Like I said, then try it. If you believe the king can attack the square the enemy king occupies, do it. Play in a tournament, use your king to attack the square the enemy king occupies, and see what happens.
I notice you did not answer the question though. In our example, which piece is giving check, the pawn or the bishop?
The point is, the "Killer King" achievement is achieved by moving the king and delivering checkmate.
Yes, and they are not separate things. The king is only called "killer king" because it killed (checkmated) the other king by its action.
Of course it is a simplification to assign the checkmating act to a single unit It comes from the insistence on nominating one target for admiration or praise. Truth is that a king is checkmated by the complete board position with all the present chess units which are willfully substituted by a single deliverer of the end result. As they hand a music reward to the band leader who represents the whole band but in no way contributes more to it than the other members.
Like I said, then try it. If you believe the king can attack the square the enemy king occupies, do it. Play in a tournament, use your king to attack the square the enemy king occupies, and see what happens.
I notice you did not answer the question though. In our example, which piece is giving check, the pawn or the bishop?
Can't you read? I said no king can attack another king - and that such is irrelevant.
In the example, the bishop checks the king but it didn't give the check because it didn't do anything. The pawn did. So the bishop is a part of the "state of checkmate" while the pawn is not. But the "act of checking or checkmating" precedes the checkmate state and contains different actors with different features. Or in technical terms: the state of the game before a move is executed is different from the one after it which may lead to role changes.
Like I said, then try it. If you believe the king can attack the square the enemy king occupies, do it. Play in a tournament, use your king to attack the square the enemy king occupies, and see what happens.
I notice you did not answer the question though. In our example, which piece is giving check, the pawn or the bishop?
Moving the king and delivering checkmate. Neither of those actions require the king to be adjacent to the enemy king.
The bishop is the piece that sees the king, but the pawn moving results in the check, meaning the pawn gives check.
Here, it is the white king's movement that results in black being checkmated. Therefore, the king delivers checkmate, not the bishop.
Like I said, then try it. If you believe the king can attack the square the enemy king occupies, do it. Play in a tournament, use your king to attack the square the enemy king occupies, and see what happens.
I notice you did not answer the question though. In our example, which piece is giving check, the pawn or the bishop?
Can't you read? I said no king can attack another king - and that such is irrelevant.
In the example, the bishop checks the king but it didn't give the check because it didn't do anything. The pawn did. So the bishop is a part of the "state of checkmate" while the pawn is not. But the "act of checking or checkmating" precedes the checkmate state and contains different actors with different features. Or in technical terms: the state of the game before a move is executed is different from the one after it which may lead to role changes.
If no king can attack another king, which you are now saying you accept, then no king can give check. Check (and checkmate) are when a piece ATTACKS the square occupied by the opposing king.
That is the very definition of check (or checkmate). You can't have it both ways. You can't say you recognize a king may not attack another king, and at the same time say a king can give check. Checking REQUIRES attack. That is the definition.
It would be like saying the bishop is checking the king, but it didn't give check. A piece cannot give check if it's not attacking the king. In this example, according to the rules of chess, which piece is giving (or delivering) check to the king?
Like I said, then try it. If you believe the king can attack the square the enemy king occupies, do it. Play in a tournament, use your king to attack the square the enemy king occupies, and see what happens.
I notice you did not answer the question though. In our example, which piece is giving check, the pawn or the bishop?
Can't you read? I said no king can attack another king - and that such is irrelevant.
In the example, the bishop checks the king but it didn't give the check because it didn't do anything. The pawn did. So the bishop is a part of the "state of checkmate" while the pawn is not. But the "act of checking or checkmating" precedes the checkmate state and contains different actors with different features. Or in technical terms: the state of the game before a move is executed is different from the one after it which may lead to role changes.
If no king can attack another king, which you are now saying you accept, then no king can give check. Check (and checkmate) are when a piece ATTACKS the square occupied by the opposing king.
That is the very definition of check (or checkmate). You can't have it both ways. You can't say you recognize a king may not attack another king, and at the same time say a king can give check. Checking REQUIRES attack. That is the definition.
It would be like saying the bishop is checking the king, but it didn't give check. A piece cannot give check if it's not attacking the king. In this example, according to the rules of chess, which piece is giving (or delivering) check to the king?
Your argument makes less than zero sense. When the king moving results in check, the king delivers the check, because had the king not moved, there would be no check.
Like I said, then try it. If you believe the king can attack the square the enemy king occupies, do it. Play in a tournament, use your king to attack the square the enemy king occupies, and see what happens.
I notice you did not answer the question though. In our example, which piece is giving check, the pawn or the bishop?
Moving the king and delivering checkmate. Neither of those actions require the king to be adjacent to the enemy king.
The bishop is the piece that sees the king, but the pawn moving results in the check, meaning the pawn gives check.
In the case of using a king it would require being adjacent to the enemy king because a king may only move one square (except during castling). So an attack (or check) by a king requires it to be adjacent.
In that example, if the pawn gave check that means, by definition, it is attacking the square the enemy king occupies. I don't see the pawn doing that. I see the bishop doing that. Or look at it this way, a checkmate position is one where the enemy king could be captured on the next move by the attacking piece if that were allowed, wouldn't you agree?
So which piece would capture the king on the next move, the pawn, or the bishop?
Like I said, then try it. If you believe the king can attack the square the enemy king occupies, do it. Play in a tournament, use your king to attack the square the enemy king occupies, and see what happens.
I notice you did not answer the question though. In our example, which piece is giving check, the pawn or the bishop?
Can't you read? I said no king can attack another king - and that such is irrelevant.
In the example, the bishop checks the king but it didn't give the check because it didn't do anything. The pawn did. So the bishop is a part of the "state of checkmate" while the pawn is not. But the "act of checking or checkmating" precedes the checkmate state and contains different actors with different features. Or in technical terms: the state of the game before a move is executed is different from the one after it which may lead to role changes.
If no king can attack another king, which you are now saying you accept, then no king can give check. Check (and checkmate) are when a piece ATTACKS the square occupied by the opposing king.
That is the very definition of check (or checkmate). You can't have it both ways. You can't say you recognize a king may not attack another king, and at the same time say a king can give check. Checking REQUIRES attack. That is the definition.
It would be like saying the bishop is checking the king, but it didn't give check. A piece cannot give check if it's not attacking the king. In this example, according to the rules of chess, which piece is giving (or delivering) check to the king?
Your argument makes less than zero sense. When the king moving results in check, the king delivers the check, because had the king not moved, there would be no check.
Not according to the rules of chess and the dictionary. Which defines such words as deliver and check and checkmate.
Yes, moving the king out of the way results in checkmate. But the moving king is not attacking the square the enemy king occupies. Which is required for a check (or checkmate). In this example I just posted, according to the rules of chess, which piece is giving (or delivering) check?
Like I said, then try it. If you believe the king can attack the square the enemy king occupies, do it. Play in a tournament, use your king to attack the square the enemy king occupies, and see what happens.
I notice you did not answer the question though. In our example, which piece is giving check, the pawn or the bishop?
Can't you read? I said no king can attack another king - and that such is irrelevant.
In the example, the bishop checks the king but it didn't give the check because it didn't do anything. The pawn did. So the bishop is a part of the "state of checkmate" while the pawn is not. But the "act of checking or checkmating" precedes the checkmate state and contains different actors with different features. Or in technical terms: the state of the game before a move is executed is different from the one after it which may lead to role changes.
If no king can attack another king, which you are now saying you accept, then no king can give check. Check (and checkmate) are when a piece ATTACKS the square occupied by the opposing king.
That is the very definition of check (or checkmate). You can't have it both ways. You can't say you recognize a king may not attack another king, and at the same time say a king can give check. Checking REQUIRES attack. That is the definition.
It would be like saying the bishop is checking the king, but it didn't give check. A piece cannot give check if it's not attacking the king. In this example, according to the rules of chess, which piece is giving (or delivering) check to the king?
Your argument makes less than zero sense. When the king moving results in check, the king delivers the check, because had the king not moved, there would be no check.
Not according to the rules of chess and the dictionary. Which defines such words as deliver and check and checkmate.
Yes, moving the king out of the way results in checkmate. But the moving king is not attacking the square the enemy king occupies. Which is required for a check (or checkmate). In this example I just posted, according to the rules of chess, which piece is giving (or delivering) check?
So how can the king move, resulting in checkmate, yet not cause the checkmate?
The definition of checkmate, as a verb, is to put into checkmate. In all of these examples, the moving piece is the one that puts the opposing king in checkmate, therefore, the moving piece is the one that checkmates.
(Btw, just saw that KieferSmith wrote the same thing. We are in alignment!)
As for the umptiest time you confuse the state of checkmate with the action of checkmating.
You write "Check (and checkmate) ARE when a piece attacks the square occupied by the opposing king. That is the description of a STATE. The king is being checked (under attack) by the bishop or anything. The VERB "check" is different as it does not address a current state but the execution of a move which brings about the "check(mate)" state. The move Bf1-b5+ checks the black king. Or the move Kc6-c7+ checks the black king. The standard chess notation reveals who did the checking!
I repeat: as long as you continue confusing state and action you will not understand anything on this subject - and probably nothing else in chess either since such gross misunderstandings block your ability to reason.
TESTING
It really shouldn't be necessary, but apparently it is. So, I'll ask again. Most people who have learned the rules of chess within the last 15 minutes
could guess the answer correctly. In this diagram, which piece is giving check? I won't even suggest options. Just say it, if you know.
The definition of checkmate, as a verb, is to put into checkmate. In all of these examples, the moving piece is the one that puts the opposing king in checkmate, therefore, the moving piece is the one that checkmates.
Please read the definition you quoted. The moving piece reveals the piece that checkmates. The moving piece does NOT in any way put the opposing king into checkmate. Why? Because the moving piece does not attack the square the opposing king occupies. Per the rules and definition of checkmate.
It really shouldn't be necessary, but apparently it is. So, I'll ask again. Most people who have learned the rules of chess within the last 15 minutes
could guess the answer correctly. In this diagram, which piece is giving check? I won't even suggest options. Just say it, if you know.
On repeat: the same language issue. "Give check"- same as "checking" - has two possible meanings:
In your example it's the second one because there is only a diagram (position) without known moves and the "check giving action" occurred in the past of it. Btw, the common state expression is "the rook is giving check" to avoid the potential confusion around "gives" or "checks" as an action. Which is what you are looking for. You are confused and are trying to confuse everyone else.
Btw, you can say "the rook is giving check in the diagram" because check is a relation between only the rook and the king but you cannot say "the rook is giving checkmate in the diagram" because the checkmate state involves the total position. Checkmating is an action attributed to the player and his move producing the checkmate and the owner (chess unit) of that move. A natural decision in view of the human habit of attributing a game/sport achievement to one critical action / individual - commonly the one that crossed the finish line.
The definition of checkmate, as a verb, is to put into checkmate. In all of these examples, the moving piece is the one that puts the opposing king in checkmate, therefore, the moving piece is the one that checkmates.
Please read the definition you quoted. The moving piece reveals the piece that checkmates. The moving piece does NOT in any way put the opposing king into checkmate. Why? Because the moving piece does not attack the square the opposing king occupies. Per the rules and definition of checkmate.
So, the opposing king being in checkmate was due to the action of a different piece? You are quite mistaken. The piece that takes the action of moving and, therefore, puts the opposing king in checkmate, is the piece that also took the action of putting the opposing king in checkmate. If you took the action of punching a window and, because of that, the window breaks, you are the one that broke the
The point is, the "Killer King" achievement is achieved by moving the king and delivering checkmate.