Hi, I'm suggesting that it would be interesting if there was some xianqqi equivalent site or even shogi equivalent site for chess.com where you can learn to play the Chinese and japanese variants. I can sometimes play Chinese chess but it's always really limited in what you can do. There are not always that many players. And other sites you can't store the games. I know that chess.com probably won't do it. But I just wanted to know if there's someone who agrees with me and what they think about the topic.

try clubxiangqi.com.

It isn't as good as chess.com, but it's pretty good.

If you play for free, though, you have to use the Chinese pieces, and don't expect to be able to chat with anyone unless you speak Vietnamese.

(And I haven't actually used the site in almost two years, so things could have changed.)

I personally enjoy shogi very very much, less so Chinese Chess (simply due to its tactical difference from chess).

Shogi is hilarious to play with friends though. Chess, while a game primarily about attack, is also about defense. Not so with Shogi. It is for bloodthirsty fiends, that is for sure. 

I've played chinese chess on occasion, and to me, if not for the canons, xianqi would feel like a very static game due to all the extra restrictions on mobility (compared to western chess) and perfect symmetry of the starting position (as opposed to western chess who's mirrored queen position creates a slight imbalance from the start).  It's not better or worse as a game, just different is all I can say.  I'd be interested in a xianqi chess.com equivalent as well, since it's still something I grew up with when my Dad first taught me the game in a merciless hold nothing back manner lol.   

Thanks for the replies.

I tried out club xiangqi but there are a different drawbacks. You can't store your games and it's not as straightforward to find and opponent, especially when you're just starting out.

I do believe however that xianqqi isn't even remotely more static than normal chess. the piece restrictions give the game more balance and the fact that pawn chains aren't really feasible makes the game a lot more dynamic than chess.You're pieces are mostly defended by each other very rarely by your pawns or soldiers in the case of xiangqi. And you're king is in constant jeopardy because he can't leave the middle of the board.

I learned it when I was in China so the chinese pieces don't give me any trouble.

For Shogi you could try http://81dojo.com/ . It even features a Chu Shogi server.

I second that. Xiangqi should have a section under chess variants, like chess960 has.

I have long been thinking that the current staunton design pieces have to change one day. All chess variants shall use the standardized pieces blending elements from the Staunton design and Xiangqi.

As for Xiangqi, the restriction in mobility is an illusion! verybadbishop
Count the number of attacking pieces. 2 Rooks, 2 Knights, 2 Cannons (replacing 2 Bishops) so the total number of riders and leapers are conserved. Except the Cannon is a hopper when it captures.

The Queen in Xiangqi is unnecessary. The king is restricted to a 3x3 poential well and can't move anywhere. The Kings can't face each other so even a King can participate in checkmating (in Xiangqi).

Xiangqi does not have the solved openings of Chess. THere is thus no need for a Xiangqi960. Neither does it have the standard endgames of Chess, like King and rook vs King, bishops plus king vs king, etc. Xiangqi action centers about the midgame in Chess when pieces immediately start to be exchanged.

In Chess, as an act of chivalry stalemate is considered less honorable and is a draw. But the contradiction is that the cowardly king has to have a castle move to get to safety. Xiangqi has chivalry in that the king stays at the center. The king is brave enough to engage another king in combat thus no two kings can face each other.

All in all, both games have their pros and cons. I once thought Xiangqi was a less developed game but after reading a Xiangqi book I understood the depth of the game better and am now convinced both games are on par. No one better than the other.