Has xiangqi been solved like checkers has?
These answers restate the rules implemented by our open-source engine, which follows the WXF laws for movement, checkmate and both repetition rulings: a side that forces a repetition by perpetual check or perpetual chase loses rather than drawing. The chase half has not been validated against the official casebook. Where an answer refers to a specific position, that position lives on the linked reference page, where the build verifies it before publishing.
Direct answer
No. Checkers was formally proven to be a draw with perfect play in 2007, after years of dedicated computation. Xiangqi's state space is vastly larger, in the same broad region as chess, and no comparable complete solution exists or is realistically expected with current methods. Strong xiangqi engines play at a very high level, but that is not the same thing as solving the game.
Why the gap in complexity matters so much
Checkers has a relatively small state space by comparison, which made an exhaustive computer proof achievable. Xiangqi, with seven distinct piece types and a 90-point board, has a search space closer to chess's, generally considered far too large to solve completely with any technology currently available or foreseeable.
What strong play actually means here
Top xiangqi engines today play at a level well beyond the strongest human players, similar to the situation in chess, but "very strong" and "solved" are different claims. A solved game has a mathematically proven optimal result from the starting position; a strongly played game does not.
Related questions
Could xiangqi ever realistically be solved?
Not with foreseeable computing methods, given the size of its state space, though incremental progress on smaller endgame categories continues.
Are individual xiangqi endgames solved even if the full game isn't?
Yes, many basic checkmates and simplified material combinations are fully worked out and proven, even though the complete game from the starting position is not.
.