No.
By doing so, the Black King would be attacked (checked) by the White Knight. It matters not one jot that the Knight is pinned.
Can a King move into "check" if the attacking piece is pinned?
Sort:
As Doggy says. Pinning a piece does not stop it controlling/attacking the squares associated with that piece.
This was a play on another post I made a while back.
What came out of that post eventually was that when a king is in check, it doesn't matter if the checking piece can or cannot move, so long as the piece is in an attacking line against the king.
We are "checking" the king, not threatening to "take" the king.
If the black king can take the bishop and be in check, then the white knight can take the black king and put white in check.
Either the rules apply to both, or neither.
Jan 2, 2013
0
#6
Here's a simple way to think about it. Picture chess as though the first to capture the King wins. In essence, all checkmate is is a forced King capture in 1.
In your example, if you try to take the Bishop, White could take your King because it's a question of who captures the King first. The fact that Black would then be able to capture White's King is a move too late.
Again, before people start going around talking about capture the King not being legal in chess, I'm merely giving him or her a different way to think about it in case a simple "no" doesn't make "logical" sense to the asker.
the king cannot move into check......reasons don't matter.
This concept can be explained by two positions:
Only on a full moon
Jan 2, 2013
0
#10
eddysallin wrote:
the king cannot move into check......reasons don't matter.
Yes, that's all that needs to be said !
read the rules of chess people...you can't trade kings
eddysallin wrote:
the king cannot move into check......reasons don't matter.
The confusion comes from the difference between "taking" a piece and "checking" the king. The reasons DO matter and it's a big difference to our understanding. An absolute pin doesn't affect a check, because that pin affects movement of an attacker from "taking" a piece, but does not affect "checking" the king, since a "check" is not a threat to "take" the king.
I too asked a similar question a while back, and responses like yours weren't helpful because it didn't elaborate on this difference. Eventually it made sense to me, but through the well intentions of people taking the time to explain.
Jan 2, 2013
0
#13
verybadbishop wrote:
eddysallin wrote:
the king cannot move into check......reasons don't matter.
The confusion comes from the difference between "taking" a piece and "checking" the king. The reasons DO matter and it's a big difference to our understanding. An absolute pin doesn't affect a check, because that pin affects movement of an attacker from "taking" a piece, but does not affect "checking" the king, since a "check" is not a threat to "take" the king.
I too asked a similar question a while back, and responses like yours weren't helpful because it didn't elaborate on this difference. Eventually it made sense to me, but through the well intentions of people taking the time to explain.
I think we may be splitting hairs here - the OP isn't asking what 'check' means, the presumption is that we all know !
But just in case the term 'check' needs defining, this is what Wiki' has to say...
"A king is in check when it is under attack by one or more enemy pieces. A piece unable to move because it would place its own king in check (it is pinned against its own king) may still deliver check to the opposing player."
That's why eddysallin's statement needs no qualification because provided you understand what check is then you may not move your king into it under any circumstances!
no. the king can never move into check under any circumstance, even if the attacking piece is pinned.
Jan 2, 2013
0
#15
Here's a trickier question:
White is in check by the enemy b7-Bishop. He plays e4 (blocking the check and discovering an attack by his own f1-Bishop onto Black's King), and announces checkmate. Black insists that he is not checkmated, White is... he captures the White Pawn en-passent. White claims that this move is illegal, since it leaves the Black King in check. Black claims that the White Pawn never reached e4... it was captured en passent on e3... so it never blocked Black's original check to White's King.
Who is correct?
stephen_33 wrote:
verybadbishop wrote:
eddysallin wrote:
the king cannot move into check......reasons don't matter.
The confusion comes from the difference between "taking" a piece and "checking" the king. The reasons DO matter and it's a big difference to our understanding. An absolute pin doesn't affect a check, because that pin affects movement of an attacker from "taking" a piece, but does not affect "checking" the king, since a "check" is not a threat to "take" the king.
I too asked a similar question a while back, and responses like yours weren't helpful because it didn't elaborate on this difference. Eventually it made sense to me, but through the well intentions of people taking the time to explain.
I think we may be splitting hairs here - the OP isn't asking what 'check' means, the presumption is that we all know !
But just in case the term 'check' needs defining, this is what Wiki' has to say...
"A king is in check when it is under attack by one or more enemy pieces. A piece unable to move because it would place its own king in check (it is pinned against its own king) may still deliver check to the opposing player."
That's why eddysallin's statement needs no qualification because provided you understand what check is then you may not move your king into it under any circumstances!
If we look at the problem the OP posted, and the question as to why the king just couldn't take, then it does demonstrate that this person did not understand this difference between check and take, and so that presumption, even if it wasn't stated as "I don't know what check means", was wrong, because we don't know what we don't know, and of course he didn't understand the nature of the problem to ask it in that manner because he didn't know lol. I'm sounding like a bad rapper.
white is correct. the move ...fxe3 is an illegal move, since black is in check. he cannot make any capture or do anything else until his king is out of check.
blueemu wrote:
Here's a trickier question:
White is in check by the enemy b7-Bishop. He plays e4 (blocking the check and discovering an attack by his own f1-Bishop onto Black's King), and announces checkmate. Black insists that he is not checkmated, White is... he captures the White Pawn en-passent. White claims that this move is illegal, since it leaves the Black King in check. Black claims that the White Pawn never reached e4... it was captured en passent on e3... so it never blocked Black's original check to White's King.
Who is correct?
Lol, black will have to come up with a better excuse. Maybe "accidentally" knock off the table.
Jan 2, 2013
0
#19
Rafikaziz wrote:
white is correct. the move ...fxe3 is an illegal move, since black is in check. he cannot make any capture or do anything else until his king is out of check.
Right... Black has demonstrated only that he is a master of sophistry, rather than chess.
In this scenario, can black's King take white's Bishop?