|
Home > Archive > Chinese chess > July 2005 > Notation practice in preparation for Championship in Paris
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 |
Notation practice in preparation for Championship in Paris
|
|
| youhao 2005-06-19, 8:31 pm |
| Some notation practice in preparation for World Xiangqi Championships
in Paris 30 July ~ 7 August 2005
2004 'General Cup' China National Xiangqi League
Red : Li Wangxiang (Hubei)
Black : Wang Bin (Jiangsu)
Played on 19.5.2004 Beijing (1st round)
1. C2=4 C2=6 2. N2+3 N8+9 3. R1=2 R9=8 4. P7+1 N2+3
5. N8+7 R1=2 6. R9=8 R2+4 7. C8=9 R2+5 8. N7-8 P7+1
9. N8+7 C8=7 10. R2+9 N9-8 11.B3+5 C7+4 12.C4+4 B3+5
13.N7+6 N8+7 14. C4=7 C6+3 15.C9=7 C6=8 16.rC+1 (draw)
| |
|
|
youhao wrote:
quote:
> Some notation practice in preparation for World Xiangqi Championships
> in Paris 30 July ~ 7 August 2005
>
> 2004 'General Cup' China National Xiangqi League
> Red : Li Wangxiang (Hubei)
> Black : Wang Bin (Jiangsu)
> Played on 19.5.2004 Beijing (1st round)
>
> 1. C2=4 C2=6 2. N2+3 N8+9 3. R1=2 R9=8 4. P7+1 N2+3
> 5. N8+7 R1=2 6. R9=8 R2+4 7. C8=9 R2+5 8. N7-8 P7+1
> 9. N8+7 C8=7 10. R2+9 N9-8 11.B3+5 C7+4 12.C4+4 B3+5
> 13.N7+6 N8+7 14. C4=7 C6+3 15.C9=7 C6=8 16.rC+1 (draw)
quote:
>16.rC+1
Is this the official AXF notation? I always thought that AXF notation
used + or - to differentiate between the front and back pieces when
two of the same pieces are on a file. (I don't know about the rare > 2
tandem pawn cases.) In fact if you look on the AXF website the notation
system used in this document does not match the above usage:
http://www.asianxiangqi.org/English/XQRudiments.pdf
David Li uses F and B in his books, and endorses the WXF. However the
WXF site now also suggests + and - if you look at
http://wxf.hypermart.net/eg/wxf_notation.html. Perhaps this changed
over the years, and Mr. Li is keeping his books consistent with some
earlier recommendations.
Where is the definitive AXF specification? Are players forced to use
the official AXF notation on WXC score sheets? And is this why you
suggest some notation practice?
Regards,
Keith
| |
| David H Li 2005-06-26, 12:30 am |
| Keith, commenting on a game score provided by youhao, wrote:
quote:
> <>16.rC+1 Is this the official AXF notation? I always thought that
> AXF notation
quote:
> <>used + or - to differentiate between the front and back pieces when
> two of the same pieces are on a file. (I don't know about the rare > 2
> tandem pawn cases.) In fact if you look on the AXF website the notation
> system used in this document does not match the above usage:
>
> http://www.asianxiangqi.org/English/XQRudiments.pdf
>
> David Li uses F and B in his books, and endorses the WXF. However the
> WXF site now also suggests + and - if you look at
> http://wxf.hypermart.net/eg/wxf_notation.html. Perhaps this changed
> over the years, and Mr. Li is keeping his books consistent with some
> earlier recommendations.
>
> Where is the definitive AXF specification? Are players forced to use
> the official AXF notation on WXC score sheets? And is this why you
> suggest some notation practice?
I think the non-Chinese recording system is designed mainly for those
players unfamiliar with Chinese notations. At the 8th World Xiangqi
Championship, Hong Kong 2003, most of the score sheets I saw were
written in Chinese. When so, the piece of the same variety on the same
file that is further from the player is labeled "front"; that is closer
to the player, "back" -- or "+" and "-" to save time. To my knowledge,
given the tense environment to which players are subject, the officers
are not particular as to how the score is (or, at least, was) kept,
whether in Chinese or in western notations (as youhao has given us) --
the key is correctness. Since each game is/was played over before it
become/became official, and since the official record (at least the game
scores of the last five WXCs in my possession, from Singapore 1995 to
Hong Kong 2003) are in Chinese, it really makes little difference how
moves are recorded by players.
As Keith correctly states, in my books on Xiangqi (published in
even-numbered years from 1996 through 2004, following each WXC, held in
odd-numbered years; 5 volumes so far), I opt for consistency -- as well
as clarity and convenience in mentally following moves without setting
up the board. In classical scores published in olden days, captures
were a part of game scores -- which I also follow in my book -- but,
perhaps to save time in competition, are not a part of the score kept by
players nor in the official record. A pity. On this front,
scorekeeping in western chess is superior -- not only is a capture
marked (by "x"), so is a check (by "+"). Again, for clarity and
convenience in following without setting up the board, in my books,
written in English, a check (by "ch"; or, on occasion, a double check
("dbl ch") or a discovered check ("dis ch")) is so noted.
David Li
| |
| youhao 2005-07-01, 8:32 pm |
| The importance is consistency and simplicity. There is no fixed and
rigid rule(s) in Xiangqi notation systems. The spirit simply on
freedom, friendly, fun. In the Preface to the Second Edition of
'Chinese Chess : An Introduction To The Openings', the author stated :
"Xiangqi has continue to develop and expand in China and many parts of
the world. Game notation also evolves. For example, nowadays, it is
usual to employ the symbol + to indicate a forward movement of a piece,
the symbol - to indicate a backward movement, the symbol = to indicate
a sideways movement." One should not worry too much about notation, for
at the end of the day, the better one will always be accepted by the
majority.
|
| |
|
|