@ 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.
Wait for Sleep: I think you are *obviously* stronger Chinese chess player than me. So I would like you to understand the meaning of "almost" from the following:
An even more difficult case arises when the position is being repeated because one of the players keeps attacking an enemy piece or else keeps threatening checkmate, without actually giving check. In such cases, the player who is forcing the other to move will be required to make a different move and the game will continue. In official tournaments there are sometimes disputes about this and an arbiter has to be called. What the arbiter tries to do is to determine the guilt. In other words, there is usually one player, usually the player with the weaker position on the board, who keeps attacking his opponent and forcing the opponent to move back and forth. In that case, the guilty player will be ordered by the arbiter to change his sequence of moves. However, sometimes it happens that both players are attacking each other. In that case, the game is a draw.
(esconder) Mantenha a sua Caixa de Mensagens limpa, Arquivando mensagens importantes e usando regularmente a opção "Apagar TODAS as Mensagens". (pauloaguia) (mostrar todas as dicas)