tactical defence?

why do i get a slight headache again...I think i had covered my view by now - lol

 You are still not making sense...

First you say that a King cannot be placed into check, but you then argue that taking on f8 while placing the King is check should be ok.

I heard an amateur rule of thumb for blitz chess (doubt if this is used in pro games): if you give a check, and the opponent makes an impossible move (without moving the king out of check in one way or the other), you just capture their king, and goodbye. I once fell victim to that rule, back when I was a kid and visited chess school. So, following this same logic, black king falls first, and it doesn't matter what's next. If one king is dead, its owner is not allowed to make any moves - how many games there are where one partner gets checkmated while other was just a move short to checkmate the other king as well. Should such games be declared as draws because two kings can "die" in two half-moves?

It might be that i chose the wrong words, but it does not mean that my view is lost. It is not intended to be accepted by everyone. One day the rules would change.  I am simply giving my opinion. Perhaps someone would look into it.  The French make changes to the rules...It can happen in future.  French had succeed, so shall others. Or is it lie? The rules as is ain't bad, I just not approve of two. Its not going to keep me from playing the game, though. English ain't my first language...i ' spelling, ya?  I told myself this game of chess...I can see it different than others.

 interesting... people thats like minded, can play their own way. It happen that two frndz can play fast, and then blunder/start new game I don't think a king die as such, it just out of options. It happen many time that i lose, just as i was at a point to finish opponent-lol its like a draw. Both players have opportunity to win...The opponent see what you see. He might comment gg

 

a) Each piece on a chessboard have a value.

b)The value of the white pieces, equal that of the black pieces.

c)The only thing that change the value of a piece is its position.

d)Squares have value too...they occupy space that need to be controlled...

lets look for example at our two opposing rooks. Do they have the same value? The answer is no! The one rook is pinned, and we all know that the value of a pinned piece is Zero! If the value of a piece is reduced to Zero, then it mean one thing...It mean that such a piece is placed on a square that is not right choice for it...It is the choice of a looser! You are loosing if you make such choices, and to choose a loosing piece of zero value to protect a queen, is just upsetting!

The fact that the opponent claim to have won is also upsetting, but worst of all, is when the rules back this claim.

The guy that invented chess, did so by pure chance.It might even be that an average player would beat him at his own invention...

The fact remain that we can add to the challenges of the game, we can take it to the future. I am so bored with the same expectations of moves, that it have very little excitement as such...

Change is inevitable, the rules will change, simply because it can. - because it is the next logical step, and because fairness is a virtue.

Rules are uphold by power...future generations can do it then, or, we could do it now...The respect that goes with change, is what is left. Resistance is good if there is no reason, but i do have reason, and i do have a solution also.

What is the solution?

It is simple.

The queen, overlooked the pin on the rook. She blundered! The king captures the queen!

The fact that the value of the rook is zero, mean that it cannot control the space that the King had captured!

The White rook will be lost, as the black bishop control the space on which it is standing, and that is why it would be captured...When the pin is removed the rook will regain its power, if the bishop do not capture the rook...

This tactical defensive play was not noticed by white, and it got punished.



Now you can see, that all is not lost, and that a pin reduce value:)



The rules must just be more clear, thats all...rules can blunder too...

How do you say that the King cannot move into a check then say that it can move into a check. Explain that.

You're delusional if you think the rules about this particular topic will be changed. The rules of chess have evolved from what it was originally to what it is today be rule changes needed to be made to make the game more exciting; better in the original concept of the King, if unable to get out of check without placing itself in check, ends the game.

I'll wait for your answer to the above question then you can keep making arguements, otherwise your arguement falls apart due to your own position that the King cannot be moved into a check (in other words, be moved to a square that is under attack). And even if English or French is not your main language, if you actually studied chess, then you should know about "en passant". I am not French either, but I know how to spell that word because I have seen it and have studied chess & it's rules.

How do you say that the King cannot move into a check then say that it can move into a check. Explain that.

It have to do with the value of the piece that support the Queen.

I am talking about the white rook

Your view is: Should I do KxQ then my king would move into check! Your view is supported by rule 3.2 It state that a pinned piece remain its power, even if it is pinned. I dont agree with it.

my view is:

a) Each piece on a chessboard have a value.

b)The value of the white pieces, equal that of the black pieces.

c)The only thing that change the value of a piece is its position.

d)Squares have value too...they occupy space that need to be controlled...

lets look for example at our two opposing rooks. Do they have the same value? The answer is no! The one rook is pinned, and we all know that the value of a pinned piece is Zero! If the value of a piece is reduced to Zero, then it mean one thing...It mean that such a piece is placed on a square that is not right choice for it...It is the choice of a looser! You are loosing if you make such choices, and to choose a loosing piece of zero value to protect a queen, is just upsetting!

The fact that the opponent claim to have won is also upsetting, but worst of all, is when the rules back this claim.

We agree,that a king cannot move into check...

we agree that the rook is pinned by bishop

we disagree that  pinned piece control f8:) i say it does not(based on value of rook) and you say it does, based on 3.2

i want change, you want convince.

we jst agree to disagree-for now

so my country has a nuclear bomb and i'm threatening to place my bomb in a neighbouring country to that of my enemies. however, the enemy country also has a nuclear bomb, and they threaten to fire off their bomb if my put our bomb too close to their country. obviously, i threaten back that as soon as they fire their bomb, my bombs will fire off as well. so, according to chess rules, who dies first?

Look at it this way, the rules of chess do not allow you to commit suicide (e.g stalemate). The pin on the rook means that normally the rook cannot move as this would be suicide. However in this case if the black king captured the white queen then moving the white rook would NOT be suicide as the game would end upon capturing the black king. So this is indeed checkmate by the laws of chess, and in this sense it is perfectly logical.

 i doubt if violence can solve this problem...each explosion just become more violent, i guess you are suggesting that we thinking too much

 First you say that you agree with the rule, now you say you don't.

Anyway, what you are suggesting is an "exception" to the rule, which would complicate things even more which, apparently is already is too much for you to handle.

It's kind of like that movie where two guys are suppose to fight, but one says before they actually get into it, "ok, but no hitting on the face, because..." he had a reason for that rule. Anyway, the other then says, "ok, but no hitting on...", blah, blah, blah...So, they go on and on with rules about what's ok and not ok & never actually getting on with the fight. What you would rather have seems like the same thing; just talk about the rules and keep adding exceptions then never actually play a game of chess because the rules are not to one individual's satisfaction. I don't know if I speak for anyone else here, but I do not ever want to play your version of chess (which is all talk about how the rules are imperfect and how the rules should be made even more imperfect by BS exceptions to the already existing rule, which are already good btw).

pumkin? if its too much for me to handle, why do I have a solution?

What is the solution?

It is simple.

The queen, overlooked the pin on the rook. She blundered! The king captures the queen!

The fact that the value of the rook is zero, mean that it cannot control the space that the King had captured!

The White rook will be lost, as the black bishop control the space on which it is standing, and that is why it would be captured...When the pin is removed the rook will regain its power, if the bishop do not capture the rook...

This tactical defensive play was not noticed by white, and it got punished.

Chess is made to be complicated...its like a tango...it is beautiful

Okay -  didn't read a thing you just posted Qxf8 mate ... mate

The computers were programmed by the people who made the rules. Of course they're in on this

checkmate... whoever takes the opponents king first wins, so whats the big problem here?

   This forum is nothing but nonsense upon stilts!

Yeah, this needs to not turn into "if you know".  The guy's told us flat-out that he disagrees with the rules of chess, so I'm not sure how we can convince him of anything.  Shall we stop trying?

(hammerschlag I wait to your answer)

Ok then. Suppose we have a position like this.

If this ridiculous "tactical defence" thingy works, then there is no checkmate in this position - Black can move 1... Kh4, in check from the pawn, but this pawn is pinned by the Rg6. Okay.

But then, White can "checkmate" Black second time not only by the obvious 2. Kh2, but by completely unbeliavable 2. Kf2??!! or 2. Kf3??!!, because the black rook on f6 cannot check because of Bd8 pin.

So here we have a very, VERY stupid position where one King is in check while the other one is checkmated. It's a funny fairy chess position, maybe, but, well, I can't imagine any of this in an actual game.