Talk:Banqi

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chariot

This is pretty fuzzy. First it is stated: "Unlike Xiangqi, all pieces move identically [...]"

And under strategy (why is this under strategy anyway? It describes piece movement so if it's correct it should be under Capturing an opposing piece; or is this some local variant?): "Chariots can capture any piece by moving any number of spaces on the board, like rooks in Western Chess. However, they can only do this when capturing a piece."

Which is it? 83.142.5.155 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This really needs to be addressed — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSwarthout (talk • contribs) 19:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

Something that perhaps could be added in the future: When was this game invented, where and by who? I'd do this myself but I do not know. 83.142.5.155 (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalemate

With regard to this sentence:

In practice however, the player who keeps attacking and making repeated moves, is required to stop the repeating move, or be deemed to lose. Thus the draw by perpetual chasing is not possible.

This completely contradicts the rules I was taught. Can we compromise by mentioning this as one of the rules variations (perhaps adding a section) or are there references for these rules? Walrii 16:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a website where the official Ban Chi rules are listed? If no, then my understanding of the rules is as right as yours. Thus if you are to make changes, perhaps you can say something like both are correct and players have to agree on the rules before playing. Kiwi8 08:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of changing the phrasing to indicate that it is a matter of preference, as seems to be the case. --166.70.232.63 07:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lower half

The entire lower half of the article doesn't seem too encyclopedic - (presently revised 'Strategy' to avoid the inappropriate tone warning) more like hints on how to play. By comparison, the featured counterpart Xiangqi has a section about that length, and an actual article 3 times as long. Should that 'Strategy' section be removed entirely or merely truncated?

Also, shouldn't this article's location be "Banqi," since Xiangqi is based on the pinyin as well? ✗ Zen. ^∞ 07:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piece Names

Zen. has changed the names of the pieces. Although I'm not happy to give up the names I've used for 20 years, it is possible that I was taught incorrectly. My teacher spoke Taiwanese, but not natively, and he may have used king and pawn just to make it seem more familiar to us round-eyes. However, even if we're going to use the "official" names from Xianqi, I think we should avoid the name minister because both the guard (士 / 仕) and the elephant (象 / 相) are sometimes known by that name. To wit, the xiangqi article mentions that possible names for 士 include advisor, guard, minister, assistant, mandarin, and warrior, while the possible names for 象 are elephant and minister.

Pending further discussion, I'm changing minister to elephant throughout the article. Perlmonger42 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captures / Eats

Eats and Eaten by seem too informal in tone. Perhaps Captures and Captors? or possibly May capture: and Vulnerable to:? Other ideas, anybody? Perlmonger42 01:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the names, and have no preference otherwise. It does seem odd to me now, but 'eat' was always the verb I used to play (Xiangqi, at least) - not informal, just not the proper use of the word in English. Also, since you learned the Taiwanese version, please update accordingly, since the article is very vague. I had always played with 炮 moving once space only, but apparently Taiwanese allow them to jump, so I left that in their designation. Same thing with their unique heirarchy: in my version, they rank below 傌. z ε n  01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parity end-games vs. Stalemate

When using the "stalemate instigator loses" rule, does a parity end game (for example, pawn vs king) always yield a winner? If the parity is in my favor, my pawn can capture his king. But if not, my continual failing attack on his king is a stalemate would mean I lose.

I guess in such games I should just wander off into another corner and make random moves so as not to lose via stalemate? Perlmonger42 01:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. As the article states, parity "determines the winner. The pawn's move will produce a stalemate, ". . .etc. In each case, it depends on the pre-determined rules that state whether stalemate is a loss or a draw, or neither. z ε n  02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capture by Chariot

I wonder if the rule given in the lower part (Strategy) for the Chariot is not a mistake: "Chariots can capture any piece by moving any number of spaces on the board, like rooks in Western Chess. However, they can only do this when capturing a piece." Any number of spaces? I thought all pieces are moving and capturing 1 step only (except the Cannon in the Taiwanese variant). A mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cazaux (talk • contribs) 21:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section on stalemate

Surely this is not stalemate, but perpetual chasing? Double sharp (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]