Is there a standard way to cite a specific move number when discussing a xiangqi game?
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
Yes, the same convention chess uses. A specific point in a game is cited as the move number followed by the move itself, such as "12. C5+4", which pins the reference to an exact point without needing to quote the whole move list up to it. Where it matters, the side to move is clear from whether the number is followed by Red's or Black's half of that move pair.
Why this is enough on its own
Because move numbers count up from the start with strict alternation between Red and Black, a single number-plus-move pair is unambiguous as a reference, the same way it is in chess. Anyone with the full game record can locate that exact point instantly.
Where this convention is used
In commentary discussing a specific turning point, in cross-references between articles about the same game, and in any analysis that needs to point at a moment without reproducing the entire move list first.
Related questions
Does the citation need the piece's starting file too?
Yes, the move itself already includes that information as part of standard notation, so nothing extra needs to be added.
Is this different in Chinese versus WXF notation?
No, the same move-number-plus-move convention works identically whichever notation system the move itself is written in.
.