Thom27: thank you

Does anyone know if stalemate applies in racing kings? I assume so but am not clear from the rules.

Hrqls:
Article 3.9 of the Fide rules of chess say:

The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.

Your movement of the knight would leave your king in check, contravening the rules of chess. Hence I believe Brainking is applying the rules of chess and hence three check chess correctly.

Hrqls:
The first line says
"This game adds one extra rule to the classic chess."
It is a rule of classic chess that when in check you have to move out of it. Hence resolving your king's check takes priority over moving the knight.

Aganju: I remember an strong arbitrator, when told by a player the game was a draw, that he could beat either player with either colour from that position. Probably true as well.

wetware:
The variation I dont likei is extinction chess where you can put your opponentt in checkmate but still lose when your opponent takes, say a second bishop, because you have not taken his king. i would rather normal rules apply in this variation as well.

Lightbug:
win or lose, I rarely have games that go beyond 30 moves in loop chess so I don't think the attacker needs any additional help.

Walter Montego: Given endgames are usually defined as involving reduced number of pieces and the number of pieces in loop chess never reduce, you are right, endgames are impossible in loop chess.
I don't think there is much change to pieces values but I do think having the initiative is worth a lot more than in standard chess. Being able to give 4-5 checks on the trot can often lead to a winning position.

grenv: You could underpromote to another piece.

nabla:
I know. I was pointing out the usual way of arriving at three fold repetition of position is through perpetual check which would result in a win for the checker before three fold repetition of position occurred in three check chess. The other most common way of repeating a position in normal chess is in the endgame where there is limited material and fixed pawn positions. It is quite possible for three fold repetition of position to occur in these circumstances in three check chess but I suspect it is even rarer than normal chess. I was wondering whether anyone had a practical example or was this just a theoretical discussion. A theoretically drawn endgame in normal chess like bishop and king v king is perhaps where it would occur.

rabbitoid: I would be interested to know if this ever occurred in practise though. You can’t get it by perpetual check as the third check occurs after only 1.5 repeats of moves. The other way this usually occurs is in long drawn out endgames where one player is trying to make something of a small advantage. It could happen in these circumstances but I would think it was very unlikely.

Thom27: ok well done anyway!

Thom27: good, but the game seems to be private.

pedestrian:
I agree playing a game would be the simplest way to clarify things. There is no right answer, only opinion. I expect it would take a long time to get a change made anyway. I doubt it is a high priority, particularly as Kleinme can't find a single case where this happened in practice. I can't start a new game at the moment but I'm hoping someone else willl.

nabla: You only need to alter the rules to the extent of creating the new game, superfluous amendments don’t add anything except the ambiguity that you seek to avoid. You couldn’t pay three check chess without changing the definition of how the game ends. There is no need to do so in loop chess though. The only clarification of the rules that is needed in ice age chess is the assessment of checkmate occurs at the end of move 40 or the start of move 41. There is no need to refine checkmate in this game.

grenv:
Which is correct if you assess the position at whites 41st move but not if you assess the position at black's 40th. As black never benefits from being saved by an ice age I don't support the argument that whitr should be able to.

nabla:
I don't see any reason to rewrite the FIDE rules
If you don't have a legal move the game is over. Nothing to do with taking a king on the next move.
The rules also cover the point about moving your king to a square where it is under attack. Again the question is , is it defined as being under attack on bliack's 40th or whites 41st? I vote black's 40th

nabla:
I'm not sure your definition of checkmate is correct. Fide's website says:

The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game. Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king are not allowed. The opponent whose king has been checkmated has lost the game.

The question in ice age chess would be does the definition of legal move apply at the time of black's 40th or white's 41st? Clearly not an issue in standard chess as the board is the same. I would vote for on black's 40th for symmetry.

pedestrian: True,
happy to play it but I can't make or accept invites until I get below 50 games.

wetware:
I agree ice age should be after black's 40th move. If that is not the case there is an inconsistency between being black and white as it is definately after the white 40th move. Playing an unrated game following the moves of the game in question and varying at the 40th move would determine what actually happens on bk.