Is there an ECO-style classification system for xiangqi openings?
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 the way chess has ECO. There is no single, universally adopted alphanumeric code system that every publisher and database uses to classify xiangqi openings. Instead, openings are known by descriptive names, Central Cannon, Screen Horses, the Elephant Opening, and those names, not a code, are what game collections and books actually reference.
Why descriptive names filled the role instead
Chinese notation is already built from short, meaningful words, so naming an opening after what it does, moving a cannon to the centre, defending with paired horses, was natural long before anyone needed a compact code for database indexing. The names carry meaning a code would not.
What software does instead
Some databases and engines use their own internal classification schemes for search and statistics, but these are tool-specific rather than an industry standard, unlike chess's ECO codes, which are recognised across essentially every chess publication and database.
Related questions
Does this make openings harder to look up?
Not especially, the descriptive names are stable and widely recognised; see choosing an opening for the main ones.
Could a code system develop in the future?
Possibly, as databases grow, but no such system has become a dominant standard the way ECO has for chess.
.