|
Home > Archive > Chinese chess > December 2004 > Confusing tactical example
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Confusing tactical example
|
|
| Richard 2004-12-06, 9:46 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 2004-12-07, 12:45 am |
| Richard wrote, inter alia:
quote:
> To David Li:
>
> 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.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. When I said that "I am technically a
competitor," I mean that the tutorial and the books on Xiangqi I wrote are
aimed at the same group of readers -- Xiangqi enthusiasts interested in
reading Xiangqi materials in English. While you are indeed correct to
suggest that "there's plenty of room for additional sources," I do not
wish to leave the impression that I am making unnecessary remarks about
other sources that might be misconstrued as being uncomplimentary. It is
in that vein that I said "I shall try to be careful, limiting my comments
to the example cited by" you.
quote:
> 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.
The purpose of the tutorial, as well as that of the WXF website to which
you refer, as well as that of my series of books is the same -- to
interest people in the exciting game of Xiangqi. Viewed in this light,
all sources are complementary rather than competiting -- your willingness
to explore a variety of sources is a good example that you share this
purpose. We compliment you for your interest in Xiangqi.
David Li
| |
| yccheok@gmail.com 2004-12-10, 12:45 am |
| Ya, you are correct. Blue will lose a piece. That is a terrible mistake
made by the web master ;) Thanks for pointing out!
| |
| yccheok@gmail.com 2004-12-13, 12:45 am |
| Ya, you are correct. Blue will lose a piece. That is a terrible mistake
made by the web master ;) Thanks for pointing out!
|
| |
|
|