I agree with you, Si-Eric. An absolute pin should mean the piece is out of the game until the pin is undone. Think about it, if any other piece in your example could capture the bishop, (except the queen which is applying the pin) it would not have to fear capture by the knight. Why not the King?
A chess rule.
Sort:
It is not a mistake. Those incapable of grasping the logic behind it should either accept it or go play something else.
Yes,it's an absolute chess rule mistake!!!
No, I think cjt33 is right. The first who lose the king loses. After capture the King with Knight, the Queen still didnt smash the King. Rules are rules and the makers of chess probably thought about this.
jaaas wrote:
Read it again. It can move if it captures the opponent's king (thus ending the game immediately) by doing so. That's the whole point, and the two paragraphs explain it thoroughly.
You added that. Si-Eric's original post states that white should be able to capture the bishop because of the pin. There's nothing in that post about allowing a player to break a pin. If that were the case, there would be no value to pinning a piece in the first place.
klfay1 wrote:
jaaas wrote:
Read it again. It can move if it captures the opponent's king (thus ending the game immediately) by doing so. That's the whole point, and the two paragraphs explain it thoroughly.
You added that. Si-Eric's original post states that white should be able to capture the bishop because of the pin. There's nothing in that post about allowing a player to break a pin. If that were the case, there would be no value to pinning a piece in the first place.
Which part of
It can move if it captures the opponent's KING (thus ending the game immediately) by doing so.
didn't you understand??
Some of you need to reread my original post again!!
It's you who needs to read again what has been explained to you.
The king may not capture the bishop, because it would be captured by the knight protecting the bishop. Any other piece than the king may capture the bishop, as the knight would expose his own king to capture by recapturing. But if the knight (or any other piece) can capture the opponent's king, it does so, immediately winning the game.
Enyone would risk their Queen being attacked by a pinned piece(within reason),because it is pinned,right?so why not the King?
jaaas wrote:
It's you who needs to read again what has been explained to you.
The king may not capture the bishop, because it will be captured by the knight protecting the bishop. If any other piece than the king can capture the bishop, as the knight would expose his own king to capture by recapturing. But if it can capture the opponent's king, it does so, winning the game.
I know that's the official rule!!But in my oppinion it should be changed!!
Aug 31, 2013
0
#32
@op
I don't understand your logic. You want the Black king to be able to move to a position where it can be captured, but you don't want the White knight to be able to capture the king because that would put the White king in a position to be captured. In other words, Black can put their king in check, but White cannot do the same thing?
@Si-Eric I don't know...it doesn't make sense to me.
jaaas wrote:
It's you who needs to read again what has been explained to you.
The king may not capture the bishop, because it would be captured by the knight protecting the bishop. Any other piece than the king may capture the bishop, as the knight would expose his own king to capture by recapturing. But if the knight (or any other piece) can capture the opponent's king, it does so, immediately winning the game.
And also the king would NOT be taken of by the Knight because the Knight is pinned?? It is a void threat!!
If you are incapable of grasping a rule which is entirely logical, not difficult to grasp at all, and has been explained thouroughly, then you are certainly not in a position to propose rule changes. Don't get it, and don't like it? As I said, go pick another game without "mind-bending" rules. There are plenty.
jaaas wrote:
If you are incapable of grasping a rule which is entirely logical, not difficult to grasp at all, and has been explained thouroughly, then you are certainly not in a position to propose rule changes. Don't get it, and don't like it? As I said, go pick another game without "mind-bending" rules. There are plenty.
lol!!
ViktorHNielsen wrote:
With that stalemate rule, this position is won for white
ahah, i like that.
Si-Eric wrote:
Enyone would risk their Queen being attacked by a pinned piece(within reason),because it is pinned,right?so why not the King?
The POINT of chess is NOT to Lose your King!!! When the King take the Bishop you LOSE your King. I dont see any solution to change the most important rule in chess! Chess is about the KING!!!!
I agree and I think "woton" explained it really good.
the only rule that perhaps i would like to be changed is stalemate, so that the stalemating player wins. :p
maybe in the future to diminish the amount of draws? think about the effects this would have in endgame theory :o
With that stalemate rule, this position is won for white: