Chinese chess - Confusing tactical example

Author

Confusing tactical example

Richard

2004-12-04, 12:45 am

I've been going through the tactics on this tutorial web page:

http://www.geocities.com/yccheok/tutorial/menu.html

There's one example that doesn't make sense to me. I'm not sure if
it's because I'm a stupid newbie, or if there's a word wrong in the
explanation. The example I'm confused on is the first one on this
page:

http://www.geocities.com/yccheok/tu...listing312.html

The solution says that red will lose a piece. I don't get it. Should
that say that blue will lose a piece? It seems like after the cannon
move, the cannon is going to be able to capture either the blue horse
or cannon, no matter what blue does. Or am I missing something?

--Richard "Fromper" Becker

David H Li

2004-12-05, 12:45 am

Early on, I read that this newsgroup was on the verge of being abandoned
until Bill Brydon of Toronto rescued it. This being so, it is important
that whoever is interested in Xiangqi support this newsgroup by
responding to queries that are on-topic. It is in this spirit that I am
responding to this query by Richard. Let us first quote his query:

Richard wrote:

quote:

> I've been going through the tactics on this tutorial web page:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/yccheok/tutorial/menu.html
>
> There's one example that doesn't make sense to me. I'm not sure if
> it's because I'm a stupid newbie, or if there's a word wrong in the
> explanation. The example I'm confused on is the first one on this
> page:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/yccheok/tu...listing312.html
>
> The solution says that red will lose a piece. I don't get it. Should
> that say that blue will lose a piece? It seems like after the cannon
> move, the cannon is going to be able to capture either the blue horse
> or cannon, no matter what blue does. Or am I missing something?
>
> --Richard "Fromper" Becker

The reason I have to preface my response with what I wrote in the first
paragraph is that, being the author of a series of books on Xiangqi, I am
technically a competitor. This being so, I shall try to be careful,
limiting my comments to the specific example cited by Richard.

Let me first compliment Richard for his interest in Xiangqi. In
particular, his self-study and his willingness to raise questions unclear
to him are commendable. In this particular instance, I also wish to
thank him for calling my attention to this website, over which I have no
knowledge until clicking to the link Richard provided.

To acquaint myself with this website before answering, I spent some time
and read its contents from the very beginning to the page on which
Richard has questions. I have taken some notes along the way but, as
noted above, I shall limit my comments to the case cited by him.

To Richard as well as to anyone who plans to raise queries, it is always
a good idea to provide a diagram. This is needed for two reasons. One,
with a diagram at hand, more people can readily see the issue at hand
without reference to the diagram given in the link. Two, the link may be
unstable -- it might disappear in due course -- meaning that comments
applicable thereto will have no anchor.

The diagram given in the link, reproduced below, is as follows:

.. . e a k a e . r
.. . . . . . . . .
.. . h . c . h c .
p . p . p . . . p
.. . . . . . p . .
.. . P . . . . . .
P r . . P . P . .
.. . H C E . H C .
.. . . . A . . . .
R . E A K . . . R

(I just checked the above against the diagram shown in the link. Red's
File 1 Pawn is unaccounted for and appears, to me, to have been
inadvertently omitted. However, its presence or absence plays no role
in what is at issue.)

Richard states: "the solution says that Red will lose a piece." My
reading suggests otherwise. First, there is no "solution." All it
shows, on this page in the link, is that it is the third example of a
"double attack", the first two, which are shown on a preceding page,
involve the chaRiot in example 1 and the Horse in example 2. This one,
involving the Cannon, has only one move: 1 C6+5 -- that is it.

In the first example on the preceding page (not given in my response
here), after some five moves (counting a play by Red and its response by
Black, together, as one move; see final paragraph below), the Red chaRiot
is able to threaten Black's Horse and Cannon simultaneously -- using one
playing piece to threaten two of the opponent's playing pieces
simultaneously is presumably what is meant by "double attack". (On the
preceding page just before example 1, we read the following: "Double
attack is the tactic which is commonly seen in every Xiang Qi game. Its
idea is same as the idea in 'one stone two birds'. Most of the time, the
results of double attack are 'one side gains the piece and another side
loses the pieces....")

Example 2 on the preceding page (also not included in this response) has
only one move, 1 H6+4, with which Red threatens Black's Horse and Cannon
simultaneously.

In view of these two examples, it seems to me that what the author
attempts to demonstrate is that, in example 3, the move of 1 C6+5 allows
Red to gain a piece, either the Black Horse at 7iii or, if that Horse is
moved away, the Black Cannon at 8iii. While one may argue whether this
move is indeed a "double attack," Black would indeed lose a piece.

So, Richard, to answer your question, you did not miss anything --
indeed, your analysis is perfect. My congratulations. It is Red, not
Black (or Blue, in your scheme), which is destined to gain a piece.

So much for the answer. Let me take this opportunity to extend this
example further. Red's move of 1 C6+5 illustrates the importance of
having an Adviser at 5ii in due course. Here, Black has not played an
Adviser to 5ii, thereby allowing Red to play C6+5 and gain a piece. By
the same token, it is Red's having played an Adviser to 5ii that allows
Red to gain a piece. Were this not so, were the Red Adviser at 4i
instead of at 5ii (the actual), Black might reply as follows:

1 C6+5 C5+4xP check
2 H7+5xC C8=4xC

In other words, Black would force an exchange of Cannons with the Red
Pawn as boot -- without the Red Adviser at 5ii, Black would gain a Pawn
instead of losing either a Horse or a Cannon.

Finally, let me also add that the move-number designation in this
tutorial is not the standard -- a move by the first player (in this game,
Red, though in other games, Black) is given an initial number, and the
second player's move (in this game, none is needed) is given the next
consecutive number. The WXF practice is to give one number to both Red's
and Black's moves, similar to my two moves shown above. (Where a Black
move is given by itself, it is preceded by three dots ... [ellipses];
thus, 2 ... C8=4xC)

I hope this answers your question. Again, we thank you for calling our
attention to this free tutorial on the internet and for your posing
questions for clarification. No question is a "newbie" question; we are
all learning.

David Li
author of "First Syllabus on Xiangqi" and other books

Anthony

2004-12-05, 12:45 am

Richard,

Yes that looks like a typo, however I think it's due to the fact that
this position appears to be a Fan Gong Ma ("Sandwich Horse" or "Pseudo
Two-Knights")with colors reversed, and typically the blue player would
be winning the piece.
So, given the right colors Red would indeed be the one losing the
piece! I'm not sure why he chose the colors reversed, but I guess it's
not that unusual.

Anthony Glass

blueghost73@yahoo.com (Richard) wrote in message news:<c3e4d964.0412031955.42d7aab6@posting.google.com>...

quote:

> I've been going through the tactics on this tutorial web page:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/yccheok/tutorial/menu.html
>
> There's one example that doesn't make sense to me. I'm not sure if
> it's because I'm a stupid newbie, or if there's a word wrong in the
> explanation. The example I'm confused on is the first one on this
> page:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/yccheok/tu...listing312.html
>
> The solution says that red will lose a piece. I don't get it. Should
> that say that blue will lose a piece? It seems like after the cannon
> move, the cannon is going to be able to capture either the blue horse
> or cannon, no matter what blue does. Or am I missing something?
>
> --Richard "Fromper" Becker

Richard

2004-12-06, 12:46 am

Thank you to both of you who responded, not only for confirming that I
was right in my analysis of the position, but also providing the
additional insight into the details of this particular position. I
really wasn't expecting that much additional information, so it was a
pleasant surprise.

To David Li:

I'm surprised you hadn't seen this tutorial page before, as I know it
has been there since the first time I took up this game, around 3
years ago. I'm only just returning to the game after a long hiatus,
and the tutorial page really doesn't seem to have changed any.

As for the "competition" this web page provides to your series of
books, I wouldn't worry about it. The quantity of English language
references on XiangQi are so limited that there's plenty of room for
additional sources. Most of the references that are available seem to
focus on different aspects of the game, so there really doesn't seem
to be any direct competition to be the best book or web site to read
for any particular area.

For instance, your first book (which I already own and have read)
seems to me to be the only definitive English language source for the
absolute beginner, while this web page focuses on tactics and listing
many specific openings. With your later books (of which I own one, but
haven't had the chance to read it yet) focusing on the uses of each
piece in various areas of the games, I'm sure there will be some
overlap in the material, but the focus definitely seems to be
different. So again, I don't see why it would be considered any sort
of direct competition. I see both as useful reading for someone such
as myself.

Actually, the more direct competition would seem to be between the
tutorial page and the free English language books available at the
World XiangQi Federation's web site:

http://wxf.hypermart.net/eg/

Their books focus specifically on tactics and openings, so the
material covered in this free tutorial is going to more directly
overlap their books. However, I see the tutorial as a decent
introduction (despite its few mistakes and broken links here and
there), while the WXF books go into more detail and expand upon that
information.

In the final analysis, though, there are so few XiangQi books in
English that it's not an unrealistic goal for someone like me to want
to read all of them. So again, I really don't see it as competition.
Just my opinion.

--Richard "The Fromper" Becker

I survived 2 hurricanes in 3 weeks and all I got was this lousy
signature line.