My casual sentiment on Xiangqi being considered a "variant"

Indeed, I don't just dwell on a single forum like chess.com, but have a broader interest, and interact with more different groups.

But as our Chinese members attested to, you can see that Xiangqi is not really an English word but a Chinese one, which is used to describe both the FIDE game and the Chinese one. The official English names for Xiangqi, Shogi and Makruk are 'Chinese Chess', 'Japanese Chess' and 'Thai Chess'. So they are all called 'Chess', with some qualifier to specify it further. And in a context where confusion might arise, the FIDE game is usually referred to as 'international Chess'.

So the English word 'Chess' is obviously used for the entire family of games. That further specification is usually omitted when it is obvious from context, is natural. That the chess.com forum is a context where it is pretty obvious people talk about the FIDE game, because chess.com does not support Xianqi, Shogi, etc., by no means implies that this suddenly becomes the only meaning of the word.

I don't understand your thought process to be honest.  You're basically saying that because "chess" has different meanings outside of the common usage that the most common use of the word is not its definition!

My suggestion is that 'Chess' is a proper noun when referred to "international chess" and a common noun when referred to a more general concept or set of activities (for example as a single part of the expression: "international chess"); similarly, I would say Xianqi is a proper noun (but, as suggested above, it can also be a common noun in chinese expressions meaning, for example, "international xianqi").

Thomas and HGMuller, thanks to both of you for contributing such a lengthy insightful conversation to the subject matter.

While Thomas and I seem to agree a lot on the (mis-)use of the word "variant", I think HGMuller also makes some rather valid points: we westerners call it a variant because it's what westerners aren't used to alone. Chinese people refering to Western chess as a foreign variant could be thought of as evening out the titles of both chesses. 

However, it must be mentioned why "variant" is  an insult to people like me. As Thomas points out, how often does one (especially, but not exclusively, in Western countries) hear of western chess as being a chess variant of Chaturanga? And then, in that line, does "international chess" denote the same level of lowliness (for a lack of better terms) as "chess variant"? The point of fact is that the Chinese are acknowledging Western Chess as a substantial game, not just side-game that resembles that which they know and love. 

While it's true that all variants/versions/chess-based games, big and small, significant and insignificant, could be traced back to that one game, Chaturanga, what we call a chess game is how we choose to think of it. When we call Xiangqi a variant, we might be provoking an image that it is a derivative of Western Chess; not only is that not true, we're regretfully reminded of a Western imperialistic pomposity that we educated heads are working so hard to reverse.

Then again, it's also possible that I see it this way because, as HGMuller seems to be implying, I'm endowing too much weight into the word to begin with, a sentiment which isn't entirely invalid either. Even if we don't ever call Western Chess a variant and continue to call Xiangqi such, they could possibly be thought of as equally important even with the use of the word "variant". After all, how much we choose to play a game and how much we love the game is how much worth we are giving it. It's the passion for the game that counts.

And, after all, as HGMuller also points out, the Western Chess that we know today was once thought of as a variant too. ("Mad Queen's", was it?)

Hi, Yes I have been having problems with this, I made a game and do not consider it to be a chess variant. It seems that because chess is the most popular (so far :)) variant that everything else is lumped together as a "chess variant". To me they are all (and chess, and my game) variants of the ancient game, the original source, now lost in time. How can Shogi be a chess variant? or Korean or Thai, etc, etc. Anyway my game is called Final Wars and it is not a chess variant. www.finalwars.com

The point is that the ancient game is also Chess. So being a variant of that ancient game makes your game a Chess variant, just like Chinese Chess and Thai Chess are Chess variants. Whether you like it or not.

This whole issue reminds me of a bunch of children that have spent their entire life on a 100m2 playground that happens to contain a tree, to which they refer as The Tree. Now a kid from outside visits them, and tells them he lives in a forest. Not ever having been outside, they wonder what a forest is, and are told that it is a nearly endless collection of trees. This outrages them, as they all know there is ony one Tree. They claim that it is wrong and misleading to call those things in the forest 'trees', and insist these are not real trees, and at best can only be called 'tree-like plants'. When the visiting child tells them The Tree in the playground is really also a tree-like plant, they hang him from it. So perish disbelievers!

Quite clearly there are two types of 'chess variants'.

We seem to be calling 'chess variant' both:

- the  'historical'/national/cultural versions of the chess-family such as: Shatranij, Xiangqi, Catrang, Shogi, Makruk, Shatar, etc;

and

- the so called 'unorthodox' variants that have been derived by each one of these versions (you can play Chess on bigger or smaller boards, with a different beginning position, with different pieces, etc..., but you can also play Shogi on different boards and different beginning positions and so on and so forth).

There is obviously a difference, even if I don't really judge it outrageous or offensive for the same term to be used in both cases, maybe only a bit imprecise...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_variant

That maybe an extreme example.

The more accurate analogy might be that the kids, having knowledge of what a forest and trees are, have a disagreement as to what trees are naturally occurring in nature and which ones are cultivated by synthetic hybridization. Mrs. Smith presents them the bushes, and they have to figure out from the information that is given them. Which ones did we create for fun, and which ones are the 'real' ones that were naturally evolved over a long period of time?

The kids look at the trees that look just like the "one" planted in their 100-meter yard and call those trees the real one, and everything else a synthetic hybrid species. Now, there's a problem there, see?

Then again, in the very end, it remains that they're all tree's, and they're here to provide for humans. And, of course, there are those really bright students, like visiting little Muller, who have seen trees for a long time and knows them well to not make too big of a deal one way or other.

It was merely academically inaccurate that the appearance of "the one" tree got to have say as to which trees are the ones that were naturally evolved. 

edit - To note, I think our different scenarios represent very well what our personal definition of variants are. One thing I should acknowledge (and commend) is the broad-mindedness on your view of Chess and their different versions and variants.

XIANGQI is NOT a variant is  chess, like  shogi,  like Makruk, like Janggi, like Sittuyin from Burma,  the root   WAS  CHATURANGA.Shatranj is the oldest of these chess .http://ancientchess.com/page/play-shatranj.htm

FinalWars, I seemed to have skipped overyour post.

In your case, your game unfortunately would be considered a variant, since it is a game spinning off of the Standard chess that it was derived from. 

I was not meaning to say that variant is a bad thing. I simply thought that labelling standard chess games like Xiangqi as a "variant" might not be so academically accurate; especially considering the fact that we don't call Western FIDE chess a "variant". We just call it "chess". (HGMuller provided a rather strong counter-argument to my sentiment, if you want to read up on it.)

Here is the Xiangqi variant I've been talking about: Dragon Chess from vietson.com.

Actually, it's my own enhanced version of it. Check it out:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess960-chess-variants/dragon-chess-ii-game-of-conquer-my-own-variation-to-an-existing-variant

So, you've created a variant of a variant of a chess variant. :D

No, I created a variant upgrade to a variant of standard chess from China. :)

Not the people who have found interest in replying to this thread, obviously....

Do you actually think you're clever?

I became quite aware of this from a different convo, actually. But, Kaynight, what gets to me is the very fact that he think's he's getting to me. 

In that case, you gotta try "Game of Conquer", the Xiangqi variant that I was just referencing. The "Elephant"/"Marshall" pieces do get to cross the river after an easy condition has been met. haha

Shogi has it's down sides, too. There may be no river, but most of its pieces lose its power quickly and become reduced to a lower-ranked Silver general. Pieces liked the knight don't stay a knight, because like the western pawn, he can't retreat. He races across the board until he reaches the Enemy's "stronghold", and then he's no more but just another Silver. To me, that's not very encouraging. =\

Of course, everyone to their own.

@ kayknight

If trolling was rated, and that gut from the other thread was a 300 troll, I'm not sure Tiger-Woodie would even be a 100 troll.

I am somewhat hesitant to rate his trolling as sub-100... but only because there might be some people out there even more inept at it than him. 

Murgen and Kayknight,

TigerWoodie has since been banned. He's probably not sorry that he is; probably laughing it off. *roll eyes*

Anyways, I'm glad that he is gone. Now, I can go on without having to be pestered with "cowardry". lol

Post once again edited out.

I was responding to a post by Tyger-Woodie that used to exist before this post here, but its been deleted by a Mod. It appears he came back from his short ban, seek to cause trouble again, got his posts deleted and either got permanently banned or deleted his account before he did.

Anyways, carry on, folks.

The phrase, "longer ban", should be as well, Kaynight. 

Just voicing your, my and everyone else's opinion.

>>LOL<<  ^-^