I like chess better than xiangqi . And you ?   For my part , xiangqi . Maybe it's because my girlfriend is Chinese .   I think chess is more reasonable . You see , each side has eight pawns , a larger number than that of the soldiers in xiangqi . A true battle should be like that . Soldiers should outnumber the commanders .   Quite right . And unlike the soldiers in xiangqi , the pawns in chess can promote once they reach the furthest rank . It is very agreeable to grant merits to people with good performance .   Correct ! Another contrast is the rules for the general and the king . It seems the general or marshal in xiangqi is much too incompetent . They are required to stay in the palace , waiting to be checked and fleeing for life under the cover of the guards . Look at the king in chess , he is much more capable .   Yeah , and though the king in chess doesn't have bodyguards , he has a queen who is the most powerful piece . I think this demonstrates the relatively higher social status of aristocratic women in medieval Europe than in China .   There's another distinctive contrast . Both board games use a total of 32 pieces , but xiangqi is played on a 9 - by - 9 board , bigger than the 8 - by - 8 board used in chess . 