Has xiangqi been solved by computers?
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
No, and it will not be — the game tree is far too large for a full solution, as it is in chess. But engines have been stronger than the best humans for years, and modern programs beat grandmasters comfortably. Solved and superhuman are different claims, and only the second is true.
What has been solved
Endgame tablebases exist for small numbers of pieces, exactly as in chess, and they are complete and perfect within their range. Those are solved sub-problems, not a solved game.
The full game's state-space complexity is estimated in the region of 10^40 positions, which puts any exhaustive solution out of reach.
What this means for a player
Practically: engines are excellent analysis partners and poor teachers if used first. Form your own view of a position, then check it — the gap between your answer and the engine's is the only part you learn from.
It also means engine assistance during a game against a human is cheating, and detectable, because engine-matched play has a recognisable signature.
Related questions
Can a computer beat a grandmaster at xiangqi?
Yes, and has been able to for years. The gap is comparable to computer chess.
Are there xiangqi tablebases?
Yes, for small material counts, and they are perfect within that range.
.