|
Home > Archive > Chinese chess > July 2005 > A Match Of Two Games
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 |
A Match Of Two Games
|
|
| youhao 2005-07-11, 8:32 pm |
| A match of two games (Xiangqi and Weiqi) was played on July 7th in
Beijing, between Hu Ronghua, better known as 'Commander Hu' in Xiangqi
community, and Nie Weiping, a famous Weiqi champion player, honoured as
the 'Sage'. The games were played both at the same time, rate of play
was 1 hour and 20 minutes per player per game. Hu gave Nie odd of one
Knight and two moves, Nie gave Hu odd of two stones. The match was
broadcast live on Internet, within half an hour, Nie fell into a trap
set up by his opponent and had to concede defeat. In the game of Weiqi,
as expected, Hu was gradually squeezed by Nie and lost in turn after
260 moves. It was a happy ending and a good laugh too.
| |
| David H Li 2005-07-13, 8:32 pm |
| A computer-game group has, at one time, assessed the relative complexity
of three games: (1) western chess, (2) Xiangqi, and (3) weiqi. The
conclusion: western chess is the easiest, weiqi the hardest, and Xiangqi
is somewhere in between. (Intuitively, using my maneuverability ratio,
first proposed in my Genealogy of Chess, I gave the same result.) My
query: on a scale of 100 = weiqi, where would the score for western
chess and Xiangqi be? A wild guess on my part (allowing tic-tac-toe =1
and checker = 15) western chess would be 40-45, Xiangqi would be 55-60.
David Li
youhao wrote:
quote:
>A match of two games (Xiangqi and Weiqi) was played on July 7th in
>Beijing, between Hu Ronghua, better known as 'Commander Hu' in Xiangqi
>community, and Nie Weiping, a famous Weiqi champion player, honoured as
>the 'Sage'. The games were played both at the same time, rate of play
>was 1 hour and 20 minutes per player per game. Hu gave Nie odd of one
>Knight and two moves, Nie gave Hu odd of two stones. The match was
>broadcast live on Internet, within half an hour, Nie fell into a trap
>set up by his opponent and had to concede defeat. In the game of Weiqi,
>as expected, Hu was gradually squeezed by Nie and lost in turn after
>260 moves. It was a happy ending and a good laugh too.
>
>
>
| |
| Alain Dekker 2005-07-14, 8:33 pm |
| I'm no expert, but knowing all three games to a reasonable level, I know
intuitively that this is true: Go is much more complex than either Chess or
Xiangqi (and Xiangqi more so than chess).
However, these are rather arbitrary measures. After all, football (or
soccer) is one of the most intellectually sterile of sports (badminton and
cricket, for example, requires several times more calculation/intellectual
ability to understand), yet it is enjoyed, quite legitemately, by hundreds
of millions of people. It is this very reason - that anybody can quickly
understand the basics and mechanics of the game of soccer - that it is so
popular. The more complex the game, the less people tend to play it (at
least in the West!!).
I'd also say that while Go is probably one of the most complex games, it is
not as "tactile" as chess/Xiangqi which offer more variety. Even games like
Backgammon which are much less complex than checkers, are wonderful games in
their own right.
Not a very useful contribution - these things are so difficult to quantify.
Alain
"David H Li" <davidli@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3fOdnbMAZbyYhUjfRVn-tg@rcn.net...[vbcol=seagreen]
>A computer-game group has, at one time, assessed the relative complexity of
>three games: (1) western chess, (2) Xiangqi, and (3) weiqi. The
>conclusion: western chess is the easiest, weiqi the hardest, and Xiangqi is
>somewhere in between. (Intuitively, using my maneuverability ratio, first
>proposed in my Genealogy of Chess, I gave the same result.) My query: on a
>scale of 100 = weiqi, where would the score for western chess and Xiangqi
>be? A wild guess on my part (allowing tic-tac-toe =1 and checker = 15)
>western chess would be 40-45, Xiangqi would be 55-60. David Li
>
> youhao wrote:
>
| |
| DragonSlay 2005-07-19, 12:31 am |
| How about comparing chess, xiangi, and shogi? Would anyone disagree that
shogi is the most difficult of the three? Again using intuition, it would
seem correct because of the fact that most shogi pieces promote to a more
powerful piece and the unique rule in shogi about drops. It's interesting
that this topic is being discussed here, as I have been considering this
as I learned to play shogi the last few days.
| |
| Alain Dekker 2005-07-19, 8:43 pm |
| I only know the basics of Shogi, but as a keen games player who reads about
these subjects, it is generally considered that Shogi is the most complex,
Xiangqi of intermediate complexity and Chess the "simplest" (not to say that
chess is simple, though, because its not!).
As I mentioned, though, these measures are still arbitrary. The African game
Oware is now considered to be "solved" (by a computer with a 760Gb God
database!), yet since its impossible for anyone to master the database, it
still a very skillful (and enjoyable) game.
Lets all play many games! I've heard it said by many a chess player, "Oh, I
don't want to play Chinese Chess. Chess is too complicated and I want to
concentrate on one game". This is false economy: Playing many games, in my
experience, broadens your imagination and actually improves your play in any
one game.
Again, from a non-expert...
Alain
"DragonSlay" <sepolley@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c4c5bea33a48c07b7deb585f846c70de@localhost.talkaboutgaming.com...
quote:
> How about comparing chess, xiangi, and shogi? Would anyone disagree that
> shogi is the most difficult of the three? Again using intuition, it would
> seem correct because of the fact that most shogi pieces promote to a more
> powerful piece and the unique rule in shogi about drops. It's interesting
> that this topic is being discussed here, as I have been considering this
> as I learned to play shogi the last few days.
>
|
| |
|
|