history of chinese chess

Sort:
caimzri1h
advaysrivastava wrote:

even janggi and shogi

those are "descendants" of xiangqi

caimzri1h
JessieWong wrote:
long_quach wrote:
JessieWong wrote:

By the way if you mean Chaturanga , the Gaja pieces in Chaturanga doesn't move same like elephant in Xiangqi as well.

There were probably many rules. One of the rule is 2 squares diagonally.

The Gaja pieces in Chaturanga doesn't move same like elephant in Xiangqi as well, elephant pieces in Xiangqi can't jump over pieces like in Chaturanga , plus you cant cross the river to the other side which happens for Gaja in Chaturanga 

correct, its called 赛象眼

caimzri1h

塞*

JessieWong

There are a lot of borrowed and modified words between English , Hindi, Chinese languages. But calling it descendant of who to who is not accurate.

caimzri1h
JessieWong wrote:

There are a lot of borrowed and modified words between English , Hindi, Chinese languages. But calling it descendant of who to who is not accurate.

problem is, xiangqi was, for lack of a better word, "imported" from india,the modifications occurred after that, unlike in those languages, where the "base" language exists, and is modified by external influence

caimzri1h

so its somewhat accurate to call xiangqi a descendant of indian chess, since xiangqi can be traced back (minus the modifications) to chaturanga

JessieWong
long_quach wrote:
JessieWong wrote:
long_quach wrote:
JessieWong wrote:

By the way if you mean Chaturanga , the Gaja pieces in Chaturanga doesn't move same like elephant in Xiangqi as well.

There were probably many rules. One of the rule is 2 squares diagonally.

The Gaja pieces in Chaturanga doesn't move same like elephant in Xiangqi as well, elephant pieces in Xiangqi can't jump over pieces like in Chaturanga , plus you cant cross the river to the other side which happens for Gaja in Chaturanga 

Chinese modifications to the basic 2 squares diagonally.

Having offensive and defensive pieces is genius. Just like in real war, and American Football.

Even Xiangqi took the Gaja piece as their inspiration for their Elephant piece in Xiangqi, that doesnt turn Xiangqi into Chaturanga though...it's called influence , not descendent 

JessieWong
caimzri1h wrote:
JessieWong wrote:

There are a lot of borrowed and modified words between English , Hindi, Chinese languages. But calling it descendant of who to who is not accurate.

problem is, xiangqi was, for lack of a better word, "imported" from india,the modifications occurred after that, unlike in those languages, where the "base" language exists, and is modified by external influence

Because Old Xiangqi is already existed in China way longer before Chaturanga piece of Gaja is being "imported " into Xiangqi in China.

So calling Xiangqi as descendant of Chaturanga , is really too absurd and too many controversy

JessieWong

Even Xiangqi took the Gaja piece as their inspiration for their Elephant piece in Xiangqi, that doesnt turn Xiangqi into Chaturanga though...it's called influence , not descendent.

By the way anyone can tell me the earliest year of Chaturanga ever record?

caimzri1h
JessieWong wrote:
caimzri1h wrote:
JessieWong wrote:

There are a lot of borrowed and modified words between English , Hindi, Chinese languages. But calling it descendant of who to who is not accurate.

problem is, xiangqi was, for lack of a better word, "imported" from india,the modifications occurred after that, unlike in those languages, where the "base" language exists, and is modified by external influence

Because Old Xiangqi is already existed in China way longer before Chaturanga piece of Gaja is being "imported " into Xiangqi in China.

So calling Xiangqi as descendant of Chaturanga , is really too absurd and too many controversy

if you look at the wiki page for xiangqi, under the "origins" section, it does say that the most commonly accepted theory is xiangqi was passed from chaturanga to Persian chess to 宝应象棋 to 象棋. the rules of 六博 and 北周象戏 are vastly different from the modern xiangqi

JessieWong
caimzri1h wrote:
JessieWong wrote:
caimzri1h wrote:
JessieWong wrote:

There are a lot of borrowed and modified words between English , Hindi, Chinese languages. But calling it descendant of who to who is not accurate.

problem is, xiangqi was, for lack of a better word, "imported" from india,the modifications occurred after that, unlike in those languages, where the "base" language exists, and is modified by external influence

Because Old Xiangqi is already existed in China way longer before Chaturanga piece of Gaja is being "imported " into Xiangqi in China.

So calling Xiangqi as descendant of Chaturanga , is really too absurd and too many controversy

if you look at the wiki page for xiangqi, under the "origins" section, it does say that the most commonly accepted theory is xiangqi was passed from chaturanga to Persian chess to 宝应象棋 to 象棋. the rules of 六博 and 北周象戏 are vastly different from the modern xiangqi

Some experts also suggest that 六博 and 北周象戏 is also the foundation of Xiangqi, although it's not hundred percent same rule and pieces on the board , but the element of 六博 and 北周象戏 is also proved to be modified dynasties to dynasties and pass down into what now Xiangqi is. 

This subject is still a controversial 

advaysrivastava

the origon of chatarunga is 5 century da

advaysrivastava

ad india

 

JessieWong
caimzri1h wrote:
JessieWong wrote:
caimzri1h wrote:
JessieWong wrote:

There are a lot of borrowed and modified words between English , Hindi, Chinese languages. But calling it descendant of who to who is not accurate.

problem is, xiangqi was, for lack of a better word, "imported" from india,the modifications occurred after that, unlike in those languages, where the "base" language exists, and is modified by external influence

Because Old Xiangqi is already existed in China way longer before Chaturanga piece of Gaja is being "imported " into Xiangqi in China.

So calling Xiangqi as descendant of Chaturanga , is really too absurd and too many controversy

if you look at the wiki page for xiangqi, under the "origins" section, it does say that the most commonly accepted theory is xiangqi was passed from chaturanga to Persian chess to 宝应象棋 to 象棋. the rules of 六博 and 北周象戏 are vastly different from the modern xiangqi

象戏 term is a lot longer than the term 象棋 tbh, hence some translator may misunderstand that 象棋 into elephant chess, but ignoring the 象棋 is descendant of 象戏

JessieWong
r4p1dr4b1t wrote:
JessieWong wrote:

There are a lot of borrowed and modified words between English , Hindi, Chinese languages. But calling it descendant of who to who is not accurate.

ummm nah its very accurate...people dont like the idea because they all want to be special and nationalist. Modern languages didnt just pop out of thin air, they were derived from preexisting ones...those preexisting ones are the predecessors/ancestors, the newer ones the successors/descendants....when the language remains the "same" and the country can still attach their nationalist owner ship to it on one seems to have a problem. After all is modern English not a descendant/successor of old English which is now considered antiquated? yeah did some words spelling even meaning/usage not change?

 

You just dont like the idea because one is called french and the other English.........but the facts still remain one derived/descended from the other (that other being one which itself descended from others).

I respect your opinion on the nationalist and language part, I'm not professional in linguist study. I don't mind if English is or isn't descendent of French language. But thanks for your extra info.

caimzri1h
JessieWong wrote:
caimzri1h wrote:
JessieWong wrote:
caimzri1h wrote:
JessieWong wrote:

There are a lot of borrowed and modified words between English , Hindi, Chinese languages. But calling it descendant of who to who is not accurate.

problem is, xiangqi was, for lack of a better word, "imported" from india,the modifications occurred after that, unlike in those languages, where the "base" language exists, and is modified by external influence

Because Old Xiangqi is already existed in China way longer before Chaturanga piece of Gaja is being "imported " into Xiangqi in China.

So calling Xiangqi as descendant of Chaturanga , is really too absurd and too many controversy

if you look at the wiki page for xiangqi, under the "origins" section, it does say that the most commonly accepted theory is xiangqi was passed from chaturanga to Persian chess to 宝应象棋 to 象棋. the rules of 六博 and 北周象戏 are vastly different from the modern xiangqi

象戏 term is a lot longer than the term 象棋 tbh, hence some translator may misunderstand that 象棋 into elephant chess, but ignoring the 象棋 is descendant of 象戏

wrong, 象戏 first appeared in northern zhou, 象棋 in the warring states

JessieWong
caimzri1h wrote:
JessieWong wrote:
caimzri1h wrote:
JessieWong wrote:
caimzri1h wrote:
JessieWong wrote:

There are a lot of borrowed and modified words between English , Hindi, Chinese languages. But calling it descendant of who to who is not accurate.

problem is, xiangqi was, for lack of a better word, "imported" from india,the modifications occurred after that, unlike in those languages, where the "base" language exists, and is modified by external influence

Because Old Xiangqi is already existed in China way longer before Chaturanga piece of Gaja is being "imported " into Xiangqi in China.

So calling Xiangqi as descendant of Chaturanga , is really too absurd and too many controversy

if you look at the wiki page for xiangqi, under the "origins" section, it does say that the most commonly accepted theory is xiangqi was passed from chaturanga to Persian chess to 宝应象棋 to 象棋. the rules of 六博 and 北周象戏 are vastly different from the modern xiangqi

象戏 term is a lot longer than the term 象棋 tbh, hence some translator may misunderstand that 象棋 into elephant chess, but ignoring the 象棋 is descendant of 象戏

wrong, 象戏 first appeared in northern zhou, 象棋 in the warring states

五杂组》云:“象戏,传为周武伐纣时作,即不然,亦战国兵家者之流,盖彼时重车战也。

Seems to be earlier...

JessieWong
caimzri1h wrote:
JessieWong wrote:
caimzri1h wrote:
JessieWong wrote:
caimzri1h wrote:
JessieWong wrote:

There are a lot of borrowed and modified words between English , Hindi, Chinese languages. But calling it descendant of who to who is not accurate.

problem is, xiangqi was, for lack of a better word, "imported" from india,the modifications occurred after that, unlike in those languages, where the "base" language exists, and is modified by external influence

Because Old Xiangqi is already existed in China way longer before Chaturanga piece of Gaja is being "imported " into Xiangqi in China.

So calling Xiangqi as descendant of Chaturanga , is really too absurd and too many controversy

if you look at the wiki page for xiangqi, under the "origins" section, it does say that the most commonly accepted theory is xiangqi was passed from chaturanga to Persian chess to 宝应象棋 to 象棋. the rules of 六博 and 北周象戏 are vastly different from the modern xiangqi

象戏 term is a lot longer than the term 象棋 tbh, hence some translator may misunderstand that 象棋 into elephant chess, but ignoring the 象棋 is descendant of 象戏

wrong, 象戏 first appeared in northern zhou, 象棋 in the warring states

Very interesting, 古时候其实有很多种棋盘游戏都叫象戏,然后加以改造之后统一,一代一代传下去造就现在的象棋。象棋其实有很多象戏的影子在里面,所以如果说恰图兰卡是直接整个搬过来中国如何改造的,这太不逻辑了。

DukeOfHelsinki

Precisely. 恰图兰加这种游戏是最古老的,但是在演变的过程中确实已经和它没有太大关系了。

JessieWong
DukeOfHelsinki wrote:

Precisely. 恰图兰加这种游戏是最古老的,但是在演变的过程中确实已经和它没有太大关系了。

是的