Anyone?
A really whacky question about chess.
Sort:
4 hrs ago
0
#3
It's the same reason why checkmate is always a win, even if your opponent could checkmate you on their very next move. If your king gives up the ghost before the other one does, you're the loser.
4 hrs ago
0
#4
#1, think of it like this- he would capture your king first, chess is basically king capture- expect in the rules they stop you from blundering your king. This is likely to be more friendly to new players
Yes. I get it. The answer lies in "capturing" the king. If I "capture" the opponent's king with a piece pinned to my king, I win and thus my king being exposed to a check no longer matters.
OK. Now let's move on.
Because then right after you move he will be able to capture your king and you would lose. The reason he could move the piece even though it would put his king in check would be allowed if you moved yours into check. But since neither of you can move your king into check you can’t move to that square.
If an opponent's piece is pinned to the king and thus can't move, why can't I move my king in attacking squares of that piece. I know that the king cannot move into a check, but my question is why is it even considered a check? What complications are created if we change this rule?