Win a game of Xiangqi vs @PS-Greedy-Two-Move whilst ensuring your King is contributing to the mate. Remember, in Xiangqi, the Kings are not allowed to face each other with no piece in between, and so can be almost be used like Rooks to constrict the opponent's King.

Adjudication Criteria:
1. Fewest moves (plys) to win the game
2. Earliest Entry

Closing Date: Monday 15th May 1200 UTC+0

34

A not very quick and blunderfull playstrategy.org/ft9is0oA

71 moves, 141 ply.

A good demonstration of the King Vision rule though

111

I imagine this one counts then, where the king is technically defending the rook due to the vision rule?

playstrategy.org/wMwZKWdG

21

Yes this counts! The only thing preventing Black's King from taking the Rook next to it is the King Vision rule.

Much quicker than my attempt!

I’m not very good at Xiangqi but I suppose the checkmates with the vision rule are fairly interesting/cool.

28 moves king defending the pawn with vision

playstrategy.org/64nxVY7x

31

So this isn’t a better attempt, but I’m curious about whether winning by stalemate with the king helping counts? :)

playstrategy.org/dVCedaTk

It supposedly counts as a win, and it’s called stale*mate* :)

11

@shinuito this wasn't clarified, but as Stalemate is a win in Xiangqi (and the King is contributing) then this counts!

What about this 19 move one? Technically the king is helping to cover one of the squares, though it's slightly redundant because the rook also covers it :)

playstrategy.org/a2M3VzCesMMi

Anyway, interesting challenge, hopefully give some people some ideas.

@shinuito the King is not playing a role in the checkmate here. Think about it as if we removed Black's King, would it still be checkmate? If yes (like in this case) then the King Vision rule is not being used, but if not, then it is.

@statmatt right so it's fairly strict in what counts as playing a role - it has to be that removing/moving the king lifts the checkmate, so there can't be any redundancy of a piece also covering the kings vision tiles.

(technically though if you were ruling out legal moves for the opponents king above, depending on the order of the algorithm you might remove one of the points by the king vision move, if that rule was being checked before checking the squares each piece on the board covered - so could be debatable, but happy to go with the way you're explaining it above)

21