Well it was my fault too since i used the normally in the wrong place.
Instead of: "this can't be done normally" i should have used: "this normally can't be done"....

gringo: I know that's why i put "normally" in what i've said....

mangue: Gringo maybe can confirm, but perpetual check lose the game for the attacker, but as the link he references, the rules are so complex, than it is very hard to apply (would require an expert in XiangQi and lots of hours).

The rules are straightforward! Nothing complicated i see..... Also this rule for King checks is valid always:
Under any circumstance, the side that perpetually checks with one piece or several pieces, will be ruled a loss.


if you do perpetual chess, and your opponent too (that is you defend a check with a check),

This can't be done normally, since you have to resolve the check (that means to get out of check) before playing another check to the opponent....

Anencephal: Checks in a row by a piece or multiple pieces.

This is not well defined....

At least 2 Checks in a row by a piece or multiple pieces.

At least 3 Checks in a row by a piece or multiple pieces.

3 Checks in a row by a piece or multiple pieces.
That is well defined situations.
Normally after 2-3 checks i a row, that repeat the same position periodically, should be a valid way to program it.....

Anencephal: What do you mean about perpetual check? How do you define it?
Eveything that is well defined it is programmable....

Fencer: And that is the correct handling of the situation. There is not an automated draw call after a 3-fold repetition (repetition of the same position for 3 consecutive or non-consecutive times)! The player should claim the draw to the opponent first, when 3-fold or 50 move rule criteria appear and if the opponent doesn't agree then it should be claimed to you! If he doesn't offer the draw and plays one move, he loses the right to do it..... So if a player wants a draw after a 3-fold repetition or by 50 move rule, he should claim that before he plays his move to the opponent....

Same occurs to Chinese Chess.

Have you implement(coded) the 3-checks in a row to automatically declared as a loss or better to prevent a player for playing a 3-check in a row as an illegal move.....?
Also if yes, does the implementation uses the 3 check in a row by the same piece or by various pieces?

kleineme: Correct!

And even 2 spaces diagonal if you are on your side of the board.....

Fencer: Since both sides has at least Rook, a mate is always possible, although this would require a bad play from one side.......
But if you ask with perfect or with decent play from both sides, if this can be won the answer is no one knows right now!
But anyway the game should continue........