciate that the staunton chess pieces are universally recognizable.

[Anzu]

One question about shogi and xiangqi: How difficult would a seasoned player find it to keep the different pieces strait without any kind of understanding of the languages that the symbols come from? As a serious western chess player, I would never, ever, ever mistake one piece for another. Knowing which piece is which is simply not intended to be an element of the game. I just wonder if this is a thing that English speaking shogi and xianqi players have to account for and deal with. I would imagine that it would actually become more difficult to keep them strait the better you get at the game because a strong player would have trained his eyes to place emphasis on the overall position rather than focusing on any one individual piece (that's how a western chess player sees the board anyways). I have to say, I can get pretty worked up over a loss due to a stupid blunder. If that blunder was due to simply mistaking one character for another than I might very well explode (and probably give up the game altogether). I personally love and appreciate that the staunton chess pieces are universally recognizable.

Well, some people use this set:

[Anzu]

One question about shogi and xiangqi: How difficult would a seasoned player find it to keep the different pieces strait without any kind of understanding of the languages that the symbols come from? As a serious western chess player, I would never, ever, ever mistake one piece for another. Knowing which piece is which is simply not intended to be an element of the game. I just wonder if this is a thing that English speaking shogi and xianqi players have to account for and deal with. I would imagine that it would actually become more difficult to keep them strait the better you get at the game because a strong player would have trained his eyes to place emphasis on the overall position rather than focusing on any one individual piece (that's how a western chess player sees the board anyways). I have to say, I can get pretty worked up over a loss due to a stupid blunder. If that blunder was due to simply mistaking one character for another than I might very well explode (and probably give up the game altogether). I personally love and appreciate that the staunton chess pieces are universally recognizable.

But I like this one better:

[moyoaji]

One question about shogi and xiangqi: How difficult would a seasoned player find it to keep the different pieces strait without any kind of understanding of the languages that the symbols come from?.

Not difficult at all.

It has been a very long time since I have made a mistake because I couldn't read a character on a piece. This is actually because of what you say: I think less about what the piece looks like and more about what it does. How can I confuse my knight for my rook? When I put my knight there it was attacking a pawn, a rook can't attack like that so having my rook there wouldn't make sense. Keeping the pieces straight isn't about reading them, it's about knowing what they are and what they do, just like in western chess.

As for Staunton pieces, keeping them separate is easy on a physical board, true, but what about electronic boards? Do you ever mix up what a 2-D king for a queen? They are both crowns after all. Or what about a bishop and a pawn? The only difference is that one is pointed with a line on it while the other is rounded at the top. For a player that didn't grow up playing western chess, those symbols would be just as confusing as the characters. Chess plays have trained ourselves to tell the difference and the same happens for shogi and xiangqi. After a while, it is just second nature. 馬 and ♞ mean the same thing to me now. As do 兵 and ♙ and 將 and ♚. I could even play western chess using those symbols. The only problem is the lack of a queen in either game, but I suppose the advisor (士) or gold general (金) could work.

But I like this one better:

I also prefer a non-simplified shogi set. I actually find it easier to tell the symbols apart, but that is probably because my personal set is not simplified.

[LifeIn9x9]

In shogi the most likely confusion will arise in the promoted pieces, especially with some of the non standard "fonts". The more you play with the set, you will become accustomed. Here is an example:

http://www5b.biglobe.ne.jp/~goban/s1go1 ... roku2.html

[Joelnelsonb]

I wouldn't say I have any more trouble on a 2D board. In fact, I read an article recently talking about how players should limit internet play because most people find it easier than reading an actual board and using a crutch will make you weaker. I'll tell you one interesting practice that me and a player from my club enjoy doing: We place Go stones on all the starting positions instead of pieces and play without piece definition. This is a great way to reinforce positional pattern recognition and is one step below playing in your head.

[Ludimagister]

When I read the comments, I often like to say: do not judge a book by its cover. Whether you like rules, shapes, boards or do not like, it is difficult to teach your characters or not difficult - the essence of the game is irrelevant. Since my childhood I played chess, I was a winner of the national championship among children. But then I discovered the oriental chess - shogi and xiangqi. I'm quite advanced in these games. Shogi gives a crazy sense of excitement, adrenaline. What attracted me to it in the beginning? I would like to answer the question, how to behave pieces, if they allow parachute. How will this affect the theory and strategy. At the same time such rules do not work in chess, because the pieces are too powerfull, and the pawn chains are too strong to support dropping well (like in crazyhouse e.g.).

Now, what may attract the curious chess researcher in xiangqi. In European chess chessmen serve to pawn chain. Push to win a pawn, exchange chess pieces, turn a pawn to a queen. The biggest formula. Xiangqi (translation is the game of pieces), this is the game of pieces indeed. Interestingly, in the absence of pawn chains and a minimum of pawns on the board, how the pieces interact and how they make shape of position. I want to say that it complicates the strategy of the game. So much so, that many chess players believe that there are no xiangqi strategy - tactics only. And this is a clear stereotype. Shogi and xiangqi are oriental chess, united by one important feature - orthogonal pawn, which is not connected to the pawn chain. In these games, pawn - it is not the soul of the game, the pieces are not in the service of pawns. This is their unique flavor and charm.

Of course, European chess distinguishes geometric beauty and splendor. Perfect symmetry and clarity. But the game can afford the luxury of such gothic just because the whole geometry determined by the pawn chain. In other circumstances it can not exist. Who wants to explore other conditions - welcome to the world of oriental chess. They're not better than chess, but not worse too. They are just different.

[LifeIn9x9]

One other difference GameTeacher might be that in Shogi, compared to Go, Chess and Xiangqi is the endgame isn't a simplification but often is a race to mate. That makes it so exciting and different from the other three games.

[Ludimagister]

One other difference GameTeacher might be that in Shogi, compared to Go, Chess and Xiangqi is the endgame isn't a simplification but often is a race to mate. That makes it so exciting and different from the other three games.

Yes, it brings some "animal" pleasure of the game. Other games bring other type of pleasure. For example I feel rational pleasure considering relatively simple xiangqi endgames. Incredible, that only few pieces can cause such profound sequences of moves!