under 1.2 exposing one's king to attack is not allowed.
This is your "point", so think about it. If Kxf8, what is your move doing for Black?
The answer goes back to your point, it is exposing the King to an attack. So basically, you defeated your own arguement with your own answer.
You're over-thinking the analogy of the king and his army. The pinned piece exerts its influence over the board from where it stands. It is a long-range piece. Black cannot take the queen because that would place it in check. A child can understand that!
The difference between chess and poker is that in poker you can bluff. The rook is just a bluff. It cannot do anything! It is pinned. Its value is less than Zero. The bishop took care of the rook. The position of the bishop the tactic. It cannot be ignored. White hanged its queen...Do you really believe that it is impossible to understand such a concept? I don't give up on the power of understanding. I am fully convinced, that this data would circulate within this system, and the right child would make it his/her mission to influence future decisions. It might be that someone with influence see what you overlooked. It is that simple.
You're over-thinking the analogy of the king and his army. The pinned piece exerts its influence over the board from where it stands. It is a long-range piece. Black cannot take the queen because that would place it in check. A child can understand that!
The difference between chess and poker is that in poker you can bluff. The rook is just a bluff. It cannot do anything! It is pinned. Its value is less than Zero. The bishop took care of the rook. The position of the bishop the tactic. It cannot be ignored. White hanged its queen...Do you really believe that it is impossible to understand such a concept? I don't give up on the power of understanding. I am fully convinced, that this data would circulate within this system, and the right child would make it his/her mission to influence future decisions. It might be that someone with influence see what you overlooked. It is that simple.
The only way your line of reasoning makes sense is if the Rook has to capture the King in order for you to obtain victory. It does not.
The threat of capture makes the King's move illegal according to the rules. It doesn't matter if that piece cannot physically capture the King, because such a capture is not necessary. You never capture the King, and you never have to.
Think of it like a shot fired from a cannon, if you will. That's what a check is like.
under 1.2 exposing one's king to attack is not allowed.
This is your "point", so think about it. If Kxf8, what is your move doing for Black?
The answer goes back to your point, it is exposing the King to an attack. So basically, you defeated your own arguement with your own answer.
Ok, try the following:
1. Replace the black king with a rook.
2. Qxf8
3. RxQ
4. Can the white rook capture f8?
5. No. it cannot!
6. Why? Because it have no power on that f-file. because it is pinned.
7. Therefore the king cannot be checked in the f-file. It can capture the Queen at kxf8.
I have proved it now.
under 1.2 exposing one's king to attack is not allowed.
This is your "point", so think about it. If Kxf8, what is your move doing for Black?
The answer goes back to your point, it is exposing the King to an attack. So basically, you defeated your own arguement with your own answer.
Ok, try the following:
1. Replace the black king with a rook.
2. Qxf8
3. RxQ
4. Can the white rook capture f8?
5. No. it cannot!
6. Why? Because it have no power on that f-file. because it is pinned.
7. Therefore the king cannot be checked in the f-file. It can capture the Queen at kxf8.
I have proved it now.
You have proved nothing. Your first assumption is wrong. A king is not a rook. A rook can move to a square that is attacked by an enemy piece. A king cannot. Therefore, in your example, the king cannot take the queen because the queen's square is guarded by the rook. It doesn't matter if the rook can't move. A king can not move into check.
You're over-thinking the analogy of the king and his army. The pinned piece exerts its influence over the board from where it stands. It is a long-range piece. Black cannot take the queen because that would place it in check. A child can understand that!
The difference between chess and poker is that in poker you can bluff. The rook is just a bluff. It cannot do anything! It is pinned. Its value is less than Zero. The bishop took care of the rook. The position of the bishop the tactic. It cannot be ignored. White hanged its queen...Do you really believe that it is impossible to understand such a concept? I don't give up on the power of understanding. I am fully convinced, that this data would circulate within this system, and the right child would make it his/her mission to influence future decisions. It might be that someone with influence see what you overlooked. It is that simple.
The only way your line of reasoning makes sense is if the Rook has to capture the King in order for you to obtain victory. It does not.
The threat of capture makes the King's move illegal according to the rules. It doesn't matter if that piece cannot physically capture the King, because such a capture is not necessary. You never capture the King, and you never have to.
Think of it like a shot fired from a cannon, if you will. That's what a check is like.
bro, I don't dispute the rule of 1.2 The view that you have of a line of fire is totally wrong. The potential of a piece can be restricted, or disarmed by a piece that is in a stronger position. The bishop is in a power position. The bishop count 3 points, but because of its position, it is stronger than the rook, In fact it is stronger than the queen and rook together. That is why white cannot claim a win, because weaker pieces cannot win a game.
I can just add to this as evidence, that a pawn can be at a position on a board, which make it stronger than its queen...Power is not as it seem. A king with a GM behind it, is more powerful, than a king with an average player behind it...
The position on a board deter main the power of a piece. Your queen might count 10points, but if I am a GM, my queen would count more, its all relative.
under 1.2 exposing one's king to attack is not allowed.
This is your "point", so think about it. If Kxf8, what is your move doing for Black?
The answer goes back to your point, it is exposing the King to an attack. So basically, you defeated your own arguement with your own answer.
Ok, try the following:
1. Replace the black king with a rook.
2. Qxf8
3. RxQ
4. Can the white rook capture f8?
5. No. it cannot!
6. Why? Because it have no power on that f-file. because it is pinned.
7. Therefore the king cannot be checked in the f-file. It can capture the Queen at kxf8.
I have proved it now.
You have proved nothing. Your first assumption is wrong. A king is not a rook. A rook can move to a square that is attacked by an enemy piece. A king cannot. Therefore, in your example, the king cannot take the queen because the queen's square is guarded by the rook. It doesn't matter if the rook can't move. A king can not move into check.
just let it sink in...Its a new concept.
You're over-thinking the analogy of the king and his army. The pinned piece exerts its influence over the board from where it stands. It is a long-range piece. Black cannot take the queen because that would place it in check. A child can understand that!
The difference between chess and poker is that in poker you can bluff. The rook is just a bluff. It cannot do anything! It is pinned. Its value is less than Zero. The bishop took care of the rook. The position of the bishop the tactic. It cannot be ignored. White hanged its queen...Do you really believe that it is impossible to understand such a concept? I don't give up on the power of understanding. I am fully convinced, that this data would circulate within this system, and the right child would make it his/her mission to influence future decisions. It might be that someone with influence see what you overlooked. It is that simple.
The only way your line of reasoning makes sense is if the Rook has to capture the King in order for you to obtain victory. It does not.
The threat of capture makes the King's move illegal according to the rules. It doesn't matter if that piece cannot physically capture the King, because such a capture is not necessary. You never capture the King, and you never have to.
Think of it like a shot fired from a cannon, if you will. That's what a check is like.
bro, I don't dispute the rule of 1.2 The view that you have of a line of fire is totally wrong. The potential of a piece can be restricted, or disarmed by a piece that is in a stronger position. The bishop is in a power position. The bishop count 3 points, but because of its position, it is stronger than the rook, In fact it is stronger than the queen and rook together. That is why white cannot claim a win, because weaker pieces cannot win a game.
I can just add to this as evidence, that a pawn can be at a position on a board, which make it stronger than its queen...Power is not as it seem. A king with a GM behind it, is more powerful, than a king with an average player behind it...
The position on a board deter main the power of a piece. Your queen might count 10points, but if I am a GM, my queen would count more, its all relative.
You are insane.
just let it sink in...Its a new concept.
No, it's a very old concept and it's still wrong. The whole game of chess revolves around the fact that the king can not move into check. Forget pins, forget skewers, forget everything else. A king is checkmated when it is attacked and moving to any other square would also put it in check. A king can not move into check.
I am little cranky, but some of you pplz give me headache. I'm gonna retire into my hunz armz now...as I say, let it sink in-lol Tomorrow you feel different
fireballz, I understand what you're saying. It's just that you want to change the rules and allow a king to capture into check. If that was allowed then someone would want to change another rule and allow castling through check. Then someone would want to change draw by repetition, and someone would want to change stalemate, and...
Why bother? We already have a set of rules and in our rules a king can not move into check.
I agree with you, that rules cannot change. But rules have to be sensible. Many players on this site ain't stupid. I am the one that must play chess with rules that don't make sense. I'm not bad at it, but it get boring, to the point that whenever i loose a game I would think that the rules could have backed up my creative play. Chess get boring, especially at defense. I'm looking at a way to spice up the game for higher rated players like GM's They could play the new rules, and promote it. We don't have to change everything overnight. Bobby fisher did 960, and to strong players it is wonderful-game. I cannot think it is possible that there is no one that want to comment in my favor. I believe that more people will look into it, as time pass...they would get to a similar position in their games, and think about this topic, and they might raise it. You cannot castle thru check, unless that piece is pinned to its king:)
Remember, chess is a game for the intellect. The more complicated it become, the better. I don't want to mess up someones game that wants to do 853 rating...but I want something with depth and meaning for those that live on the edge. thats all.
under 1.2 exposing one's king to attack is not allowed.
This is your "point", so think about it. If Kxf8, what is your move doing for Black?
The answer goes back to your point, it is exposing the King to an attack. So basically, you defeated your own arguement with your own answer.
Ok, try the following:
1. Replace the black king with a rook.
2. Qxf8
3. RxQ
4. Can the white rook capture f8?
5. No. it cannot!
6. Why? Because it have no power on that f-file. because it is pinned.
7. Therefore the king cannot be checked in the f-file. It can capture the Queen at kxf8.
I have proved it now.
Replace both kings with a rook:
1. Qxf8 R(K)xf8
2. Rxf8 and the rook/king is dead. If black can have a king replaced with a rook, why can't white? Therefore, White's rook on f2 captured black's rook(king) first. Black loses. Black's king is taken, so black can no longer move. Use this analogy: When the king is killed by the rook, he can no longer give the order to capture the enemy king to the bishop (it's not anarchy). That means that as soon as the black king dies, his pieces die with it. Therefore, the black bishop cannot take the white king because: a)No one gives the order and b)the bishop dies with the king.
The only other rule I will change is the empisant rule...it's just as silly...to make the game fast..move two blocks even if it pass a bishop on its way...It don't make sense! Lets move one block at a time, and confront the pieces as we go forward...then there is no funny things happening, you know wot I mean?
And that is it:)
Chess played fair, its all i want for this game...
I pick up on small things, but it is small things that give big advantage
okay, so if i'm holding a gun to my enemies head, and he's holding a gun to my girl friend's head. i tell him that if he shoots my gf, i'll shoot him. according to the laws of chess, can he fire the gun?
The only other rule I will change is the empisant rule...it's just as silly...to make the game fast..move two blocks even if it pass a bishop on its way...It don't make sense! Lets move one block at a time, and confront the pieces as we go forward...then there is no funny things happening, you know wot I mean?
And that is it:)
Chess played fair, its all i want for this game...
I pick up on small things, but it is small things that give big advantage
Don't Change the Topic! You're in a losing debate and you know it! Just admit defeat and say that the chess rules, though imperfect, is acceptable!
@trigs: I would suicide after killing the enemy
under 1.2 exposing one's king to attack is not allowed.
This is your "point", so think about it. If Kxf8, what is your move doing for Black?
The answer goes back to your point, it is exposing the King to an attack. So basically, you defeated your own arguement with your own answer.
Ok, try the following:
1. Replace the black king with a rook.
2. Qxf8
3. RxQ
4. Can the white rook capture f8?
5. No. it cannot!
6. Why? Because it have no power on that f-file. because it is pinned.
7. Therefore the king cannot be checked in the f-file. It can capture the Queen at kxf8.
I have proved it now.
Replace both kings with a rook:
1. Qxf8 R(K)xf8
2. Rxf8 and the rook/king is dead. If black can have a king replaced with a rook, why can't white? Therefore, White's rook on f2 captured black's rook(king) first. Black loses. Black's king is taken, so black can no longer move. Use this analogy: When the king is killed by the rook, he can no longer give the order to capture the enemy king to the bishop (it's not anarchy). That means that as soon as the black king dies, his pieces die with it. Therefore, the black bishop cannot take the white king because: a)No one gives the order and b)the bishop dies with the king.
a pin cannot be overlooked...f8 is a square under blacks controll...The white rook on the f file control nothing! It cannot take a queen, knight, bishop, pawn or any other piece on the f file...it cannot move, because it would place its king into check! under point 1.2 The white queen picked this rook to support it in her attack...The rook is not capable of protecting the queen if it was captured by any other piece, including the black king...f8 is made safe through tactical defense. It is my opinion, that the king should be allowed to capture kxf8! That is my point that I want to have understood, and that is the rule that I want to be looked into....the 3.2 rule
The only other rule I will change is the empisant rule...it's just as silly...to make the game fast..move two blocks even if it pass a bishop on its way...It don't make sense! Lets move one block at a time, and confront the pieces as we go forward...then there is no funny things happening, you know wot I mean?
And that is it:)
Chess played fair, its all i want for this game...
I pick up on small things, but it is small things that give big advantage
You claim that you do not dispute the rule, but you actually do. You also claim that "many chess players on this site ain't stupid", but that would mean you feel some are; btw, it is called "en-passant" & if you don't know what it means or its origin, it is French. If you are looking for fair rules, you actually have it already so there's no need to look further; my suggestion is if you don't like chess or the rules or if you can't wrap you mind around the rules for whatever reason, then you might want to try checkers as it is a lot more simple.
You're over-thinking the analogy of the king and his army. The pinned piece exerts its influence over the board from where it stands. It is a long-range piece. Black cannot take the queen because that would place it in check. A child can understand that!