If the King was any other piece, the Bishop could not take that piece, because it is pinned.
But this cuts both ways, right? "It is pinned" only applies if we accept that the king can't remain in check. Therefore, the white king also can't remain in check. The logic is perfectly simple and clear no matter how I look at it.
I accept the rule that the white King can not remain in check and has to move. These are the rules of chess and I have no problem understanding them... It is just that the black Bishop is not really threatening to take the King, which is what you stated earlier.
The black bishop is threatening to take the king. I don't know how you came to a conclusion that it isn't.
The Bishop can NOT move, hence it is NOT threatening to take. It is that simple.
Yes it is giving a check, but it is not really threatening to take.
No, no, no, no. You are mixing up the two rulesets. What you say does not make sense in either one.
1. In the world where you win only by taking the enemy king, the bishop is threatening to take the enemy king, I hope it is clear. In that world, pinning the king is not an absolute pin, as a king can get into check, the game is only lost when the king is actually taken.
2. In our world (where the king can't be taken), the bishop is not threatening to take the king... but hey, we just said that the king can't be taken, right? But a check is still a check and white's king has to get out.
In both worlds, the white king has to move (or capture the bishop or block or something). Confusion only arises when you apply different rules for white and for black.
Oh yeah, actually I see now that you were talking about the alternate world... Sorry, my bad.
So yeah, if both Kings were not Kings, then the Bishop would be threatening to take the not-a-King piece.
I was wrong.
If the King was any other piece, the Bishop could not take that piece, because it is pinned.
But this cuts both ways, right? "It is pinned" only applies if we accept that the king can't remain in check. Therefore, the white king also can't remain in check. The logic is perfectly simple and clear no matter how I look at it.
I accept the rule that the white King can not remain in check and has to move. These are the rules of chess and I have no problem understanding them... It is just that the black Bishop is not really threatening to take the King, which is what you stated earlier.
The black bishop is threatening to take the king. I don't know how you came to a conclusion that it isn't.
The Bishop can NOT move, hence it is NOT threatening to take. It is that simple.
Yes it is giving a check, but it is not really threatening to take.
No, no, no, no. You are mixing up the two rulesets. What you say does not make sense in either one.
1. In the world where you win only by taking the enemy king, the bishop is threatening to take the enemy king, I hope it is clear. In that world, pinning the king is not an absolute pin, as a king can get into check, the game is only lost when the king is actually taken.
2. In our world (where the king can't be taken), the bishop is not threatening to take the king... but hey, we just said that the king can't be taken, right? But a check is still a check and white's king has to get out.
In both worlds, the white king has to move (or capture the bishop or block or something). Confusion only arises when you apply different rules for white and for black.
I was living in world number two (our world) all along. There was no confusion and the rules are very clear to me. All I was saying is that, in our world, the real world with the rules of chess as they are, the Bishop is not really threatening to take the King. This does not matter too much, since it is still giving a check and the white King has to move, but nevertheless, the Bishop is not actually threatening to take.
Other worlds and alternative rulesets I don't care about too much.