#Person1#: I like chess better than xiangqi. And you?
#Person2#: For my part, xiangqi. Maybe it's because my girlfriend is Chinese.
#Person1#: I think chess is more reasonable. You see, each side has eight pawns, a larger number than that of the soldiers in xiangqi. A true battle should be like that. Soldiers should outnumber the commanders.
#Person2#: Quite right. And unlike the soldiers in xiangqi, the pawns in chess can promote once they reach the furthest rank. It is very agreeable to grant merits to people with good performance.
#Person1#: Correct! Another contrast is the rules for the general and the king. It seems the general or marshal in xiangqi is much too incompetent. They are required to stay in the palace, waiting to be checked and fleeing for life under the cover of the guards. Look at the king in chess, he is much more capable.
#Person2#: Yeah, and though the king in chess doesn't have bodyguards, he has a queen who is the most powerful piece. I think this demonstrates the relatively higher social status of aristocratic women in medieval Europe than in China.
#Person1#: There's another distinctive contrast. Both board games use a total of 32 pieces, but xiangqi is played on a 9 - by - 9 board, bigger than the 8 - by - 8 board used in chess.
#Person2#: You mean, xiangqi pieces are allowed a larger space in which to move around?
#Person1#: Sure. On a chessboard, fire is much more intensive. It has a smaller board, while those bigger pieces-chariots, horses and bishops-can cover longer distances.
#Person1# and #Person2# discuss the differences between chess and xiangqi. Both of them think chess is more reasonable than xiangqi in certain rules, but #Person1# think xiangqi has a larger space in which to move around.
chess and xiangqi