Is perpetual check a draw in xiangqi?
These answers restate the rules implemented by our open-source engine, which follows the WXF laws and is regression-tested against the official 110-diagram repetition casebook. Where an answer refers to a specific position, that position lives on the linked reference page, where the build verifies it against the engine before publishing.
Direct answer
No — perpetual check loses. The player delivering the repeated checks is required to vary, and if they will not, they lose the game. This is the single biggest rules difference from chess, where perpetual check is the standard way for a worse position to save itself.
Why the rule exists
Without it, any player about to lose could simply check forever. Chess tolerates this because threefold repetition draws; xiangqi decided instead that the player forcing the repetition is the one who must change, on the reasoning that they are the one refusing to let the game continue.
The effect is that a lost position is genuinely lost, which is of a piece with stalemate also being a loss.
What it means in practice
If you are worse, perpetual check is not an escape. Find a real defence. If you are better and being checked repeatedly, you do not need to find a way out — you need only ensure the position is genuinely repeating, and the rules do the rest.
Related questions
What if both sides are perpetually checking?
Where both sides are equally at fault the result is a draw. The casebook covers the mixed cases in detail.
Is threefold repetition a draw?
No. Repetition is adjudicated under these rules rather than automatically drawn.
.