Listo de diskutaj forumoj
Vi ne rajtas afiŝi mesaĝojn en ĉi tiu forumo. La minimuma necesa nivelo de la membreco por afiŝi mesaĝojn en ĉi tiu forumo estas Brain-Peono.
@ TAROU: Thank you for your answer and I'm sorry for my delay. For now, anyway, I think I'll stick to the official rules, until some sort of arbiter shows me they've changed since the World Xiangqi Federation published them in their website. :-) Kind regards.
@ TAROU: It does not matter if I am stronger than you at Chinese chess, because strong and weak players must play with the same rules.
Also, you can be sure that I do understand the meaning of "almost".
What I do *not* understand is where did you read that perpetual check is almost always forbidden.
Brainking rules for Chinese chess say: "Perpetual check is forbidden." There is no "almost".
Asian rules as given in the World Xiangqi Federation website say: "In any case, the side who perpetually checks will be ruled to lose." (Section 3.1) Again, there is no "almost".
While we wait for an arbiter to help us clarify this matter, may I ask what is this rulebook you are reading from? Kind regards.
@ TAROU: I'm not sure that I understand what you mean. I was sure that in Chinese chess perpetual check *is* absolutely prohibited (no 'almost'). A few months ago, in an OTB game against a Chinese friend, I played a move threatening mate in one that could only be avoided by giving perpetual check to *my* King, so you could well prove that I was "forcing" my opponent to give it. The perpetual was obvious, but he resigned without trying to give check even once. If it were legal to give perpetual check, he would have given it and drawn the game.
Any clarifications would be welcome, particularly from arbiters. Thanks in advance.
(kaŝi) Tenu vian eniran poŝtkeston pura arkivigante gravajn mesaĝojn kaj regule uzante la funkcion 'Nuligi ĉiujn mesaĝojn' en la enira poŝtkesto. (pauloaguia) (Montri ĉiujn konsilojn)