Crazy Chess Beliefs

And I really like the way Firefalcon argues it.  If you can capture to stop the mate, then it isn't a mate in any other situation, so why would it be one if the capture is en-passant?

I oversaw a club tournament for a grade school club, k-5, a couple of times, and some weird stuff happened.  This was an unrated tournament and the kids were not "serious" players.  (My son won the fourth grade tourney rather easily at a time when his USCF rating was about 500).

I was watching a game that began with 1.  e4  e5.  2 Pawn on e4-d5 x e5 (?!?!?) I stopped and asked what that was and she explained, "It's called en passant."  I explained that no, that wasn't really en passant, but she was mightily insistent on it, and was quite irritated when I insist she take back the move.  I also started to demonstrate the real en passant, but she was rolling her eyes and making it very clear that she was annoyed by this bothersome grownup who thought to lecture her on the rules.  Her opponent had no objection to the move.  She made another move and I turned and walked away.  As I turned back to look at the game, she made the same move she had tried before.  This time, I decided that if her opponent didn't know any better, and was letting her do it even after I explained it, there wasn't much point in intervening.

In a game between first graders, the kids were required to have one of the adult directors verify each checkmate, as they frequently missed moves that could get them out of check, especially if those moves required interposing.  I was called over to verify a checkmate.  The white king was on A1, the black queen was on A5.  Meanwhile, there was a black pawn on C3, guarding the B2 square, which was occupied by the black king. (????)

I wasn't quite sure what to do about that one.  I tried to explain that maybe there was an illegal move in there, but as black had several pieces and white only had his king, we could probably call it a win for black.

The other day I was driving behind a guy who had a sticker on his rear window that said, "NRA Lifetime Member." Mr. Tough Guy, huh? I wanted to ram him with my car. Then I realised that would damage my car. So I thought, "when we come to a stop light, I'll get out of the car and sneak up on him pretending I have a gun. Colt .45 auto, but you can pretend to have whatever gun you want.

About then, he looked back in his rearview mirror. He was about 60 and had a doughy face. He punched his accelerator, changed lanes and sped off. He read my mind! Incredible! So what's this about chess beliefs?  

This is the position where Korchnoi asked if he could castle:

The first part describes a scenario often confused as en passant (although I'm sure you know the rule and it was a mistype).  The opponent's pawn (if the opponent is white) is of course on the 5th and it passes by the attacked square (not the pawn).  As you say later, it comes beside the pawn... not a big deal but this is a confusing rule for some people.

I like to say you can capture if your pawn attacks the square that the enemy pawn passed through (always landing on the 3rd or 6th rank, behind the enemy pawn).

When I was a kid my friend argued that the queens don't face each other in the starting position because "his dad said so."

Can you caslte queenside if the rook passses through check.  Is stalemate a draw.  Is it possible to mate a lone king with king and knight.  If you leave a king in check can you capture it and win the game (this one is so silly, I'm surprised at how many believe this).

In Blitz and Bullet, it is a legal game-winning move. It is just a dramatic flare because the player who makes an illegal move can be called out and lose the game automatically.

Oh, I'm not current on all the blitz rules.

What's sad is the USCF rates this crap.

Actually, It's a game forfeiting move.

If your opponent leaves his king in check, you stop the clock and and claim the win.

If you capture the King, (an illegal move) your opponent stops the clock and he claims the win.

Now I'm confused as to it being legit or not.

I did correct my post earlier by adding that calling the illegal move would attribute to a win. The taking of the king was just to prove a point, but I was never told that it was an illegal move in official Blitz tournament.

 The logic for the rule in question is very simple. I'm surprised it eludes you. You ask:

So if the attack is still there why doesn't the knight capture the queen when it moves to the square, or the rook? The attack is not still there. Every piece is immune from capture except the king---why isnt the king given the same rights as a lowly pawn would have?

If you moved yourself into a discovered check while capturing a queen or rook guess what would happen next move? If you moved yourself into a discovered check while capturing your opponents king there would not be another move because the game would be over.

This is why the king isn't "given the same rights" as other pieces.

BTW it really doesn't seem fair that the queen and rook get to zip all over the board while the poor king can only move one boring square at a time. The knights get to do all this cool zig-zagging and even the pawns get to do some neat stuff like move 2 squares on the first move and promote to a different piece if they make it accross the board. Yep. The king is definitely suffering from discrimination. Perhaps you should follow Estragon's advice and take it up with FIDE.

Or your chaplain.

I remember playing a guy who announced queen check and I did not know what he was talking about for a minute.  Every time he attacked my queen he would announce "queen check".  Not sure if I was required to move my queen in his theory, but the problem never came up.

Estragon is correct about the rules.

The underlying (and perfectly logical) reason is that the original aim (and still the implicit aim) of a game of chess was to be the first to capture the opponents king. It does not matter if your king would be captured the move after, since the game would already be over.

Of course for many centuries it has been considered unnecessary to actually execute the coup de grace, so checkmate -  inevitable capture of the king on the next move - is sufficient. What would supposedly happen after that is of course irrelevant.

 If it's not obvious from the wording, en passant must also occur on the very next move.  If you make a different move, you are not able to capture that pawn en passant on a later move.

 I can believe this.  But I also believe 9-11 was an inside job. 

Castling queenside: The rook can walk through a threatened square - dude got really upset!

 Do they?  I thought they didn't rate anything under G/10.  There are rules to describe special cases for Blitz, but as far as I know, there are no official USCF ratings.

The castling question came up in the 21st game of their candidates match in Moscow in 1974, not in their world championship match later in Baguio.

I think the logical reason has been explained multiple times already in this thread, but I'll try and state it slightly differently because I think the reason you are confused is because of 2 misunderstandings.

1. You say "The knight is pinned (absolutely) its not going to move. Its been stripped of its power. The Knight has been emasculated---its worthless". This isn't true. By looking at the pin as 'absolute' then you are missing the point. The pin exists because of a consequence of the following 'absolute' rule: You can't make a move that would allow your king to be captured on the next move.
2. The aim of chess is not checkmate, it is to capture your opponents king. The game stops at checkmate only because that capture has become inevitable, ie. there is no legal move which you can make that would prevent your opponent from capturing your king.

Normally a pinned piece can't move because it isn't allowed to put its own king in a position where it can be captured on the opponents next move. However, if the piece could make a move which didn't endager his own king then it would be free to do so. Is there such a move? Yes - the capture of the opponents king which ends the game immediately.

So if you put a king on a square attacked by your opponents pinned piece then the piece just takes it, game over, no further move for you, and his king is never in danger.

 Logical enough for you?

It's probably an old rule. A long time ago people were required to call "check Rook" when they attacked the Rook, becuase it was such a powerful piece. Not that you were required to move it like a King...just that they thought you might want to know you were going to lose it. haha

Btw, all this rule discussion is reatarded as hell. It's like arguing against en passant because you don't like how it works. That's not a logical move! How can the pawn take what's not there? Explain THAT logically.

Play the game by the rules, or invent your own variation which no one will play except you and a few buddies. You cannot move your King into a check, and that's that. Yes, the King is retarded like that, and no, it does not have the same "rights" as the other pieces. Not since the French Revolution, anyway...