Rule 3 is also not a rule, but a consequence of rule 2. There also seems to be a problem with draw rule 3, because it could be hard to prove something is forcible. The 'insufficient mating material' rule in FIDE is based on existence of help mates, not of forcible mates. Of course mate doesn't end the game here, and letting your king be captured is possible in any material combination. With the rule as stated here there could easily be disputes in late end-games whether the advantage of a player is large enough to force king capture. (The player that is behind might prefer to claim a draw over actually defending it, when defense is very difficult.) I suggest either to replace the rule by that of FIDE, phrased as that no position can be reached from which capture of the king can be forced in a single move. Either that, or provide an exhaustive list of piece combinations that count as 'material draw'.
Also note there seem to be no provisions for draw by repetition or number of reversible moves.
Rule 3 is also not a rule, but a consequence of rule 2. There also seems to be a problem with draw rule 3, because it could be hard to prove something is forcible. The 'insufficient mating material' rule in FIDE is based on existence of help mates, not of forcible mates. Of course mate doesn't end the game here, and letting your king be captured is possible in any material combination. With the rule as stated here there could easily be disputes in late end-games whether the advantage of a player is large enough to force king capture. (The player that is behind might prefer to claim a draw over actually defending it, when defense is very difficult.) I suggest either to replace the rule by that of FIDE, phrased as that no position can be reached from which capture of the king can be forced in a single move. Either that, or provide an exhaustive list of piece combinations that count as 'material draw'.
Also note there seem to be no provisions for draw by repetition or number of reversible moves.