A King may move to a square controlled by an absolutely pinned piece. When the pin is broken, the King is in check.
If you can change a chess rule or create a chess rule, what would it be ?
Sort:
you can give away 5 points for a 'Jetpack' which teleports your King to a square of your choice when you should be mated.
To improve everyone's memory all games of chess should be played blindfold.
Prayerman46 wrote:
A King may move to a square controlled by an absolutely pinned piece. When the pin is broken, the King is in check.
I think we had that discussion yesterday...
Yes, we did macer75, and I haven't changed my mind.
doduobird123 wrote:
Check is checkmate.
in that case....
Prayerman46 wrote:
A King may move to a square controlled by an absolutely pinned piece. When the pin is broken, the King is in check.
"A King moving to a square controlled by an absolutely pinned piece" is what conditionally releases the pin. A piece isn't pinned if it can immediately capture the enemy king, which ends the game and renders all other concerns moot.
This is just the way it is. The rules of chess work that way, because this is logical and consistent. If you don't understand this, just read the explanations again and again until it makes sense to you, or othewise just accept it and live with it. Trying to argue the point with statements like "but it can't because it's pinned" does nothing but demonstrate that you are unwilling or unable to grasp the concept and logic behind it.
jaaas wrote:
macer75 wrote:
Prayerman46 wrote:
A King may move to a square controlled by an absolutely pinned piece. When the pin is broken, the King is in check.
I think we had that discussion yesterday...
"A King moving to a square controlled by an absolutely pinned piece" is what conditionally releases the pin. A piece isn't pinned if it can immediately capture the enemy king, which ends the game and renders all other concerns moot.
This is just the way it is. The rules of chess work that way, because this is logical and consistent. If you don't understand this, just read the explanations again and again until it makes sense to you, or othewise just accept it and live with it. Trying to argue the point with statements like "but it can't because it's pinned" does nothing but demonstrate that you are unable/unwilling to grasp the concept.
yep you said it better than me =) (even though i was first lol 
)
jaaas wrote:
macer75 wrote:
Prayerman46 wrote:
A King may move to a square controlled by an absolutely pinned piece. When the pin is broken, the King is in check.
I think we had that discussion yesterday...
"A King moving to a square controlled by an absolutely pinned piece" is what conditionally releases the pin. A piece isn't pinned if it can immediately capture the enemy king, which ends the game and renders all other concerns moot.
This is just the way it is. The rules of chess work that way, because this is logical and consistent. If you don't understand this, just read the explanations again and again until it makes sense to you, or othewise just accept it and live with it. Trying to argue the point with statements like "but it can't because it's pinned" does nothing but demonstrate that you are unable/unwilling to grasp the concept.
ok then...
i think pawns should be able to go backwards.
cjt33 wrote:
jaaas wrote:
macer75 wrote:
Prayerman46 wrote:
A King may move to a square controlled by an absolutely pinned piece. When the pin is broken, the King is in check.
I think we had that discussion yesterday...
"A King moving to a square controlled by an absolutely pinned piece" is what conditionally releases the pin. A piece isn't pinned if it can immediately capture the enemy king, which ends the game and renders all other concerns moot.
This is just the way it is. The rules of chess work that way, because this is logical and consistent. If you don't understand this, just read the explanations again and again until it makes sense to you, or othewise just accept it and live with it. Trying to argue the point with statements like "but it can't because it's pinned" does nothing but demonstrate that you are unable/unwilling to grasp the concept.
ok then...
I'm not sure what you intended to demonstrate. After 3.Qxe6+ the queen will obviously be taken by a pawn, and 3.Qh5+ is countered by 3.g6.
check is mate...
Oh, OK. Still, I'm not sure why you quoted me then. I was referring to why pinned pieces still threaten the enemy king (despite being otherwise restricted or immobilized), not to the goofy idea of "check being mate".
The first player to capture a piece wins.
jaaas wrote:
Oh, OK. Still, I'm not sure why you quoted me then. I was referring to why pinned pieces still threaten the enemy king (despite being otherwise restricted or immobilized), not to the goofy idea of "check being mate".
lol wrong quote 
a pawn may move backwards once or capture backwards once.
or when a pawn promotes it may go to any square on the board, but must stay as a pawn,or it can just promote.
Sep 2, 2013
0
#59
It would be to be able to permote a pawn into a king and all kings will have to be checkmated for someone to win.
Play chess on an 8x8x8 grid. The first able to locate where the opponent's King is wins.
Seriously:, allow an artillery piece like the POW in Chinese Chess.
make it 8x8x8x8