it is my view that the king can escape.
This view is shared by a logic, not by rule.
we play rule.
I'm sad to say, that to make the game simpler, the rules was made in a creative way, to be played by people in a pre-computer age.
I do feel that computers can now referee the game, and that we will one day be allowed to play chess the way it was intended...
a tango between logic and creative play
the king can only move into space that is under its control.
it is logical.
evident is that it would be a draw, if a king move from a position of control, to a position of no control(check)...where the space surrounding the king is under opponents control.
Hefe is the relevant rule/law, taken from the World Chess Federation (FIDE) site:
| 3.9 |
The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check. |
http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article
If we follow these guys new redundant rule where you can play into check, then the white side is allowed to put himself into check by moving his knight, at which point he'd capture the King and they still lose. Or are these guys suggesting a rule change where they can put themself in check and their opponent's aren't allowed to do the same. I guess all you can do is laugh and give a pat on the head to the guys that can't grasp this concept and get indignant about how they should be able to move into check.
If we follow these guys new redundant rule where you can play into check, then the white side is allowed to put himself into check by moving his knight, at which point he'd capture the King and they still lose. Or are these guys suggesting a rule change where they can put themself in check and their opponent's aren't allowed to do the same. I guess all you can do is laugh and give a pat on the head to the guys that can't grasp this concept and get indignant about how they should be able to move into check.
before one can cry checkmate, one have to comply to all the rules of the game.
this include asking yourself, if you can use a piece within your attack that your opponend had pinned against your king!
The value of a pinned piece is zero(because of tactical defence). Therefore it is just logical to assume that it is bad to have a piece covered by some other piece that is restrained from entering an attack, based on a simple pin. (Can we tie an athlete to a car, and expect him/her to win a race, simply because we know he/she is there???)
rules have to support one another, not oppose each other. It is chess ffs. thats why I quit:)
im also not that blind to see what is meant under the rule, but personally i cannot waste my life on a game that do not support my way of logic, or creative play...whatever view you have.
i am also aware that some idiot would measure my way of reasoning against the majority that do enjoy and dont want to change the rules as is.
lets just say i had enough.
monkey see monkey do.
chess for dummies, or chess for the intellect? which one do you want to play?
i will play the odd game, just to kick someones ass for the fun, unless of course they play out of position, pin all theirpieces to their king, and cry something that resembles checkmate, and then worse of all, the computer is programmed to score idioto 1 looooser 0
jamesondp: Schrodinger's mate. I like that.
+1