Chinese VS International: On The Chessboard

“In Chinese Chess the knight, sometimes called the “Mă” in Mandarin, can be obstructed by other pieces in its pathway. But this is different with International Chess – the knight is always free to move.”

I never failed to remember those words my dad told me when I was eight. That one fact made me look out of completely new eyes when I compared the two remarkably similar games of chess together. The one-on-one competition to outsmart your opponent was taken on a completely new level: the knight could not be obstructed, taking out what my young mind thought was nothing but a flaw in the game. After learning the Chinese Chess rules for a few short months, I never even had the chance to use them in my rush to gain what I thought International Chess would promise – a more entertaining game.

But now as a sixteen year old, when I’ve thoroughly learnt the basic rules and strategies for both games, I look back at them with neutral eyes. As an American born Chinese, I was determined to find the pros and cons for each game, even though I enjoyed playing both. And asked myself the following questions: what were the fundamental principles and properties that made such a simple but fascinating game? Did it have something to do with the rules? Yes, it did…

Each piece on the board is given a specific route of movement and attack. Players will need to think hard about how to combine a variety of different tactics to accomplish the simple objective: a checkmate. But what is the one thing that makes a game fun to play? A challenge. Balancing out the difficulties of a game is crucial – making it impossible to win will throw people off, but making it far too simple is a game not worth playing.

And it made me think that International Chess had somewhat chosen the latter road. Even though each player had identical chess pieces and quantities, it was their abilities that made things far too simple when in comparison with Chinese Chess. Under skilled hands, and victory would come all too quickly. Played by an amateur, and things would get too frustrating. Everything is focused on the superpower of the board: the Queen. Its crucial status reflected the all-too destructive demeanor – such a powerful piece would make it a substitute target besides the King. And the Knight isn’t too far behind: if it cannot be obstructed like in Chinese Chess, then defense and attack would be far too simple. The King is free to roam in all squares of the chessboard. Pawns can be redeemed for additional Queens once they reach the opponent’s starting side. Such rules would give both players advantages, but it acted like a two-way sword: such power could always go against you. Where had the challenge for this game gone to?

Chinese Chess, on the other hand, seemed so much more balanced in many different ways. While not straying too far along the scale of impossibility, it enhances difficulty levels using several methods. The King is not allowed to leave the “fortress”, and neither can its guards. The Elephant/Minister cannot cross the river – restricting their movement and limiting their usefulness. Knights can be obstructed with any piece, and if it comes to a standoff between one horse and a hindered one, the latter cannot reciprocate the attack because of the lack of mobility. Kings can never directly come face-to-face along the length of the chessboard, opening many doors that lead to colorful checkmates. There is no ultimate piece of the game – it is more balanced by giving the two rooks the title of being the most powerful pieces.

Why such a big difference? Both games focus on the use of strategy and tactics, and both players are given the exact same positions at the start of the game. Maybe one would think it all lies within the rules…but how did such a difference in the rules come by?

It made me think the answer lay inside the two dissimilar cultures – we’ve all heard the phrase ‘when East meets West.’ And in a way, it did make sense if we compared it to the corresponding traditions. Back in the olden times, customary Chinese people treated more than just family members as ‘brothers.’ Neighbors, friends, even colleagues, were all given the same attention and closeness. But in Western society, did this exist to such a degree? Maybe there were exceptions, but everyone had more of an independent attitude towards living, perhaps wanting to achieve more without synergy.

Could the game be somehow reflecting these two contrasting cultures? Perhaps…in Chinese Chess, everything is more balanced when determining the abilities of pieces. There is no ultimate power on the board – everything needs to fully support each other in order to win. International Chess has the same concept under its name, but only after the Queen has been removed. Otherwise, players tend to use their most powerful piece to do their bidding; to go independently rather than wait for the majority of their forces to get into position, while the Chinese concentrate more intently on the support of each and every piece to see victory.

Just like men in Eastern society waiting to give aid to their brothers when they need it.