Is it better to study xiangqi with a physical board or on a screen?
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
Both work well, and consistency of actually using whichever one you choose matters far more than which medium you pick. A screen is faster for replaying games, searching a database and doing volume puzzle work; a physical board can be genuinely useful for slowing yourself down during deep, careful calculation, since moving real pieces removes the temptation to rush.
What a screen does better
Speed and convenience: replaying recorded games, running through large puzzle sets, and searching an opening database are all far faster digitally, and this is most of what serious study time actually involves. See using a database to study openings for exactly the kind of task a screen handles well.
What a physical board still offers
Some players find that setting up a position by hand and moving real pieces forces a slower, more deliberate kind of calculation than clicking through variations on a screen does, which can be a genuine benefit for working through a single complicated position in real depth rather than volume study.
Related questions
Should I own a physical set if I study entirely online?
Not necessary, though some players find it worth having for exactly this kind of slow, deliberate calculation practice.
Does this choice matter more at a certain level of strength?
Not particularly; it is more a matter of personal preference and what a specific study task calls for than a factor tied to playing strength.
.