A chess rule.

Very nice,only thing is that I didn't mean for it to be a "one or the other",

Both the checkmate rule and this Absolute pinned piece disable  rule  can coexist.  (APPD)

I see both a rabbit/bunny and a duck,though it must be said that it is more duck than bunny.

There is nothing to debate about. Those who question the logic behind a piece or pawn that is pinned to their own king being still dangerous to the opponent's king apparently have great trouble comprehending simple things. It has been explained thoroughly further up the thread.

By the way, many threads would not go in circles like they sadly often do if more people would bother to read the entire thread before feeling compelled to contribute. As it too often happens, a fallacy that had already been posted by someone two pages back and was subsequently debunked by someone else one page back is merrily being posted all over again, just because a third person didn't feel like actually reading the thread to see that what they intended to say has already been refuted.

It shouldn't really be much of a mystery anymore why this is the case once you have looked at a simple example showcasing the difference.

If White captures the black king, he will thereby immediately win the game.

The black king has put himself into check by moving to f5. It is now White's turn, and the white knight has one clear move, which wins the game - taking the black king. After this, the game is immediately over. The black rook's apparent threat towards the white king is meaningless in this situation, because Black has already lost the game through the loss of his king. White wins.

On the other hand, if White puts his own king in check by any move that does not capture the opposing king, then it's the white king that will be captured on the immediate next move, which loses the game for White.

The white knight has exposed his own king by capturing the black queen. It is now Black's move - the black rook captures the white king, the game is over. Black wins.

Using the fiction of playing the game until one king is actually captured and taken off the board has its merits in demonstrating why the OP's proposed new rule has no logic.

To understand the current rules one must realise that a piece or pawn is capable of doing more that one thing at the same time. Attack more than one of the opponents pieces or block a check at the same time as delivering checkmate are two examples.

The current rules make quite clear that a piece does not somehow miraculously lose any of its powers (except the power to move) when it is being pinned.

I did ask the OP in an earlier post the following question:

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 ?

That's why it's called chess

good point Lagomorph, in analyzing this problem first of all we must consider whose move?  lets go back a move earlier in your diag.when the Q + k ,here its B to move, and thereby compels the B king to move out of check but @op situational diag. it was his move and decides to take the wB.

I stated that this would be legal IF it wasnt for the rule: A king cant take a piece that is defended by another piece w/c simply means, that i meant;

that move of his is illegal. now (if) considering that this move is legal it is now w to move and thereby goes on to take the king lifting the knight but in the process opens his own king to a check by bQ. now its a matter of who takes out the king first Knightrider or wonder woman. 

Eureka!

@107 1st diag.same situation arrises There was a # @ 3... ... i leave this for you to find .Its B to move can he # the Bking while opening his own king w/ +. this would be the best ex. to strengthen ops' pt.

Wow!!this topic has really taken off!!

It has gotten more views than my profile!!!!!!!!!

(Looks like I touched on a soft spot)

Only because its such a ridiculous proposition that has been proposed so often :)

that was a very easy game

WoW!

That's a crazy game!!

ok so we have all agreed that si erics rule is dumb so what are we still doing here?

I think it`s ok

if you say so, lol.

If your king takes the bishop then the knight takes your king, then the game is over and you lose, just like in blitz and bullet games

it's over the king does'nt have to take the B.

OP, what you are essentially saying is that the black king should be able to put itself in check, but the white king should not. Your rule is hypocritical. If black is allowed to move in check and take the bishop, white must be allowed to move in check and take the king. Game over.