How do annotated xiangqi books mark good and bad moves?
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
They borrow the same symbols chess annotation uses: ! for a strong move, ? for a mistake, !? for an interesting try, ?! for something dubious. These are added on top of the base notation by whoever is annotating; they are not part of the move-recording system itself, which stays purely descriptive.
Why the base system has nothing built in
Plain game notation only records what happened, never how good it was. Adding evaluation requires a second, separate layer written by a commentator, exactly as in chess. A raw game record with no annotation carries no opinions at all, good or bad.
What else annotators add
Diagrams at key moments, prose explaining a plan, and occasionally a short variation in brackets showing what else was considered. None of it is standardised the way move notation is; each publisher and translator makes their own choices, so annotation conventions vary more than the underlying notation does.
Related questions
Are these symbols used the same way as in chess?
Yes, the borrowed symbols keep their chess meanings. Nothing about them is xiangqi-specific.
Is there a symbol for a chase or perpetual threat?
No standard one. Commentary usually spells it out in prose, since chase adjudication often needs explanation rather than a single mark.
.