A chess rule.

You guys do understand what I'm saying though?I mean It's a new thought but surely you can understand???

It's not doing 2 things at the same time. It's capturing the King. That's the only thing it's doing.

Yes, we all understand you. It's just that we disagree with you.

And guarding It's King from check.???

is this too hard for you guys??

I disagree. White caused the stalemate, so it shouldn't count as a win for white. It shouldn't count as a win for black either.

White just screwed up, and stopped, the game.

"No win for you. Come back one year"

Enough already. The OP comes up with a proposed new rule...we have seen plenty like this in the past.

The new rule is illogical as it allows one player to place their king in check but dissallows the other player from doing the same.

To the OP...all chess pieces can do more than one thing at a time....check and blocking check is an example. In your posted example, the knight is protecting the bishop as well as blocking check.  If you dont like the rules, play another game.

Actually it's not that hard to word the OP's proposed rule, just "A pinned piece cannot deliver check" (of course, if this rule were to somehow make it into an official rulebook, then that explanation would have to be accompanied with a definition of "pinned," but you get the idea). The hard part is convincing other people to follow that rule.

Thanks macer,that was good English.

Consider this situation if the OP rule suggestion applied......

my opponent moves his queen to check my king. Instead of blocking the check or moving my king , I instead move a rook on a different rank or file  thus pinning his queen against his king. Have I negated check ?

Chess's rules have evolved over many centuries. I think they are pretty complete as they are.

@macer75

I like your wording.  I was having trouble devising something simple.

cjt33 wrote:

ok but then the knight can take the king and without the king you can no longer direct your forces =)

Then it will be check if he takes the king

You cannot willingly move your king into check, that is counter productive to the whole reasoning to the game.

Ok,that's fine if nobody agrees with me.

The thing is , it shouldn't be check becuase the knight is pinned and should not be able to threaten any piece while it remains absolutely pinned!!

I wonder if the OP's position is legal.

why not just capture the knight with check?

Having said it elsewhere, I'll repeat it here.

Imagining a King moving to a square attacked by an absolutely pinned piece/pawn of the opponent, it is what would conditionally release the pin.

A piece/pawn isn't pinned if it can immediately capture the enemy king, which ends the game and renders all other concerns moot.

This is just the way it is. The rules of chess work that way, because it is logical and consistent. If you don't understand this, just read the explanations again and again until it makes sense to you, or otherwise just accept it and live with it. Trying to argue the point with statements like "but it can't because it's pinned" does nothing but demonstrate that you are unwilling or unable to grasp the concept and logic behind it.

(I would like to suggest to staff to create a pinned (no pun intended) topic that would explain in advance to anyone who is unsure about this matter why a piece pinned to its own king is still dangerous to the opposing king, in an effort to prevent pointless debates like the one in this thread from occuring in the future.)

Rule: a King can"t capture any piece that is defenfended by another piece.

@Si-Eric that move would be legal if not for this Rule. Peace

In chess a player makes a move, then it is his opponents move, then his, then his opponents.  The game of chess ends when one player resigns, is checkmated, stalemated, or both players agree to a draw.  In your diagram, you're suggesting taking a protected piece with your king, and your arguement is that the knight that defends the bishop is pinned to your opponents king.  Well, KxB is your move.  So your opponent plays NxK #.  You don't get another move, because the game has already ended by the previously stated rules.

Your arguement is a classic case of wanting to have your cake, and eat it too.

It's less handy to use this rule, as it is too specific (even if it does fit the case raised here). A king may generally never enter (or remain on) a square attacked by an opponent's piece or pawn - no matter whether the king would be capturing a defended piece, or just be moving to an empty square controlled by the opponent.

#, ive already simplified this in the simplest form i don't understand why you still want to generalize.