Forums

Confused if a move is/ was legal?

Sort:
MasterSanghelio
MasterSanghelio
Jun 6, 2016
0
#1
So when me and my friend were playing I was worried cause i was pretty sure he was gonna win until I saw what I thought was a way to tie, but wasn't sure if it was a legal move or not.
What I wanted to do was capture his knight with my king, normally that would just be considered an illegal move cause my king would be In check and he could use his King to capture mine. But what I thought is that he couldn't capture my king because it was backed up by my rook, and if he captured my king he would be putting himself in check. Therefor because he can't capture my king, my king was never originally in Check, so capturing his knight was a legal move and would put his king in check, forcing him to move it out of the way? Is this correct, and if its not and he can capture my king wouldn't that make it a tie because if he captured my king I would just capture his with my rook?
bobbylobbybrink
bobbylobbybrink
Jun 6, 2016
0
#2

You have to capture with the rook if you want to capture.

macer75
macer75
Jun 6, 2016
0
#3

No, it's not a legal move; however, you're not alone in asking that question. In fact, questions like yours are very often raised on the chess.com forums. Moving your king next to the opponent's king is placing it in check, regardless of any other circumstances. The definition of check is basically a situation where your opponent would be able to capture your king on the next move, if capturing kings were allowed. By saying that black can't capture your king because doing so would put your king in check, you're violating the rules of check yourself while not letting your opponent violate them.