What's the difference between Screen Horses and the Reversed Palace Horse as defences to the Central Cannon?
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
Screen Horses (屏風馬) defends the central soldier directly, with both horses developing toward the centre in the most natural, most studied way to meet a Central Cannon. 反宮馬 (Reversed Palace Horse) gives up that direct central defence in exchange for a quieter, less heavily analysed structure that keeps the rest of the position more flexible for longer.
What you get with Screen Horses
Immediate, efficient equality: the same move that develops a horse also answers the Central Cannon's first threat, which is exactly why it is the most played defence in the game. The cost is that it walks straight into the most deeply studied territory in xiangqi theory, where a well-prepared Red has the most to work with.
What you get with 反宮馬 instead
A structure fewer opponents will have memorised deep replies to, at the cost of a slightly quieter early position and less direct central presence. See the Reversed Palace Horse for the mechanics; neither defence is objectively better, and the choice comes down to whether you would rather meet theory head-on or sidestep it.
Related questions
Which should a beginner learn first?
Screen Horses, since its plans are the most natural and the most widely explained, making it easier to learn from games you will actually see.
Can I switch between the two depending on the opponent?
Once both are genuinely understood, yes, but learning one deeply first is more useful than splitting attention early on.
.