3.9.2 No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.
https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012023
impossible check
Sort:
loowater wrote:
It seems strange a peice can cause check when it cannot move without causing check on its on king.
example: a bishop is blocking check on its king, a pawn moves out of its line which causes the Bishop to claim check on the opposing king - but he cannot move (he is pinned stopping his king being in check)- so how is it a threat on the opposing king? - and therefore why check? Check indicates your king is threatened with being taken, but he isn't as the Bishop cannot move.
The rules of chess (both FIDE and USCF) are quite clear on this point. A piece giving check, or indeed checkmate, or guarding another piece giving check to the opponents king, does not need to be able to physically move. It's powers to control another square on the board are not diminished by the fact it is itself pinned.
In the modern game of chess the Kings are not captured and removed from the board. So there is no requirement for a piece giving check to be able to physically move.
Look at this example. It is clear checkmate for white. Your argument would be that black's King should be able to capture the white Queen because the white Bishop is pinned. But that argument is not logical. You would be claiming that black is allowed to move into check because the white Bishop is unable to move ....... and the reason he is unable to move is because he would put his own King into check!
If you are going to allow one side to move into check, then you must allow both to do so.
isn't there a contradiction in the rules, - say the queen wasn't there, but black king was on H5. the bishop is claiming check. - but its not allowed to move, as the rule is you cannot move a piece that exposes the king to check. - so it isn't controlling any squares as it cannot move.
Jan 9, 2023
0
#5
loowater wrote:
isn't there a contradiction in the rules, - say the queen wasn't there, but black king was on H5. the bishop is claiming check. - but its not allowed to move, as the rule is you cannot move a piece that exposes the king to check. - so it isn't controlling any squares as it cannot move.
In that instance, yes, it can still control all the squares it can move to.
If one player could allow their king to move to an attacked square, the other player logically would also be able to and just take the king, ending the game.
loowater wrote:
isn't there a contradiction in the rules, - say the queen wasn't there, but black king was on H5. the bishop is claiming check. - but its not allowed to move, as the rule is you cannot move a piece that exposes the king to check. - so it isn't controlling any squares as it cannot move.
No contradiction. The rules are quite clear.
You do not need to be able to move a piece to control/check a square.
If that's the rule. fair enough. It just struck me as odd.
I got my myself 100% accuracy, no cheating, so amazed, visit my profile to confirm it
Can't believe I made my first brilliant move today, my last game confirm that too
It seems strange a peice can cause check when it cannot move without causing check on its on king.
example: a bishop is blocking check on its king, a pawn moves out of its line which causes the Bishop to claim check on the opposing king - but he cannot move (he is pinned stopping his king being in check)- so how is it a threat on the opposing king? - and therefore why check? Check indicates your king is threatened with being taken, but he isn't as the Bishop cannot move.