Is there a xiangqi equivalent to chess's drawish opposite-coloured-bishops endgame?
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
Not in any real sense. A chess bishop is permanently confined to squares of one colour, which is exactly what makes two bishops of opposite colours unable to ever contest the same squares, a famous source of drawish endgames. A xiangqi elephant has no such colour binding at all; both of a side's elephants can reach the exact same seven points on their own half of the board, so there is no equivalent pair of pieces that structurally can never interact.
Why the mechanism doesn't translate
The chess drawing pattern relies specifically on two bishops being unable to ever defend or attack the same square. Xiangqi's elephants, confined to a shared, identical set of points rather than divided by colour, do not have that property, so a xiangqi endgame with elephants on both sides does not inherit anything like the same automatic drawing tendency.
What does play a similar structural role in xiangqi
Xiangqi's closest analogue to a stubborn, hard-to-convert material edge is more often a genuine fortress position, where the defending side's advisors and elephants, taken together, deny every useful square an attacker needs, rather than a specific piece-pairing rule the way opposite bishops work in chess.
Related questions
Do xiangqi elephants have any colour restriction at all?
No, none. Colour of square plays no role in how an elephant moves or which points it can reach.
Is a xiangqi fortress as reliably drawish as opposite bishops in chess?
It can be, in the right material configuration, though it depends heavily on the specific position rather than following automatically from a simple rule.
.