Why is the general the only piece that cannot be traded in xiangqi?
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
Because every other piece has a tradeable value, something that can be exchanged for a roughly equal amount of material, while the general has none: losing it does not cost points, it ends the game. There is no scale on which a general could be traded for anything, since the moment it would be lost the game is already over.
What this means for how you think about it
Every calculation about the general is really a calculation about survival, not value. You never ask whether keeping the general is "worth it" the way you would weigh a chariot against two minor pieces; the question is simply whether it can be attacked successfully, full stop.
Why this makes xiangqi more decisive than pure material counting suggests
A player can be materially ahead and still lose outright, because material only matters if the general survives to benefit from it, which is also why every way a game actually ends revolves around the general and nothing else.
Related questions
Does the general have a point value at all in piece-counting systems?
No standard system assigns it one, since it is never actually captured in play; its role is structural rather than material.
Is this the same in chess with the king?
Yes, the same logic applies there too: the king is never assigned a trade value for exactly the same reason.
.