tactical defence?

then i guess Qxd4 is a pretty good move for white :P

 the big problem here is that, your view ain't the solutionwe have to think wider

 lets keep it real

 oh yeah, wise-as, be explain

someone,more than others, don NOT! understand wotz going on, ya?

 you psyco-reptile, is this how you view things!!!???? no comment, ya? Just confusion, bullet for my valentine lol

 Spectrowski you nutcase!!!! You _ares angel that beat the devil with own stick.

you are a master in understanding...you can save your soul and hammer the devil at a little tactical defense

who would have known-you devil you=the spectrowski solution!, and what a great example of tactical play!

You are greater than the original idea, I think the picture is clear now-thx for your time and effort.

Some pplz just say it better, i never gave up, ya?

long live motherussia, ya?

 i vote spectrowski defense-bring it on!

Dude, you are a troll.

fireballz , it seems that you think that only some of the chess rules should apply.

I have a couple suggestions/solutions to your problem:

1. Accept rules as currently written. Some people has a "rude awakenings" here when they learn about "funny pawn move" (en passant) , etc...

2. If you can not accept 1. without some discussion (this would be reasonable to assume judging on this thread), then you could seek an advice/opinion from the expert. Try arbiter's notebook at chesscafe.com, there is a chance that this philosophical question, about "power of the pin" , has already been answered. If not, ask Geurt and he might help you.

3. If 2. wouldn't bring acceptable results for you, than this might be the solution. Next FIDE congress is in October 2011 in Poland. You have a whole year to prepare yourself,  make a case and try to exert your influence to change the rules.

4. If you think that 3. is (practically) impossible to achieve, then you might try to invent a new chess variant with different rules/pieces . Capablanca and Fischer did it, you could do it as well.

 You're still not making sense...all your arguements about the position always reflects back to you. Your claim about the King not being allowed to move into check, then going against your own claim and moving the Black King into check. Your talk about the pin on the Rook on f2, but the Rook on f8 is also pinned. In your version of chess where the other side gets to move after the capture of their King would end nearly all games in a draw.

In you diagram example, White would be able to play Rxf8+, and after Black plays Bxg1, White can play on with Rook takes, draw. It's the most stupid thing in the history of the game, and you want it to be change to it. You argue about chess being boring? Well, imagine your version where about 99.99% of games end in a draw because of a stupid rule like that; how boring and stupid would your version of the game be?

Do you really not see it or are you just trying to annoy everyone on the site?

And another blog with the same subject:

http://blog.chess.com/run_along_now_honey/checks-by-pieces-pinned-to-their-king

Too much Nimzowitch(power of the pinned piece) in both cases I would say.

 frnd, spectrowski, made it more simple, what i wanted to say. Plz look at post #66 It seem really silly at first glance...but it does make loads of sense.  Its a pleasant variable to the game we know.  If we  play this version(spectrowski defence:) ) then chess would seem lot less complicated. Many games would end the way we are used too, but defense is a lot more powerful, and a players tactical game is pushed to even greater lengths. Nowadays,  if the player have a strong position, he win...like carlson against the world...the game was one sided This defense would make a game exciting...we don't have to call it chess, if it offends

 en passant...I play it, and understand the rule. I don't agree with it. Its confusing, and a game can be played without it. Its excess baggage, and a distraction...I can prove it...a pawn have value of one point, and it increase when it get closer to become a queen...it is unfair that one pawn should become a queen before another, based an a simple head start.  a head-start increase the value of a pawn. evident is the argument that the other pawn could also do that. I don't see such confusion in any other pieces...it is because of such rule. You can even loose a game because of the rule that is applied out of character. I have many other reasons that also make it not seem unfair...perhaps all rules, like people, do not deserve the same value.

Now I KNOW you are trolling.

I really don't see how so many people can be criticizing fireballz. It's quite logical that sense the queen is defended by the rook, then it isn't checkmate, and black wins. Of course computers don't understand it; How can a computer be expected understand such an essentially human thing as defending a comrade?

"A sure sign of genius is that a confederacy of dunces will form to oppose it."

---Johnathan Swift

i agree with whoever said that this would make an interesting variant, but have fun trying to use this tactic in an online game

A rule change isn't needed and would create some oddities that don't have to exist, like Spektrowski's ridiculous position and the below position. Initially, I thought Black couldn't play Kxf8 because the e7-Bishop is pinned and thus cannot pin the f6-Rook, but he actually can do so. If White tries to play Rxf8 in response, the e7-Bishop is no longer pinned because the Black King doesn't exist anymore! EDIT: Whoops, he isn't in mate because of Bxf8, but you get the idea.

 the value of a pinned piece is zero!

Should the king move into a pin, the rook would be unpinned, placing the king into check!

The king cannot move into check.

please note, that the white king cannot be in check, because of the Bc5 pin.

There is only one move...that is Bxf8

I believe this is how chess is intended to be played, it is so complicated, that I am not surprised that it was made easier...but is easy best?

come-on pplz, we need more scenarios, we have to see if it is worth changing anything