Talk:Banqi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	SG Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
Strategy games To-do: edit  Create: Close Combat: The Russian Front • Close Combat: Battle of the Bulge • Close Combat: Invasion Normandy • List of units and buildings in StarCraft Expand: HeroQuest (board game) • Boku (game) • Qubic • Death Stacks • Entropy (board game) • Fitchneal • Five Field Kono Copyedit: Crossings (game) • Gonnect • Quoridor • Company of Heroes • Dark Reign • Myth (computer game) Cleanup: Abalone (board game) • Age of Mythology • Battle Realms • Outlive • Stronghold (2001 game) • Fleet Command • Combat Mission (computer game series) Cite Sources: Colonization (computer game) • MacHack (chess) Update: List of strategy video games More...

Contents 1 Stalemate 2 Lower half 3 Piece Names 4 Captures / Eats 5 Parity end-games vs. Stalemate

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)