"square it occupies IS ATTACKED" Verb, present tense. Present action. Not past action. Present action.
That sentence, that phrase can't get more verby more actiony, more present tense than that.
That's just half of checkmate - check. The piece that checks is not the piece that checkmates!
Of course it is. Unless you want to include friendly pieces that prevent escape as part of the attacking pieces.
"square it occupies IS ATTACKED" Verb, present tense. Present action. Not past action. Present action.
That sentence, that phrase can't get more verby more actiony, more present tense than that.
That's just half of checkmate - check. The piece that checks is not the piece that checkmates!
If the piece that checks is "not" the piece that checkmates how do you explain this position?
"square it occupies IS ATTACKED" Verb, present tense. Present action. Not past action. Present action.
That sentence, that phrase can't get more verby more actiony, more present tense than that.
That's just half of checkmate - check. The piece that checks is not the piece that checkmates!
If the piece that checks is "not" the piece that checkmates how do you explain this position?
The knight checks, and, if the knight was the last piece to move - which clearly it was - the knight checkmates. But what you don't understand is that that position is a standard checkmate, not a discovered checkmate. In any kind of checkmate, the piece that moved, causing checkmate, is the checkmating piece. In a discovered checkmate, that piece is not the same as the checking piece.
"square it occupies IS ATTACKED" Verb, present tense. Present action. Not past action. Present action.
That sentence, that phrase can't get more verby more actiony, more present tense than that.
That's just half of checkmate - check. The piece that checks is not the piece that checkmates!
If the piece that checks is "not" the piece that checkmates how do you explain this position?
The knight checks, and, if the knight was the last piece to move - which clearly it was - the knight checkmates. But what you don't understand is that that position is a standard checkmate, not a discovered checkmate. In any kind of checkmate, the piece that moved, causing checkmate, is the checkmating piece. In a discovered checkmate, that piece is not the same as the checking piece.
Again the rules do not mention or care about a piece that moves for checkmate. The rules only care about pieces that attack the square the enemy king occupies. The rules do not consider HOW that happened. Checkmate is a current position, a current attack from which the enemy king cannot escape.
A discovered checkmate is no different than any other kind of checkmate. The rules do not differentiate between different types of checkmate and how they came about. Why? Because they have no bearing on the final position, the final attack, the final outcome, the final conditions necessary. Notice the conditions for checkmate apply to ALL checkmates equally. There is no special consideration given to discovered checkmates, which is why there is no special consideration given to the previous move. The only thing that matters in a checkmate is that the enemy kings square is currently attacked. The ATTACKING piece is the only piece that is mentioned in the rules for checkmate, not any other piece. Not a piece that moved, not a friendly piece, not a passive piece, nothing. The ONLY piece (or pieces) that are relevant and mentioned in the definition of checkmate are the attacking pieces, and of course the enemy king.
"square it occupies IS ATTACKED" Verb, present tense. Present action. Not past action. Present action.
That sentence, that phrase can't get more verby more actiony, more present tense than that.
That's just half of checkmate - check. The piece that checks is not the piece that checkmates!
If the piece that checks is "not" the piece that checkmates how do you explain this position?
The knight checks, and, if the knight was the last piece to move - which clearly it was - the knight checkmates. But what you don't understand is that that position is a standard checkmate, not a discovered checkmate. In any kind of checkmate, the piece that moved, causing checkmate, is the checkmating piece. In a discovered checkmate, that piece is not the same as the checking piece.
Again the rules do not mention or care about a piece that moves for checkmate. The rules only care about pieces that attack the square the enemy king occupies. The rules do not consider HOW that happened. Checkmate is a current position, a current attack from which the enemy king cannot escape.
A discovered checkmate is no different than any other kind of checkmate. The rules do not differentiate between different types of checkmate and how they came about. Why? Because they have no bearing on the final position, the final attack, the final outcome, the final conditions necessary. Notice the conditions for checkmate apply to ALL checkmates equally. There is no special consideration given to discovered checkmates, which is why there is no special consideration given to the previous move. The only thing that matters in a checkmate is that the enemy kings square is currently attacked. The ATTACKING piece is the only piece that is mentioned in the rules for checkmate, not any other piece. Not a piece that moved, not a friendly piece, not a passive piece, nothing. The ONLY piece (or pieces) that are relevant and mentioned in the definition of checkmate are the attacking pieces, and of course the enemy king.
"The rules only care about pieces that attack the square the enemy king occupies" If that were the case, a simple check would be checkmate.
Again I understand your point of view. A king moves, it reveals an attack which is checkmate, therefore it should be the king that gets the credit for the checkmate. It makes some sense. It was the last move.
But the rules do not consider the last move when defining checkmate, only the current attack. Which the king cannot do. There are other situations where the last move is not the checkmating piece also. A promotion is a pretty common example. It's not the pawn that checkmates but it's the last move. Because it's not the pawn that attacks the enemy kings square. It's the piece that the pawn promotes to that attacks the enemy kings square. So that attacking piece checkmates, not the pawn.
"square it occupies IS ATTACKED" Verb, present tense. Present action. Not past action. Present action.
That sentence, that phrase can't get more verby more actiony, more present tense than that.
That's just half of checkmate - check. The piece that checks is not the piece that checkmates!
If the piece that checks is "not" the piece that checkmates how do you explain this position?
The knight checks, and, if the knight was the last piece to move - which clearly it was - the knight checkmates. But what you don't understand is that that position is a standard checkmate, not a discovered checkmate. In any kind of checkmate, the piece that moved, causing checkmate, is the checkmating piece. In a discovered checkmate, that piece is not the same as the checking piece.
Again the rules do not mention or care about a piece that moves for checkmate. The rules only care about pieces that attack the square the enemy king occupies. The rules do not consider HOW that happened. Checkmate is a current position, a current attack from which the enemy king cannot escape.
A discovered checkmate is no different than any other kind of checkmate. The rules do not differentiate between different types of checkmate and how they came about. Why? Because they have no bearing on the final position, the final attack, the final outcome, the final conditions necessary. Notice the conditions for checkmate apply to ALL checkmates equally. There is no special consideration given to discovered checkmates, which is why there is no special consideration given to the previous move. The only thing that matters in a checkmate is that the enemy kings square is currently attacked. The ATTACKING piece is the only piece that is mentioned in the rules for checkmate, not any other piece. Not a piece that moved, not a friendly piece, not a passive piece, nothing. The ONLY piece (or pieces) that are relevant and mentioned in the definition of checkmate are the attacking pieces, and of course the enemy king.
"The rules only care about pieces that attack the square the enemy king occupies" If that were the case, a simple check would be checkmate.
The rules for check and checkmate are almost the same. The difference is when no option is legally available. Then the check becomes checkmate. That's why both check and checkmate mention a piece (or pieces in a double check) that attack the enemy kings square. And neither mention a previous move.
Again I understand your point of view. A king moves, it reveals an attack which is checkmate, therefore it should be the king that gets the credit for the checkmate. It makes some sense. It was the last move.
But the rules do not consider the last move when defining checkmate, only the current attack. Which the king cannot do. There are other situations where the last move is not the checkmating piece also. A promotion is a pretty common example. It's not the pawn that checkmates but it's the last move. Because it's not the pawn that attacks the enemy kings square. It's the piece that the pawn promotes to that attacks the enemy kings square. So that attacking piece checkmates, not the pawn.
My comment on your first paragraph: YES!! You finally understand.
My comment on your second paragraph: Again, that is referring to checkmate as a position, not the action of causing the checkmate, or checkmating.
Again I understand your point of view. A king moves, it reveals an attack which is checkmate, therefore it should be the king that gets the credit for the checkmate. It makes some sense. It was the last move.
But the rules do not consider the last move when defining checkmate, only the current attack. Which the king cannot do. There are other situations where the last move is not the checkmating piece also. A promotion is a pretty common example. It's not the pawn that checkmates but it's the last move. Because it's not the pawn that attacks the enemy kings square. It's the piece that the pawn promotes to that attacks the enemy kings square. So that attacking piece checkmates, not the pawn.
My comment on your first paragraph: YES!! You finally understand.
My comment on your second paragraph: Again, that is referring to checkmate as a position, not the action of causing the checkmate, or checkmating.
Yes, I can understand how you would want the last move to be the checkmating move. But that's just not how it works. That's not how the rules say checkmate works. The checkmating position only exists BECAUSE of the action of checkmate, which is caused by the checkmating piece. Which, according to the rules, is the piece that attacks the enemy kings square. Promotion (and discovered check) are examples where the last move is not the piece that attacks the enemy kings square.
You seem hung up on the idea the previous move matters. It does not. It has no bearing on the current position and the ACTION of the current attack. The example of the rock and laser was a good one. The rock may have moved out of the way, but it's the action of the laser that results in the final outcome. That's why the rules do not consider the previous move when defining checkmate. No credit is given to the piece that moves, the only credit is given to the piece that attacks.
Again I understand your point of view. A king moves, it reveals an attack which is checkmate, therefore it should be the king that gets the credit for the checkmate. It makes some sense. It was the last move.
But the rules do not consider the last move when defining checkmate, only the current attack. Which the king cannot do. There are other situations where the last move is not the checkmating piece also. A promotion is a pretty common example. It's not the pawn that checkmates but it's the last move. Because it's not the pawn that attacks the enemy kings square. It's the piece that the pawn promotes to that attacks the enemy kings square. So that attacking piece checkmates, not the pawn.
My comment on your first paragraph: YES!! You finally understand.
My comment on your second paragraph: Again, that is referring to checkmate as a position, not the action of causing the checkmate, or checkmating.
Yes, I can understand how you would want the last move to be the checkmating move. But that's just not how it works. That's not how the rules say checkmate works. The checkmating position only exists BECAUSE of the action of checkmate, which is caused by the checkmating piece. Which, according to the rules, is the piece that attacks the enemy kings square. Promotion (and discovered check) are examples where the last move is not the piece that attacks the enemy kings square.
You seem hung up on the idea the previous move matters. It does not. It has no bearing on the current position and the ACTION of the current attack. The example of the rock and laser was a good one. The rock may have moved out of the way, but it's the action of the laser that results in the final outcome. That's why the rules do not consider the previous move when defining checkmate. No credit is given to the piece that moves, the only credit is given to the piece that attacks.
I think what you're trying to tell me is that the last move has no effect on the checkmate. So explain this. In the position below, the king moving to c7 does not have an effect on the checkmate? That means that, if Kc7# wasn't played, the position would still be checkmate because the rook on c8 is the peace that did the checkmate??
The rook on c8 wouldn't see the black king if the white king was still on d8.
"Is attacked" is always a state because of the word "IS" which describes a state. "Attacked" (without "IS") can be both. All uses of "Attack" in the laws are only states because they were introduced to explain the result of a prior move which lead to the control of a square - a king's square, a square for a potential capture or a square which prevents castling.
Separating a verb as action or state can be confusing. The laws try to avoid these confusions by adding context words like "the king is under attack", or "the king is in check" where "is in" and "is under" clearly identify states.
The rook on c8 wouldn't see the black king if the white king was still on d8.
Both statements are correct. If the king stays on d8, the rook does not "see" the black king. There is a reason the rook matters. It's the checkmating piece. The king does not matter because it is not part of the checkmate. The king moving is separate from the checkmating piece. Technically it could play a part if it covered an escape square, but that's not the case in this diagram.
So the king moves and THEN (afterward) the rook checkmates. It is the action, the present tense attack that checkmates, not the previous move. If you want to say the king moving has an effect on checkmate you could say the same thing about a move 4 moves ago, assuming it's a forced mate. Of course they play a part, but they are not active participants in the checkmate itself. 1.e4 also plays a part. But all the moves leading up to the checkmate are just that, moves.
I suppose that's why the rules of chess do not consider those moves when defining checkmate. They don't matter. The only thing that matters is the piece (or pieces) that are attacking the square the enemy king occupies. Why go off in the weeds about something that doesn't matter? No reason that I can see.
"Is attacked" is always a state because of the word "IS" which describes a state. "Attacked" (without "IS") can be both. All uses of "Attack" in the laws are only states because they were introduced to explain the result of a prior move which lead to the control of a square - a king's square, a square for a potential capture or a square which prevents castling.
Separating a verb as action or state can be confusing. The laws try to avoid these confusions by adding context words like "the king is under attack", or "the king is in check" where "is in" and "is under" clearly identify states.
I suppose you could say the same about any present tense verb. Like we are golfing. Or it is raining. You might say they describe a "state". So what. It doesn't change anything. The condition for checkmate is that an active and present attack occurs. The wording in the definition of checkmate in the rules of chess is about as verby (actiony) as you can get.
Because that's the part that matters. The previous move, no matter what that move was doesn't matter. Which is why it's not mentioned or recognized.
the rook is the checking piece, but the king is the checkmating piece because the king's movement causes checkmate. I can't explain it much simpler than that. You just need to read my posts so that you fully understand the difference between check and checkmate.
the rook is the checking piece, but the king is the checkmating piece because the king's movement causes checkmate. I can't explain it much simpler than that. You just need to read my posts so that you fully understand the difference between check and checkmate.
I've read the rules. I know the difference between check and checkmate. But I don't understand how both the rook and king can be checkmating pieces. The king does not attack the enemy kings square, so its impossible for it to be a checkmating piece. According to the rules of the game at least. Are you saying the rook checks, but the king checkmates? If so, that's a pretty unique position to take.
I do understand what you are hoping for though, that the kings movement causes checkmate. But that could be true of MANY previous moves, assuming a forced mate. And the rules don't say anything about what "causes" checkmate, other than a piece attacking the enemy kings square. Which of course is the rook.
I do understand your point of view, the last move made should be the checkmating move. But the rules don't accommodate that opinion. The rules are pretty specific about what checkmate involves. So I have two questions for you. The answers can be as long or as short as you desire.
1) Why do you suppose the rules only mention the checking piece, and the enemy king and NOT the piece that moved? If it were relevant or important wouldn't the rules reflect your viewpoint?
2) In your opinion, what is the checkmating piece (the piece that delivers checkmate) in this position?
OK, that's 3 questions, but you get the idea.
I suppose you could say the same about any present tense verb.
That's pretty close but the verb itself is not a present or past tense only by the way it is used. Actions connect two states only one of which at most is in the present. It often happens in a live report: "Messi scores a goal" where the action connects the condition where there was no goal to the condition with a goal on the scoreboard.
"Is golfing" and "is raining" are good examples. The only thing you know from those statements is that there is golfing or raining going on in the now. There may have been "golfing" going on 5 minutes ago and may still be going on in an hour, but the statement gives no information about that. From the meaning of the words "golfing" and "raining" we know some things are probably changing like the position of the balls and the wetness of the grounds but the statement "is golfing" expresses none of what is changing. "Is golfing" only tells you that the person is not "playing football" as you can't do both at the same time. The statement that "Rory Mcllroy just putted a ball from 20 feet on hole 10 gives you true state change information but not on the state of the golfing. He was golfing before it and will be golfing after it.
Note that the word "attack" in chess is peculiar. Nobody will say "Jim attacks John" when they are only staring the other guy down. But that is the most common use of "attack" in chess. The "attacking" unit is imply sitting in a chair and waiting for his opportunity to "move". Very confusing.
Yeah. No. Still doesn't work. Still doesn't change the fact the rules dictate a current attack on the enemy king. Which of course a king cannot carry out.
Nice try. And you get points for creativity. But the rules aren't going to bend to accommodate your point of view.
The rules say the piece attacking the enemy kings square causes checkmate.
Where does it say that? Or are you just making that up because you desperately want to win this trash argument?
Btw, I want you to quote the definition of checkmating as an action, not checkmate as a position, from the rules. Otherwise your "evidence" is invalid.
4. Objective and Scoring
4A. Checkmate.
The objective of each of the two players in a game of chess is to win the game by checkmating the opponent’s king.
A player’s king is checkmated when the square it occupies is attacked by one or more of the opponent’s pieces and
the player has no move that escapes such attack. See also Rule 12, Check; 12C, Responding to check; and 13A,
Notice the word "attack". That is an active, present action. Because checkmate is a position, it requires an active present attack. Not one from a few moves ago, and certainly not one in the future (the game is over). But a present attack. No mention is ever made of the previous move regarding the attack.
Yes, and the word attack is, in this case, a synonym of check, which is very different from checkmate. You quoted the definition of a checkmate position once again. Congratulations, you don't know the definition of the word "verb"!
You asked for me to quote checkmate as an action. There it is. "square it occupies is attacked". That is action. "IS ATTACKED" Use the dictionary. Look up the words "is" and "attack" and "attacked".
The rules doe not say anything about "was attacked". The rules on checkmate do not care about the previous move, only the present tense. In a checkmate position the ACTION is the attack. Which comes from the ATTACKING piece.