can someone clarify this rule?

you cant move your king into a place where a piece is attacking, no matter if it would be able to take your king or not

It's a rule you can't move a pinned piece, but it's also a rule that a king can never step into an attacked square, and you can't move a piece that exposes your own king to a check.

If you were allowed to move your king to an attacked square, your opponent could also expose their king to check and capture you king, which would end the game.

In the scenario you describe, who loses their King first?

You can’t move your king in check. As long as a piece sees the square (pinned or not), you would put your king in check on that square. And that’s not possible.

Everybody who doesn’t know the rules should lose their kings before the game starts and get it back only after they learn the rules.

I think saying this as an 2200 is a bit cruel, don’t you think?

What i wrote was an absurd joke reacting to blueemu absurd joke. I don’t quite get it if you take it personally.

I don’t understand what’s the joke behind yours or @blueemu comment. He actually made a good description.

Blueemu and I we both talk about “losing the king” which is completely nonsensical according to rules of chess. If you don’t understand it you either:

1.have no idea what the rules of chess are

2.have no idea what humour is

Ok, now I DO feel insulted.

#10 Not entirely non-sensical. Checkmate is forcing the loss of the king, it just doesn't have to actually be taken

And 1 can't be true, 5600 games is enough to know the rules of chess

OMG people PLEASE learn the the rules of chess! I am completely helpless about what I should actually think about this “discussion”.

lowkey got lost about halfway bro

#14 I do know the rules