We would take their king first. Have a look at this knowledge base article.
The problem with forced moves/mates
Sort:
Jul 28, 2023
0
#3
Yes. True. So it would be illegal to take because the queen’s gun—using the term “gun” as the queen’s ability to kill/take another piece—is pointed at him, even though she cannot fire the gun.
Jul 28, 2023
0
#4
LunaMonster77 wrote:
Yes. True. So it would be illegal to take because the queen’s gun—using the term “gun” as the queen’s ability to kill/take another piece—is pointed at him, even though she cannot fire the gun.
If black was able to step into an attacked square, white would be allowed to as well and take the king, ending the game. You can't have different rules for both players.
Jul 29, 2023
0
#5
I think that if the rules were designed a little more cleanly, when a piece is pinned, it loses it ability to attack because it would be unable to move from its pinned square.
It was just a thought that has occurred to me. Thanks for the comments.
Kbz10troy wrote:
In your example, there's no need to move the rook: 1. Bc2+ Be4 2. Bxe4#
vs 1.Qg7# or 1.Qg6# ?
Jul 29, 2023
0
#8
bigD521 wrote:
Kbz10troy wrote:
In your example, there's no need to move the rook: 1. Bc2+ Be4 2. Bxe4#
vs 1.Qg7# or 1.Qg6# ?
You can’t move the queen because it’s pinned to the king.
blud if their king was dead how is their king gonna order the opposing piece to kill the other king
queen's holding king at gunpoint she's gonna fire cause her king still alive
LunaMonster77 wrote:
I think that if the rules were designed a little more cleanly, when a piece is pinned, it loses it ability to attack because it would be unable to move from its pinned square.
It was just a thought that has occurred to me. Thanks for the comments.
The rules are crystal clear as they avoid mentioning "pins". Pins don't matter when attacking a king. Probably, thousands of years ago, the rules prescribed to capture the king which would end the game and leave no opportunity for the opponent to do the same. It's the old motto: "come first served first" 
Kbz10troy wrote:
bigD521 wrote:
Kbz10troy wrote:
In your example, there's no need to move the rook: 1. Bc2+ Be4 2. Bxe4#
vs 1.Qg7# or 1.Qg6# ?
You can’t move the queen because it’s pinned to the king.
And that is why I get those puzzles wrong...not really looking 
Jul 30, 2023
0
#12
*sigh*
this is just a "pinned pieces shouldnt check" thread
took me too long to realise
as martin said, you cant be having blacks king allowed to step into check (Kxg8) without also allowing whites king to (Qxg8)
and taking a king means something has gone wrong and an illegal has occured (Kxg8)
tell me "piece is pinned" all you want but a pinned piece attacking a king is completely logical because lets say theres the enemy king in check of a pinned piece and the pinned piece is not allowed to check because its pinned.... so the king shouldnt be allowed to be there because its attacked! it is attacked, and that takes priority, and adding a rule "pinned pieces cant check" only makes it more complex
Many have relied on the forcing moves of the queen and rooks—occasionally other minor pieces—to mate your opponent. The only problem with these, is that sometimes they are not real.
When the queen or rook is in between an attacking piece and the king, while also protecting a piece, it is not possible. If the opposing king were to take the piece the queen or rook is protecting, the queen or rook could not take back because that would mean your own king was being targeted by the other attacker.
Here is an example.
The trouble with this is that when the rook moves to check the black king, the rook is protected by the queen. When in reality, the queen could not move to retake the rook if the king were to take it, because the black bishop is pinning the queen to the king.
That is all for this forum.
Thoughts?