---
title: "How Annotators Mark Good and Bad Moves in Xiangqi · Xiangqi Master"
description: "Annotated xiangqi books borrow chess symbols such as ! and ? after a move, layered on top of the base notation, which itself has no evaluation marks."
url: https://xiangqimaster.com/blog/how-do-annotators-mark-good-and-bad-moves-in-xiangqi
updated: 2026-09-22
source: Xiangqi Master (https://xiangqimaster.com)
license: CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
---

# 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](https://xiangqimaster.com/rules/perpetual-check-and-chase) often needs explanation rather than a single mark.

## Related xiangqi resources

Reading notation

炮二平五 and C2=5 — the same move, two ways

History of xiangqi

When the game was invented, and what is actually documented

Analyse your games

Take any position apart with engine support

## Try it on a real board

Reading an answer is one thing; playing it is another. Free, instant, and nothing to install.