Does xiangqi commentary use different terminology than chess, or has it borrowed most of chess's vocabulary?
These answers restate the rules implemented by our open-source engine, which follows the WXF laws and is regression-tested against the official 110-diagram repetition casebook. Where an answer refers to a specific position, that position lives on the linked reference page, where the build verifies it against the engine before publishing.
Direct answer
A meaningful amount of its own vocabulary, not simply borrowed chess terms. General strategic ideas like tempo, initiative, and material are shared across both games and translate cleanly enough. But many of xiangqi's most specific concepts, named patterns like the horse-behind-cannon mate, or structural ideas like the screen a cannon needs, come from a distinct Chinese chess tradition and do not map onto any existing chess term at all.
Where the vocabularies overlap
Broad strategic language, describing an attack, a weakness, a plan, or the initiative, works essentially the same way in both games and needs no real translation, since both traditions are ultimately describing the same underlying kind of competitive reasoning.
Where xiangqi's vocabulary stands on its own
Concepts tied to mechanics chess simply does not have, the cannon's screen, the flying-general rule, a soldier crossing the river, come with their own dedicated terms in Chinese that get translated into English roughly rather than mapped onto an existing chess word. A chess player learning xiangqi genuinely has to learn some new vocabulary, not just relabel familiar ideas.
Related questions
Are English translations of Chinese xiangqi terms standardised?
Reasonably, for the most common terms, though different authors and translators sometimes render the same idea slightly differently.
Does this make xiangqi commentary harder for a chess player to follow?
Somewhat at first, mainly around the pieces and mechanics unique to xiangqi, but the general strategic commentary reads very familiarly.
.