Why its not just checkmate after the first check? Because after the check checkmate is inevitable, probably just because white can make a mistake after he delivered check. Offcourse im not the first one hows strarting about this subject, just wanted to know some information/opinions about this. Maybe there are some other threads about this or a link with the official rules/statements.

it's only checkmate if the king can't be moved, the check can't be blocked and the attacking piece can't be captured. since black can block with the knight it's not checkmate. it is a forced checkmate though.

Checkmate is when the King is in check and no legal move gets out of check.  In each of the moves leading up there is a legal move that gets him out of check.

So why is it not checkmate after the first check just because checkmate can be forced?  Because re-writing the rule to account for forced sequences that lead to checkmate makes it too subjective and also makes some assumptions about the ability of the "winner" to see the forced sequence.  Not all of them are as obvious as this one.

Checkmate is absolutely conclusive. Beginning a forced checkmate sequence is still not absolutely conclusive. Maybe the white player doesn't see what's coming up, who knows?

My conclusion: Im convinced about the statement a forced checkmate sequence isnt always that obvious, so if it was checkmate when beginning a forced checkmate sequence you maybe didnt even know the complete sequence.

And making a exception rule like; "difficulty of forced checkmate sequences versus the rating of the player" cant be defined because its not absolute I guess.

From my experience mostly its just one or two pieces to postpone the checkmate, most of te time I just resign because I dont like to drag my pieces before checkmate.

Anyone got some complexer examples of forced checkmate sequences?

How about this one -- forced mate in eight:

http://www.chess.com/article/view/an-immortal-brilliancy

I certainly would never have seen it.

Magnificent action, sacrificing the queen getting the king on the other side of the board in checkmate. And probably he didnt checkmate with castling because wanted him checkmate asap.

its not checkmate yet because there is NOT a piece tht\reatening the king!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sometimes you are in check and you put a piece in front of the king and your opponent is in check, my question; are there any situations where your are in check and after you block it your opponent is checkmate?

I think yes, if you take the agressor piece ( example: 2 kings and 2 queens at the corner, its easy think one queen take other and checkmate, rigth? sorry by dont' post the cessboard). In 2 other types of check ( cover the king or move the king) i think that is not possible defend and checkmate.

TheGrobe's example is good, but it is also possible to use the same piece to block and check.

Offcourse, to avoid the capture, it must be a double check.

This involves no discovered checks:

Thanks for the replies, after I saw this examples it looks very simple to come up with one.  Someone can give me a counter checkmate in a forced checkmate sequence?

So the opponent is practicly checkmating himself. I think its possible not sure because its not realy a forced checkmate sequence than.... euhm... well hope you guys know what I mean.

Already thanks