Editorial standards

How the content on this site is written, checked, and corrected.

Every position is machine-verified

Each interactive board on this site is checked against our own rules engine when the site is built, not by hand afterwards. If a page claims a horse has six moves from a point, the build asks the engine for the legal moves and fails unless the answer is six. If a page presents a mate in one, the build confirms it is mate — and, where the page says the mate is unique, that no other move also mates.

The practical effect is that a factual error about a position cannot be published. It can only fail the build.

The engine

That engine is the same one that runs games on play.xiangqimaster.com. It implements the World Xiangqi Federation laws, including the repetition rules — perpetual check (长将) and perpetual chase (长捉) — and is tested against the official 110-diagram casebook. There is no second, simplified implementation used for the website, precisely so that the two cannot drift apart.

Authorship

Content is written and maintained by the Xiangqi Master editorial team. We do not attribute pages to invented experts, and we do not claim credentials, titles or master ratings that we do not hold. Where a claim rests on judgement rather than on a rule — opening assessments, piece values, endgame tendencies — we say so in the text rather than presenting it as settled fact.

Rules and sources

Rules content follows the World Xiangqi Federation rules and the Chinese national rules. Where the two differ in detail, the difference is noted rather than papered over. Piece values and opening evaluations reflect established practice, and are presented as rules of thumb, which is what they are.

Corrections

If something here is wrong, we want to know and we will fix it. That includes our claim that no other library in the JavaScript, TypeScript, Rust or Python ecosystems adjudicates perpetual chase correctly — it reflects our own survey, we would be glad to be shown otherwise, and we will amend the claim if we are.

On generated content

We do not publish bulk-generated articles, and we do not create pages because a keyword exists. Every page here has to justify itself with at least one of: an interactive position, an original explanation, verified data, or a genuinely useful comparison. A page that would only restate what is already on another page does not get made.