You're right, he's wrong. A check must always be addressed.
Checkmate leaving king in check
Sort:
He is lying
Feb 28, 2021
0
#4
Ironically there are rare situations when moving a piece to block a check results in checkmating your opponent. For example if white plays Ba2 then it blocks the check from the black rook, creating a discovered checkmate on the black king by the white rook.
Feb 28, 2021
0
#5
JOVID-19 wrote:
Ironically there are rare situations when moving a piece to block a check results in checkmating your opponent. For example if white plays Ba2 then it blocks the check from the black rook, creating a discovered checkmate on the black king by the white rook.
Well yes, but that doesn't leave the King in check.
Make him think like this: the goal is to capture your opponents king. The person who first captures his opponents king immediately wins on the spot. so if he does that, you will just capture his king and win on the spot. This is also the reason that if you explode a king in atomic while you are in check, you win.
you are right and he is wrong.
Feb 28, 2021
0
#8
jamhan738 wrote:
Make him think like this: the goal is to capture your opponents king. The person who first captures his opponents king immediately wins on the spot. so if he does that, you will just capture his king and win on the spot. This is also the reason that if you explode a king in atomic while you are in check, you win.
No, capturing the opponent's King is NOT the goal. It's to checkmate the King. You might argue that you threaten the take the King on the next move, but that's wrong, because a piece which is pinned to it's own King can still deliver checkmate.
You are right. I don't think there was ever such a rule even in any variant of chess that you can leave your king in check if you have checkmate next. The person that checkmates quicker wins.
well you can explode your opponents king while you are in check but you cant checkmate while you are in check
speaking of atomic
jamhan738 wrote:
Make him think like this: the goal is to capture your opponents king. The person who first captures his opponents king immediately wins on the spot. so if he does that, you will just capture his king and win on the spot. This is also the reason that if you explode a king in atomic while you are in check, you win.
I used this argument as the logical reason why his rule can't work, and all he argued that the goal is to be the first person to put the opponent in checkmate, and there are no more moves post checkmate, therefore he wins. Anyway, I showed him the responses here and he said "who are those guys anyway" and he's not searching the interwebs for confirmation of his "rule".
I won the game.
Nov 24, 2010 · 20 posts · 6 authors
If your king is in check, you must end the check. You must do this either by moving the king to a safe square, capturing the piece that is checking ...
What I saw
But some people said you can counter a check with a checkmate, so I don't know which to believe
My husband and I are having an argument. He says when he learned to play many years ago there was a rule that said you don't have to alleviate a check on your king, if you have a move that puts your opponent in checkmate. So, I have his king in check. He moves his queen such that he puts my king in checkmate. However, his king remains in check.
I say this is not legal and certainly not logical, because after he moves his queen, putting me in checkmate, I would simply take his king on my next move with the original check threat.
Does this make sense?
can you ignore a check on your king if you have a move that checkmates your opponent?