Chinese divides into simplified Chinese and traditional Chinese. Some treebank resources like Penn Chinese Treebank: CTB had been built for training simplified Chinese parser (Yu, et al. 2010) while Sinica Treebank was developed for parsing traditional Chinese (Chen et al., 1999). Limit to our knowledge, there are still not grammatical resources that analyze both simplified Chinese and traditional Chinese. A rule-based Chinese grammatical resource --Chinese Sentence Structure Grammar: CSSG had been developed based on the idea of Sentence Structure Grammar: SSG (Wang et al., 2012). We assume that a rule-based grammatical resource should analyze both simplified Chinese and traditional Chinese if there are no obvious differences between their grammatical constructions. Aiming at verifying this assumptions, we parse the test sentences from the simplified Chinese parsing task (task 3) and the traditional Chinese parsing task (task 4) of CLP 2012 with the same rule-based parser that was implemented the grammatical resource CSSG. CSSG includes two parts of resources: the grammatical rules and a simplified Chinese morphological dictionary. We transfer the simplified Chinese characters of the dictionary to traditional Chinese characters for obtaining a traditional Chinese morphological dictionary. We parse the test sentences of task 3 and task 4 with the same CSSG rules but different morphological dictionaries (simplified or traditional Chinese characters). We convert CSSG parsing trees to TCT-style trees and Sinica-style trees to participate in the evaluations of the two tasks. The experiments show that the CSSG rules can parse both simplified Chinese and traditional Chinese, but the performance of the latter is lower than the former. We noticed that a few traditional Chinese constructions are different from simplified Chinese.