Nome utente : Password :
Registrazione di un nuovo utente
Moderatore: rod03801 
 Chinese Chess

Xiangqi - Chinese Chess

Knights and Rooks may join the Xiangqi Fellowship which has additional boards for discussion and resources (links to other sites).
Pawns may not join the fellowships, but links from the Xiangqi resources board are have been copied to a Resources message.
Create a New game of Xiangqi,  Established ratings,   Provisional ratings,  The Rules of Xiangqi.
___________________________


Messaggi per pagina:
Lista delle discussioni
Non ti è possibile inserire messaggi in questo forum. Il livello minimo di sottoscrizione per linvio dei messaggi è {0}.
Modalità: Chiunque può inviare messaggi
Cerca nei messaggi:  

18. Aprile 2013, 03:06:41
Wait for Sleep 
Argomento: perpetual chasing
@ 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.

9. Aprile 2013, 00:05:58
Wait for Sleep 
Argomento: re: perpetual chasing
@ 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.

4. Aprile 2013, 17:34:45
Wait for Sleep 
Argomento: re: perpetual chasing
@ 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.

Data e ora
Amici in linea
Forum preferiti
Gruppi
Consiglio del giorno
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved.
Torna all'inizio