12211 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
The OP will like this one:
Thought of the same theory as you. HOWEVER
It is based on whoever kills the king first, which is how it applies to this. IE in checkmate, the losing colour can still move another piece, but the winning colour simply, "Kills," the king.
What is this "kills" the k. It's a game that ends at checkmate... not some silly arguement who or what king is killed first.Grow up, and concertrate on your homework.
In case of confusion, the one that can actually TAKE the opponents king first, wins. In OTB this sometimes happens. Your opponent leaves his king in check and moves. Then you just take his king and the game is yours. In these messy situations, it is the same. The one that has the king in his hand first, wins.
So far, I like this answer best.
To all those who say "this is a silly argument because this is or that is the rule, period" . . . you're missing the point that rules can and do change, as the history of chess shows.
Rules change because people see situations like this (what if the piece checkmating another king exposes the moving player's king to check), and they debate whether the current rules should be changed either to make the game more interesting, or fair, or for any other reason they may bring into the debate.
The en passant rule came about from such debates. And castleing? Surely not everyone agreed that was a good idea when it was first introduced . . . probably as a "house rule."
Clearly, the idea that there is a reasonable argument, from fairness or even analogy, that such "mexican standoffs" should be treated as either a draw or may be "illegal" in that a move leading to this situation is a reasonable issue to debate.
I like Bronsteinitz's answer because it project the end of the game to TAKING the king rather than to the point of checkmate...which actually anticipates the taking of the king.
But I think all the people who declare "This is a stupid thread" are being anally subservient to "rules" that they apparently believe were appended by God as a footnote to the Ten Commandments.
These are just game rules. They are made up by people. And because people have different opinions, there are not only many variations of this game but many "house rules" which have developed.
That some "official" body's set of rules are accepted as a standard is great. But if the only thing you can add to this thread is that it is stupid to discuss whether rules can or should be changed, loosen up a bit!
You are not the first one who thinks that an absolutely pinned piece shouldn't be able to give check. So it has already been debated (probably over centuries). Almost nobody could be convinced that such a rule change would help the chess world, so it's not going to happen.
GameRat, I would counter your post by saying the very point most people are trying to make is that the rules don't need to be realistic, and that what's more important is how it challenges the player and creates beauty (even when they say "this is how the rules are," it's quite plausible the above sentiment is implied). Stalemate, like anything in chess, is one extra thing you have to consider, and as such forms the basis for very cool sacrificing ideas. Although rules are subject to change, the point is that arguments against the realism of certain rules are probably not that effective because it is in many ways hypocritical as board games inevitably have tons of inconsistencies when it comes to emulating real life.
If you can argue how abolishing stalemate will enrich game play, that would be more convincing. Perhaps in some ways it will, but in some ways it could take away from the beauty, and moreover the transition phase that people would have to go through (for example, rewriting endgame theory) should not be underestimated. Ultimately, I think if you get used to it the positives outweigh the negatives, and it suffices to make a distinction between putting a trapped king in check and not being in check but still not being able to move.
I do agree though that the fact that the rule is a standard needn't in itself refute the OP, although it is a definite point to consider due to the inconvenience of having to re-learn the game. Of course, those against stalemate are entitled to that opinion, although I wonder if most of these people are only such because they botch games regarding it and are frustrated.
It's true chess had advanced by rules being challenged, but I think there comes a point where adding more and more rules results in a tedious overflow -- I want chess to be complicated without having a million rules. Since a lot of the matter regarding stalemate involves self-responsibility, forcing you to weigh your options carefully, I feel like a sudden rule change in this case would just be an unnecessary nuisance. Back when what we wanted from chess wasn't so clear, as chess was a young child, I think then the rule changes made more sense.
I dont understand. I thought you cant put your king in check?
I have not doubt, in this case who kills the opposite king as first is the winner. No other moves are needed. The game stops there.
When he moves to Russia! Boom,Boom!
This puzzle ends in what I see is a very unusual checkmate . . . one which may be a checkmate according to the strict rules of chess but is clearly more a stalemate (or a "Mexican standoff") in the spirit of chess as a representation of a war between two kingdoms.
Qg7 checks the king, but the queen is not "really" defended by the rook at G2, because the rook is pinned to protecting the king from black's queen. If the rook is not really free to defend the queen, black's king would (in a "real life" situation) be free to capture white's queen with impunity . . . knowing that the rook has a higher obligation to protect his own king from black's Queen
This could be a scene from "Game of Thrones!" With a bloody ending wherein the white rooks end up taking both the black king and queen but only after first watching the white queen and king going down.
In the spirit of the chess, I would argue, the pinned rook isn't "really" able to protect the chekmating piece (the queen in this case) and the king to which it is pinned. So this isn't a "clean" win for White. Because the rules fail to provide for a stalemate in cases of a "Mexican standoff," where the piece "protecting" the checkmating piece from the King is not really free to protect the checkmating piece because it is pinned to protecting the king, it is a win for White. But the position represented in that win is one that represents, by analogy to a battle, a "victory" in which White will immediately lose it's own King.
(If one used spaces of travel as a measure of time, and assumed that after black king takes white queen that white rook and black queen attack simulataneously, the analogy suggests that white's king could even die first when ordering the rook to kill the black king!)
You know what? The exact same thing happened to one of my games. Actually, not the exact same. I had pinned the knight of the opponent, and so, it seemed like the squares controlled by the knight should be safe for my king and not be considered forbidden. I think that the rules allow something like that because if we proceeded to "take" the king, white would have "taken" him first. Anyway, it is a bit strange.
Thanks to GameRat in the first place for providing some food for thought, at least ! At the outset, you agree that it's a checkmate, so no point arguing on that ! But the solution to your dilemma is, white rook actually doesn't need to move to kill the black king! It has a long range weapon ( an arrow or a gun) ! The white queen remains under cover of own rook's long range ! This is accepted by both modern and old military tactics, if you are thinking about two belligerent Kingdoms !!
In My Concern,
White won here. Physically Holding a place itself is a mandatory duty of a piece. And this is the same reason why 2 pieces can't afford the same square.If a piece is in pin it still can guard the possible squares depending upon the piece which is in pin (g profile for rook in this case). Any piece can perform the duty of
1)holding a position ,
2)guard/attack some position at all time.
It is not about what will happen after black king take white queen. The black king has no right to take white queen, since it is guarded by the rook.
maybe once black's king is dead, white king can give orders to black queen and tell her not to kill him.
"Old School Analysis with Uncle Yermo! Host GM Alex Yermolinsky"
Every fool can win in blitz chess !
by EZXDragon a few minutes ago
Nigel Short: Women's brains not chess brains
by Reb a few minutes ago
Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set
by htdavidht 3 minutes ago
Mother Nature V. Chess
by now_and_zen 3 minutes ago
by Krenzinator 6 minutes ago
by PHudson 8 minutes ago
Simple tactics trainer app
by kleelof 16 minutes ago
How to stop MrCopperhead from spamming the tactics trainer?
by You_haxored_me 18 minutes ago
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
by Milliern 20 minutes ago
How to reach 2000 ELO ?
by bb_gum234 22 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!