Are draws more common in chess or in xiangqi?
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
Xiangqi has fewer ways to draw a lost or difficult position. Chess offers stalemate as an escape hatch and treats perpetual check as a draw; in xiangqi the stalemated side loses, and so does the side giving perpetual check. That structurally removes two of chess's main defensive resources, which is a large part of why xiangqi endgames feel more decisive.
What xiangqi draws are actually reached by
Agreement, insufficient mating material (a lone cannon, for instance, cannot force checkmate on its own, and nor can a soldier that has already reached the last rank), and the sixty-move rule for long periods with no capture. None of these is a defensive resource in the way stalemate hunting is in chess; they are outcomes, not tactics a losing side can engineer on demand.
Where the comparison gets complicated
Perpetual check and perpetual chase in xiangqi are adjudicated, not automatically drawn or lost, and the adjudication can be genuinely difficult in edge cases, which is precisely why the WXF maintains a casebook of ruled positions rather than a short universal rule.
Related questions
Does this make xiangqi more fun to play out?
Many players find it so, since a material edge is less likely to evaporate into a drawn ending.
Are grandmaster-level xiangqi games often drawn?
Draws happen at high level, particularly through the sixty-move rule in balanced positions, but the structural draw routes chess relies on are simply not available.
.