tactical defence?

Qxf8 looks like mate.  Black cannot capture into check.

the power of that rook is reduced to less than a pawn...how can it protect whatever the queen is up to? You cannot move yourself into check! I understand that rule, but to capture the white queen is to force that rule unto white itself! Black does not move into or through check. The rook have no power. 

The rook has the power to protect the queen, so it can force checkmate.

Qxf8 is checkmate. Think of it in terms of actually capturing the king: After Qxf8, even if Bxf2 were allowed (which it is not), Qxg8 and the black king is the first to die.

ok, Rigamagician, lets look at it from another prospective. Chess is a game of understanding.  The rules of the game itself need to reflect, the effort that is put into a game.  Whenever I play a game of chess, my mind function at max.  I am scanning my way deep into the logic, and sometime bend the impossible by using the rules that can give me an edge in a game. A typical game would be to cramp position, to isolate the king, to take material etc. To skewer and pin peaces, is a way of making it impossible for an opponent to move or to control blocks of importance.  The game is won when the opponent had run out of creative moves. An opponent at defense, is also entitled to use skewer and pins to get himself to safety. I know that you see where I am going at, rigamagician, and when you do, you would see that white had left his queen hanging...a vulnerable position  for the white queen, then the claim of victory!? It is an arrogant claim that the game is over. It is my view that to win, you have to convince your opponent, that no matter how creative the defense are, that a way out, is fruitless. Chess is for those with understanding...the rules should embrace it all.  I suggest that the right thing would be, to break the pin, before sacrificing the queen...This can be understood by all. That is what the game is about:)

The way forward: I suggest we take a look at the power a pin have on the value, and situation of different pieces...and under what circumstances can a pin be disregarded. 

Idle curiosity:  would you not play qxf8 in a chess.com game, despite the fact that the server would consider it checkmate?

 sure, bro:) I had heard many death-ray strategy...The rook is constantly firing down the F-file, but think of it this way: The rook was disarmed by the bishop! The Queen is Kamikaze! Have you seen these movies where the goodguy is at gunpoint, and then his buddy, The Bishop tutu steps in and say, drop it Meaning whot?  Meaning that there was a power shift. No one have to die, but then the queen jump forward and shouts, take me instead!  Now that is whotz going on here

 I would, definitely do so, shoop2  I was the one at defense. I was the one that was not protected by a pin.  Thats why I feel dissapointed.

 a Computer cannot come up with my view, but i can reprogram its logic:) or perhaps someone else can.  Just because my view is in the minority, is not to say that it is not heard...Future generations might find the logic in it... Ideas are born, computers are programmed and switched off.

my search had end at 1.2 and 3.1 I'm lost now - lol

From the FIDE Laws of Chess section 3.1: "A piece is considered to attack a square, even if such a piece is constrained from moving to that square because it would then leave or place the king of its own colour under attack."

Black dies first. Simple.

 In short, it mean that a piece can attack a square, even if it is constrained from moving...but in the same breath it would place the king under attack...The logical question would be: Would a king give an order that put himself under direct attack?  Would it be a wise decision?  You take my life, and I'll take yours too.  You fire musket, and I run you through.  Perhaps it can be considered a sacrifice...but then it would surely count as a King sacrifice...the ultimate sacrifice in chess, in order to win a game.  It make sense.  I think that a king can give the ultimate sacrifice...Thx rigamagician, I can rest my case:)now, keep well.

1.2 exposing one's king to attack is not allowed, 3.2 pinned piece still attacks.

So black cannot take a white queen because he would expose his king to attack, and since he has no other moves, he is checkmated.

 under 1.2) I can definitely find the value and logic with such a rule:)

under 3.2) I cannot find any value or logic within such a rule. The reason being this:

a) Each piece on a chessboard have a value.

b)The value of the white pieces, equal that of the black pieces.

c)The only thing that change the value of a piece is its position.

d)Squares have value too...they occupy space that need to be controlled...

lets look for example at our two opposing rooks. Do they have the same value? The answer is no! The one rook is pinned, and we all know that the value of  a pinned piece is Zero!  If the value of a piece is reduced to Zero, then it mean one thing...It mean that such a piece is placed on a square that is not right choice for it...It is the choice of a looser! You are loosing if you make such choices, and to choose a loosing piece of zero value to protect a queen, is just upsetting!

The fact that the opponent claim to have won is also upsetting, but worst of all, is when the rules back this claim.

The guy that invented chess, did so by pure chance.It might even be that an average player would beat him at his own invention...

The fact remain that we can add to the challenges of the game, we can take it to the future. I am so bored with the same expectations of moves, that it have very little excitement as such...

Change is inevitable, the rules will change, simply because it can. - because it is the next logical step, and because fairness is a virtue.

Rules are uphold by power...future generations can do it then, or, we could do it now...The respect that goes with change, is what is left. Resistance is good if there is no reason, but i do have reason, and i do have a solution also.

What is the solution?

It is simple.

The queen, overlooked the pin on the rook.  She blundered! The king captures the queen!

The fact that the value of the rook is zero, mean that it cannot control the space that the King had captured!

The White rook will be lost, as the black bishop control the space on which it is standing, and that is why it would be captured...When the pin is removed the rook will regain its power, if the bishop do not capture the rook...

This tactical defensive play was not noticed by white, and it got punished.

Now you can see, that all is not lost, and that a pin reduce value:)

 The rules must just be more clear, thats all...rules can blunder too...

The effective aim of chess is to be the first to 'capture' the opponent's king. If you look at the order of moves if you had to capture the king, not just trap it:

Qxf8 Kxf8

Rxf8 Bxg1

White captured the king first and therefore wins.

 under 1.2 exposing one's king to attack is not allowed.

Rxf8 cannot happen.  It does not control that square, even though the rule said it can, I However dispute that rule:) Rules should not contradict Under 3.2 it state that a pinned peace don't loose its power...I believe that a pinned piece do loose power, and that the queen had chosen such a piece to protect it. A blunder:) the rule see a win, i see a blunder