How can you deliver checkmate with a king?

That's an update on my earlier (modest) conclusions. When the rules say that the king is checkmated by the (preceding) move - and that move was a king's move - then inevitably that king can be said to checkmate. There are a million true statements that are not in the rules - because they are deducible from the rules like - "Bishop g7 can move to e5". The chess rules (like most rules on anything) try to be generic to be readable, logical and save space.

You can say it if you want, but it's still impossible. A king cannot attack, or check, another king. A checkmate requires attack, which a king cannot perform on another king.

So, in your opinion, in the diagram a couple posts ago, is the king the principal or an accessory? In other words, is he attacking (checking) the opposing king?

Yes, pieces have different functions and nobody cares what they are because this is not a discussion about the state of checkmate in the diagram. It is about the delivery of checkmate which is not in the diagram. However, to train your mind you can remove significant parts from many checkmate diagrams and try to decide whether it is checkmate or not. You will find that very hard because you need to see practically all of the board to decide that it has to be in a checkmate state. That is why you can't attribute the honor of checkmater to a particular unit on the board.

Ha, ha, how many times will you try that one? When the rules say that the move preceding the checkmate is the checkmating move - does then the unit executing that move have to attack the opponents king? Look at all those diagrams. NO, NO, NO.

Since you are unable or unwilling to answer the question I have to assume you have no where else to go with your belief. If you want to believe a piece that does not attack the opposing kings square is delivering checkmate, you certainly can. But since the rules and common sense dictate otherwise it just seems like wishful thinking. If the rules, and common sense were on your side, I think you would eagerly answer the question. If it helped your case.

The reason the rules only mention the attacking piece and the enemy king (and not the piece that moved) is because the piece that moved is not part of the checkmate equation (unless of course it performed both tasks). Think back to the examples already given about moving out of the way. Whether it's the rock and the laser, the speeder and the slowpoke, or the rook and the king, the answer is always the same. The object that moves out of the way is not the object that carries out the final task.

You can't, end of story.

Btw, on the illusion of the priority of the king attacking piece in a checkmate. Note that the checkgiver and the exitblockers have the same role. They both attack at least one square in the king's sphere. The reasoning behind their participation is that they could both capture the king (if allowed) if the king would be on that square after the next move. Thus their function in the checkmate is analyzed from a projected future event, not the current board position. Which is logical since the checkmate was always a truncated version of the "king capture".

Ha, ha again. The guy who never answers to any argument complains about not getting it his way. Ask me the price of butter and perhaps I'll tell you. Or not. Nothing could be less relevant than what you asked. The argument you are trying to construct (I know, I can read your mind) is defused by post #290.

The rules only mention the attacking piece and the enemy king? is that all you have in your short term memory? Simply untrue. As I wrote about 2 million posts ago, it is the players which feature all over the FIDE rules as the checkmate deliverers. And, less often, the checkmating move . You only recall what you like.

The reason that there is also talk of attacks in checkmate is because the delivery of checkmate and the definition of checkmate are two different things. The second one is more important but the first one precedes it in a game.

The other things you write are increasingly confused. The metaphors you quote are not mine. Try the post package. Or better, the crossbow. Isn't the delivery the finger that got out of the way? Frankly, that doesn't matter a lot either. It's only a term. It's not about the rules, only about communication.

If the rules are confusing, I cannot apologize for that. I didn't write them. But to me they seem very simple and not confusing at all. They mean what they say.

When you say "it's not about the rules" that certainly is a valid opinion for those that don't like or agree with the rules. Probably one that doesn't carry much weight, since the rules are ALL that matter in chess. But to each his own.

I don't much like the rule that I can't promote to a pawn, because I think I should be able to promote to any piece (except a king). But just because I don't like the rule doesn't mean I get to ignore it. I can't just tell my opponent "it's not about the rules".

In this diagram, the rules (like them or not) do not say anything about the previous move. The rules don't care if the previous move was a pawn move, a king move, or a rook move. The rules only care about two things. The piece that attacks the enemy kings square, and the enemy king. In this diagram, we cannot say the pawn checkmates (an attack from which there is no escape) the enemy king. We cannot say the king checkmates the enemy king. But we CAN say the rook checkmates the enemy king, because that's what the rules say.

You are confused - the rules are not confusing. The discussion is not and never was about the definition of checkmate or anything affecting the play. It started with the "killer king award" which is not about the rules of chess and I added some things which weren't about the rules of chess either but about the communication on chess related issues.

Let's take your example diagram (how come it's familiar to me?). You don't get a "killer king award" for having such a diagram in a game. You get it when your last move was a king's checkmating move and not a rook's checkmating move. There is no rule which determines what the last move was and to know it you must show the diagram one move back plus the move that was played in it. Crystal clear.

What proves you know you are wrong is your failure to acknowledge that the player and the checkmating move are the deliverers/producers of the checkmate state, when those are clearly in the rules. You know your fortress will tumble when you admit to those.

The higher viewpoint. This will be my last post in this thread. I want to use it to illustrate that none of the issue is about the rules, or about checkmate or even about chess. Delivery is a language item in the core of alternate move games like chess. Delivery refers to a move which changes the state of a particular feature state like checkmate. We can define it simply because chess is a game of many discrete steps, frozen game states and move turns between the players. Unlike football which is almost continually "on the move". The states between the chess moves have certain features like "checkmate" or "stalemate" or "50-move counter" or "opening" or "control of central squares" or whatever you like - no restrictions as long as they apply to the current board state. Obviously the complete games are the result of all the moves chosen by the players. But not the features. For instance, the opening might be "spanish" until move 12 and then change to "closed spanish" on move 13". So we say that the move Pd4-d5 produced/delivered the "closed spanish opening state". Of course you can also say that the white player chose the "closed spanish", or that it is was the consequence of a pawn move. All OK as they all connect a change on the board (by a move) to a change in the state of a "named feature". That is what we call "delivery of the changed feature state". And that makes the issues discussed in this thread utterly transparent.

Obviously the features we select may be more or less complicated, like "when does a quiet position precisely change into an attack on the queen side?". I'd suggest that as long as that is unclear you'd not address "the delivery of a queen side attack". Which is doable as delivery is not about mandatory rules, just about optional language.

deliver
verb
de·​liv·​er di-ˈli-vər dē-

delivered; delivering di-ˈli-v(ə-)riŋ dē-
 ; delivers
Synonyms of deliver
transitive verb

1
: to set freeand lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil—Matthew 6:13 (King James Version) 
 
2
a: to take and hand over to or leave for another : CONVEYdeliver a package 
b: HAND OVER, SURRENDERdelivered the prisoners to the sheriff 
delivered themselves over to God 
c: to send, provide, or make accessible to someone electronicallydeliver an email/text message 
Have the information delivered to you via e-mail, cell phone, pager, instant messaging, or just on a Web page that you set up.—Irene B. McDermott 
When Netflix entered the European market in 2012, some national telecom companies forced it to pay "tolls" to deliver content to customers.—Liz Alderman and Amie Tsang 
 
3
a(1): to assist (a pregnant female) in giving birthThe doctor delivered several women. 
(2): to aid in the birth ofdelivered a baby 
b: to give birth toAfter four months of bed rest at home, she delivered a healthy baby boy.—Anita Lewis and Joyce Sasson Levy 
c: to cause (oneself) to produce as if by giving birthhas delivered himself of half an autobiography—H. C. Schonberg 
 
4
: SPEAK, SING, UTTERdelivered a fiery sermon to the congregation 
deliver a song 
deliver a speech 
 
5
: to send (something aimed or guided) to an intended target or destinationability to deliver nuclear warheads 
delivered a fastball 
 
6
a: to bring (something, such as votes) to the support of a candidate or cause… were counting on Mr. Cisneros to deliver the Hispanic vote for Michael Dukakis.—Alfredo Corchado 
b: to come through with : PRODUCEcan deliver the best results 
The new car delivers high gas mileage. 
 
intransitive verb

: to produce the promised, desired, or expected results : COME THROUGHcan't deliver on all these promises 
a hitter who can deliver in the clutch 
deliverability di-ˌli-v(ə-)rə-ˈbi-lə-tē dē-
 noun
deliverable di-ˈli-v(ə-)rə-bəl dē-
 adjective
deliverer di-ˈli-vər-ər dē-
 noun

Number 5 is very interesting. "to send something aimed or guided to an intended target or destination". In this diagram, which piece is aimed towards an intended target or destination? Is it the pawn, is it the king, or is it the rook? Or is it an imaginary piece? Very simple question, with a very easy, very simple answer.

Thanks nice work!!!

If you see mate in one, look for better.

I will no longer read or react to posts in this thread but I will expand a little on my own since there are some point of interest.

The primary game language on causation is: A move delivers a state change, and the state delivers the information needed to determine the array of options for the next move. In the causation chain is of course also the player who decides on the choice of move and executes it. Since the player, like a puppet master, is not visible on the stage, we attribute his actions to the pieces in the show - whether it's the witch who kicks the cat or the pawn who captures the icy queen. And thus we have a third move deliverer in a piece of carved wood endowed with certain moving powers dictated by the shape of its carvings. Whichever you choose when describing a move delivery will depend on what you want to emphasize. After all, this is a subject of communication not of game rules.

One warning: In the case of delivery by a unit (piece of wood) you need to be aware that more units may conform to the same description - there is more than one rook. But that is often the case in chess speak since not every piece of wood on the board has an identifying personal name. The player's name tells you nothing about the move and he is still seen as one of the delivering entities.

Please review the dictionary definition of the words "deliver" and "delivery". I know we all sometimes wish words didn't mean what they do. Or sometimes we wish the rules didn't apply to us.

But in the game of chess, we have to abide by the rules, and we have to abide by the definition of words. We don't get to make it up as we go along and pronounce "that doesn't apply to me".

According to both the rules of the game of chess, and the definitions provided by our dictionaries, a king cannot deliver a checkmate. The rules have been provided and explained. The definition of words have been provided and explained. The rest is just common sense, applying those criteria in the example diagrams given.

Hey buddy light weight 🐥 babby

The piece that's moving "delivers" checkmate to the board. The piece that sees the king "delivers" check to the king. Two things are delivered. Check is one requirement of checkmate, but on its own it is not checkmate. Here, the bishop delivers checkmate to the board, the position, while the rook delivers check to the king.

"piece of wood"... did he forget about plastic pieces?