Does xiangqi have a bigger branching factor than chess, given its larger board?
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
Broadly comparable, rather than one clearly and consistently larger. Xiangqi's board has more points than a chess board, and the cannon adds genuinely long-range options, both of which push the average number of legal moves upward. But the confined general, the blockable horse, and the elephant and advisor's severe restriction to a handful of points each pull it back down, so the two games generally end up discussed as being in the same broad range rather than xiangqi clearly dwarfing chess.
What pushes xiangqi's branching factor up
More points on the board than chess has squares, plus the cannon's ability to threaten distant targets across the whole board given a screen, both add to the raw count of legal options in a typical position compared with a similarly developed chess position.
What pulls it back down
Xiangqi packs in restrictions chess simply does not have: a horse frequently loses moves to a blocked leg, and the advisor and elephant are limited to a handful of fixed points for the entire game rather than ranging freely. Those restrictions offset a meaningful share of the extra room the bigger board would otherwise provide.
Related questions
So which game is harder for an engine to search deeply?
Neither has a dramatic, decisive edge from branching factor alone; see xiangqi vs chess for how the two games otherwise compare in complexity.
Does this mean the two games are equally complex overall?
Not necessarily identical, but close enough that neither is considered dramatically simpler than the other by this measure.
.