Variant suggestion: Chinese Chess (Xiangqi)

Yeah the knight cannot jump over pieces and the king cannot move one square diagonally. 

that requires a new board, and the knight can actually still jump over pieces if they are in the right places. Also, there is an enclosed space for the king and new pieces called guards which can only move diagonally one square. In addition to many other extra rules for the bishop and the pawn.

what's wrong with that?

Xiangqi is not a variant.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess960-chess-variants/my-casual-sentiment-on-xiangqi-being-considered-a-quotvariantquot

Ah! My old thread on the topic matter! Thanks for citing it, Mr_McC (aka 1e4c6)!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We don't refer to western FIDE Chess (the chess which is this website) as a Chess variant. We refer to it as Chess. If we're going to do that, we should respectfully refer to Xiangqi equally as a standard Chess game. 

Variants are spin-off's of 'regular', 'normal' chess games. Xiangqi is not a spin-off to Western Chess. Referring to it as such is an insult; and, it brands the very egocentric arrogance that many tolerant-minded Westerners (especially 'Americans') are only trying to escape from.

-1 this is , agreeably a hijacked use of the term "chess variant." Chess variants are just modifications of regular chess. Xiangqi is basically..., well, a conpletely changed board AND pieces AND moves. So, I think this is should NOT be qualified as a variant.

-1

In theory Xiangqi is an entirely different game.

Yeah, I said that in my other comment.

lol yes

On my tangent (irrelevant to the point you were on), again, please watch how you refer to Xiangqi. These are not "new" rules; they are different rules from the FIDE chess that we privileged westerners call "normal" chess.

Xiangqi is equally every bit a standard chess game as FIDE chess is.

You're damn right it's not a variant. It's standard Chess; perhaps different than the standard chess one knows (the one played on chess.com), but it still is standard Chess, nevertheless.

I think this is a good way to put it.

"It is varied from FIDE Chess, but it is not a variant."

I suggest the following reads in order to set up a final point to this discussion:

"A History of Chess, written by H. J. R. Murray"

"A World of Chess: Its Development and Variations through Centuries and Civilizations, by Jean-Louis Cazaux and Rick Knowlton"

It is usually a good idea to go for the experts before accepting so many "own" opinions as the truth.

Shogi, Janggi, Xiangqi, Makruk and so on are all chess descendants from a common ancestor with FIDE Chess. A common ancestor most probably originated in India as studies has shown. The most proper way to refer to them is regional chess, rather than chess variants such as bughouse, king of the hill, musketeer chess and so on...in fact, the former examples FIDE chess variations. Additional to that, we have several Shogi variants (Kyotoshogi, Minishogi, etc) Xiangqi variants (Manchu, Minixiangqi) and so on...there is a proper way to classify Regional Chess and Chess variants. FIDE chess has a special status as it is the most worldwide spread form of chess nowadays, not necessarily the most regarding number of players (Xiangqi probably has more players than FIDE chess), but it is indeed the most widespread geographically. Some call it Internacional Chess for that reason.

I strongly recommend the above 2 books for anyone interested in the History of Chess.  

By the way...below is a nice open source web site to play regional and FIDE chess variations:

https://www.pychess.org/

Cheers,

So, in other words, what you're saying is that Shogi, Jianggi, Xiangqi, and Makruk all evolved from FIDE, and FIDE evolved from Chaturanga?

I have to check out the books your suggesting. In the meantime, am I sensing a bit of western imperialistic egocentrism in your statement above^^?

Even that is a bit of an issue. Notice how you refer to these other standard chess games as regional. You don't refer to FIDE chess as 'regional'. You just call it chess. With that, you're still placing FIDE as a step above these other official chess games. Even if you're not calling these other standard games as variant, you're still upholding them as the same kind of 2nd class that follows only after "normal" Chess.

I don't see anything 'proper' about that.

Sorry, Bubba. I don't find anything useful or productive with this statement. Being an 'authority' on a subject doesn't make you correct; since an "expert's" opinion is simply another "truth" that exists in the world. And, experts change their minds all the time. Furthermore, someone of a lesser voice who is equally or more intelligent, learned, well-researched and/or simply intuitively competent could just be equally qualified.

Please google-search "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy.

I'm pretty sure "everyone" knows this. 

Thought, this ^^^ I accept I could be wrong.

Hey BattleChessGN18, I am not sure how to quote the sections of your answer so I will do it the old style. Copy and paste.

So, in other words, what you're saying is that Shogi, Jianggi, Xiangqi, and Makruk all evolved from FIDE, and FIDE evolved from Chaturanga?

No, you are wrong. Re-read my post please. I said “A common ancestor most probably originated in India as studies has shown”. That common ancestor, probably Chaturanga, then branched to other parts of the world and incorporated several regional modifications. FIDE was the branch that hit Western Europe from old Persia Shatranj. The history and evolution is more complex than your simplistic line. This is all based on current scientific consensus. Not set in stone,but what data shows so far.

I have to check out the books your suggesting. In the meantime, am I sensing a bit of western imperialistic egocentrism in your statement above^^?

How so if you didn’t even understand my sentence? Your statement does not make any sense to me...

I do recommend the books tho if you are into learn Chess history and evolution….as I am.

Even that is a bit of an issue. Notice how you refer to these other standard chess games as regional. You don't refer to FIDE chess as 'regional'. You just call it chess. With that, you're still placing FIDE as a step above these other official chess games. Even if you're not calling these other standard games as variant, you're still upholding them as the same kind of 2nd class that follows only after "normal" Chess. I don't see anything 'proper' about that.

What is your problem Sir? Take your conclusions for you, and for you only. I suggest you to pay more attention on your reading.

FIDE indeed is considered a regional chess (Chess of the Mad Queen), originated in Western Europe, when it acquired most of the recent rules we are now used to, but it is the most globally widespread form of chess nowadays (geographically). That’s why some call it International Chess today. Europeans powers and its recent historical global influence, among other things, helped to widespread this form of regional chess we now call FIDE. Actually, do you know what FIDE means? Do some research. People, not me, call it chess or standard chess…which technically is not precise. That’s our collective westernized view of the world. Sorry about that…

I have never said FIDE chess is a step above and the others are 2^nd class. Au contraire pal…FIDE chess for me personally, is not the most interesting one. Once I discovered the world of other regional chess not a long time ago. I am mostly learning Makruk actively right now, for example.

What I meant with the word proper, If you read carefully, is to refer to Chess forms such as Janggi, Makruk, Shogi, Xiangqi and so on as Regional Chess, not Chess variants, as some were posting here in this discussion…at least, technically speaking according to historians, do you get it now? At the end of the day you can call them whatever you want my friend.

Sorry, Bubba. I don't find anything useful or productive with this statement. Being an 'authority' on a subject doesn't make you correct; since an "expert's" opinion is simply another "truth" that exists in the world. And, experts change their minds all the time. Furthermore, someone of a lesser voice who is equally or more intelligent, learned, well-researched and/or simply intuitively competent could just be equally qualified. Please google-search "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy.

Hey Bubba Pal…I wont even consume my energy to answer you this the way I would like to. I have more important things to do. You have severe problems on your reading or suffer from some sort of frustration or other emocional disorder. Just for you to take note. I am not any sort of authority. That’s why I referenced 2 of the most important researchers in this field. I do read a lot about this subject as this interest me. That’s it Bubba friend. Your problems with authority are yours only and you are free to follow the info you wish. I rather take experts into account. period. Science works and advance with consensus based on the evidences collected and the models proposed at a given time, but I wont go into this further...based on the nature of your response it does not worth my time.

I'm pretty sure "everyone" knows this. Thought, this ^^^ I accept I could be wrong.

Take your conclusions for you, and for you only.

So again, because of answers and comments like yours, I cant avoid to again recommend to try to get more info from people and resources from the field before taking own opinions as granted. Like it you or not. Those 2 books are a good start.

My "conclusions" are based on your display of faulty bias. You have worded your post to refer to other Chess games as Regional Chess, while thinking nothing about calling FIDE Chess as what it is: chess. It's obvious that you don't think of FIDE as Regional.

I was going to nitpick at every other frail point of yours where your answer either fell short of actually addressing what I said or simply failed to deliver your own intended petty punch. On the other hand, Rincov, you seem unable to take criticism well. It's very evident in your attempt to elude having to take responsibility for your bias, what's with your "you can have your point of view, this is mine and mine alone" attitude and all.

When you're not so sensitive, go back and reread your post, then try properly addressing my response to you.

That doesn't even make sense. Those books you recommend are on Chess, not on teaching people how to consult experts first before making "right answers"; which, again, I've already explained why you are fundamentally wrong in that regard.

Did you want to attempt another frailly ineffective final line?

Also, I hope you don't ever have the nerve again to disrespectfully refer to me as "Sir". If you don't call your mother, female gal friends, aunts or sister that, I would appreciate it if you likewise address me by my gender.

Take whatever conclusions as granted as you want. I have shared all the infos and some sources in order to have access to the most accurate info so far about the topic of discussion here. Take it or not is your problem.

You receive what you give. If you want respect you should start that by yourself in the first place. Read again your own posts.

In my first post, I have expressed my opinions and suggestions on how to address the topic of Chess and its variants and recommended a couple of important books on that regards to anyone interested in this topic, based on all the posted comments here. You were the one that assumed a bunch of things that I did not say and mean and called me Bubba, and continued to do so till your very last comment. So I revert back to you Sir your own words. If you dont call your mother, female gal friends, aunts or sisters Bubba, show some respect to others in the first place when starting a discussion or otherwise you might get answers back you might not like that will get on your nerves, Sir.

Thats it for me. Have no more time for this, I am going to play some chess.

Rincov wrote:

?

1e4c6_O-1, you actually made a good point... That's why science advances based on a consensus by the majority of the scientific community. Nothing is set in stone and there is no 100% guarantee as a dogma and good science are always open to peers scrutiny and to change the existing models if new enough evidences arise. New enough quantity of evidences, this is important. Add to all of that the risk of bad science or scientists that are influenced by some external lobby based on particular economic interests. I don't know this surgeon to say something in his or her respect, but we have many examples in history of that risk of misleading scientific investigation when there are some other interests behind...specially in the tabacco field in the past...it is no so hard to manipulate data, unfortunately.

Even with all of those risks and limitations, scientific research is still one the best options to go for knowledge. Because there is no own opinions and beliefs involved...or at least should't be. There is no need to say that all the technology we have nowadays is thank to that.

My point was...it is a nice and a reasonable recommendation to go for people involved in the research of the history and evolution of chess in order to best address this discussion on what it is or not chess, variants, regional variants and so on, better than just throw opinions about it....those 2 books that I have mentioned are, in my opinion, good options to deep further in this and can be very elucidative. Is it the absolute pure truth?...probably not...but is the best  collection of knowledge about it, with no bias, based on the current information that could be collected and analyzed so far.

If you have more sources about it, I would be glad to know more about as well.

Cheers,