A chess rule.

RICK29 wrote:

"i don't understand why you still want to generalize."

In order for another person not to raise another topic tomorrow insisting that they want to walk with their king onto an empty square attacked by the opponent's pinned piece. The general rule prohibiting a king from entering threatened squares covers all cases at once.

i specifically stated  the rule about the point in question and i'm 99% sure the chess playing community in chess.com understands that simple explanation.

Is this drawn?

Of course not, look, white can give check with the rook and because black is then in check, he can't take the white king, duh! White'll win the queen and then the game!

#.

Sure. It might just prove more handy to use a stone to kill multiple birds (if possible) at once rather than just one.

For completeness' sake, here is rule 3.9 from the FIDE Laws of Chess, which covers the matter in question:

"The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check."

(It's a pity that the way the actual rule is worded, it does looks arbitrary at first glance and doesn't really help to understand why this is the case, which might be one of the reasons people get confused and are tempted to challenge the logical coherence of the rule.)

"Same banana" as ive said was on simplest form already. one doesn't need a thesaurus or atlas to understand what i meant.

I realize mine is mate. It's the same thing as what the OP presents.

If you're referring to post #83 - of course it is mate. I assumed you have been ironical in that post, haven't you?

Yes, I was responding to the comment immediately after mine.

White does not get to move again because white has been CHECKMATED!

post #85 for the win

Exactly - what is checkmate? It's when the king will be taken the turn after guaranteed, with no hope of escape. Any move is irrelevant at this point. The same goes for moving into check, you are in the equivalent of checkmate, the king is dead the turn after, it doesn't matter whether the other king is going to fall, the game is over.

condude2 ....you make the point very well but I fear it will fall on deaf ears

It is funny to hear folks argue about the legitimacy of a particular rule of a board game. It is the rule because folks agreed it was the rule back in the day, no more, no less. If OP thinks it should change, that is his opinion. If you think it should stay the same, that is your opinion. My guess is that the second group will get their wish and the first will not.

The OP set a sample diagram of a particular position in w/c he thinks, a posible example of a continuation w/ the premise that (refer to OP diagram) the king can take(w)B  bec.(w) knight can't attack his king(B), bec. its own king(w)is pinned or would be in check if he does. in the original position no king is under check neither w nor B and both king can move to a safe square. w/c i hope everyone agrees "till the next (op proposed move kxB). There i stated @ op it would be able to if it wasn't for the Rule: A king can't capture any piece that is defended by another piece (referring to oponnents piece of course) w/c specifically states why the op proposed move (kxB) would be illegal.

The OP raised a very relevant question and I would like to thank him for that. I've thought about the logic behind that rule every time I've stumbled upon it. If I'm not mistaken this is one of the most debated (pin) rules of chess. Did a little research and the best explanation I've found so far is that "the first to deliver a checkmate - wins!".

For instance, consider this position:

[FEN "6k1/5ppp/6r1/8/8/1R6/PPP5/1K6 w - - 0 1"]

Which ever side is the first to move will WIN by checkmate. REGARDLESS of the fact that the opponent ALSO has checkmate in one. Applied in this case it means that the white Knight will capture the black king BEFORE the black Queen captures the open white King and thus ending the game.

Now this is a logical explanation for the rule. BUT! It's NOT a logical explanation to why THIS rule is chosen OVER the rule of absolute pin. Why can the white Knight move to capture the enemy King when it wouldn't be allowed to open up an attack on his King in ANY other case?


If you have ever seen that picture that can be seen both as a duck and a rabbit, then you should be able to understand this situation. The OP and those who disagree with him look at the same problem. They just see different aspects of it. I hope this post resolves some of the issues in the thread

These r the 2 places where I lost u

Sorry but the problem and the chess diagram you posted was not the same, the problem is not about who delivers the checkmate first, it's about the duck and the rabbit oops... now im lost.

it's cool if you don't understand. it's mainly directed at the OP =)

In the rules of chess there is a rule saying "you cannot deliver check with the king"

But here if you move the king it will be check ( considering black took the rook.)

therefore you are delivering check to the king.

which implies you are willing to make 6 perfectly legal moves(moving king out of pin) illegal to make just one controversial move(taking the piece being protected by the pinned piece legal.

You are saying that we can not deliver check with a piece pinned to the king but get this.

Even if both sides have mate in one,the side that moves first wins.In this case after black takes the piece white captures the king.END OF STORY. BLACK'S PIECES CAN"T MOVE.

they all fall down and black wins.

even if whites king is directly in check black can't do a thing about it