Think of it this way, forget for a second that the rule is "you can't put your king in check". Replace that rule with "once your king is killed, you lose" (even if in the 'next move' you could kill the opponent's king). This logically means that you never ever want to put your king in check, since that means the opponent can capture it (by definition of check), and then you lose. The rules of chess therefore say that you are *not allowed* to put your king in check.
EMERGENCY - King VS King
Sort:
Jan 16, 2014
0
#23
Haha. Ok, try making your move here in a game, or against a computer in a game, or wherever you like, and let us know the result.
A piece is said to attack an opponent’s piece if the piece could make a capture on that square according to the Articles 3.2 to 3.8.
There are two different ways of moving the king:
by moving to any adjoining square not attacked by one or more of the opponent’s pieces
Attacked.... which is not the case here, according to the first part. This is because the black king can not make a capture of the white king, due to the second part (the white king's square is being "attacked" by the bishop if the black king moves there).
BTW, I got this info from the World Chess Federation. Also, I haven't been able to make this move in any game because I can't reproduce it yet... I guess I can keep trying though, but then I won't know by tomorrow.
Again, I'm really not trying to troll, I'm looking for either evidence that would prove me wrong or right. Evidence, not just "This is obviously illegal because... it just is."
Jan 16, 2014
0
#28
You will find no such evidence in the entire world that would prove you right here.
Just saying.
It's in the FIDE rules exactly one sentence after where you copied... "A piece is considered to attack a square, even if such a piece is constrained from moving to that square because it would then leave or place the king of its own colour under attack."... making me tend to agree with others that you are trolling.
Wait, but isn't that rule contradicting itself? If a piece cannot move that would make its king in check, then the black cannot move to take white because the bishop would place his king in check. This means that white is safe, right?
Ah, never mind, I get it now...
A piece is considered to attack a square, even if such a piece is constrained from moving to that square because it would then leave or place the king of its own colour under attack
I get it... so white is still in check even if black can't take white's king...
Well, thanks tmkroll for clearing that up. When I saw that rule in the pdf, it was with the other part about not moving pieces if it places your king in check. This made me confused, but I finally understood it when you placed that section alone in your post. And no, I honestly wasn't trolling, I just wanted to know whether or not it was legal... which may sound stupid, but I honestly thought it could have been a loophole.
Sorry then. I made a bad assumption about you. I'm glad this is cleared up. Really those rules are written could be much clearer... I've read more elegant versions of them. If I remember right there was at least one famous case of a player exploiting an unintended loophole in the rules as written to win a game by promoting to a piece of the opponent's color before that rule was revised.
Jan 16, 2014
0
#34
most inportantly think as the king controls all the pieces on the board... even if the king is protected and you move next to a king.. it is not possible because when your opponent take your king, your pieces will not be able to move.. ( just think as it happens in war... when king dead all surrender) :) .. hope this helps
tfulk wrote:
It should be dismissed as illegal, because it is illegal. Two kings can never be next to each other, ever. It is what is known as opposition, and it is a fundamental in endgame knowledge.
Opposition has nothing at all to do with this issue.
A king cannot move onto a square controlled by an enemy piece. it is simply a rule of the game.
if it makes it easier, imagine if the rules were changed slightly so that the first person to take the king wins. As soon as you move your king next to mine, then I take it and the game is over.
It's ridiculous I'm even posting this but even if the rules of the game allowed you to be so foolish as to put your king in check heres what would happen. Kxc7. That's it, game over. It doesn't matter that your bishop could take his king on the very next move. He's already taken yours.