Pinned piece allowing mate

While the plankton hypothesis is somewhat new and controversial, the simple fact is that once you really dig deep into the study and the theory of pinned pieces you simply cannot avoid the central dogma of how in the Laplace domain they behave exactly like sharks with lasers. I try to avoid complicating the issue with these in-depth discussions which at first seem to be esoteric, but if you are really curious then we will have to dive into them, so to speak.

I don't quite know why pinned pieces are so problematic for new chess players, but they really are a "big deal". An undeveloped sense of board vision is what I suspect. Plus a preoccupation with other ideas.

They are less a problem after much ado in regard to practicing tactics, over and over again. They tend to get ironed-out under the discipline of exercising the brain neurons.

I don't have that problem too much nowadays. Yet, I am said to report, that I just resigned a game where I overlooked getting my Q pinned to my K by a filthy, rotten bishop.

I resigned immediately, which is the gentlemanly thing to do. I was too focused on my attack. I thought my opponent was about to become toast.

Now I must go and sulk at my stupid oversight and vow not to do it again. But, don't take pity on me. It was my own undoing. I'll be OK.

Bartender!...

Yes, you're absolutely right. If the King had to be physically captured, the "problem" of the pin wouldn't exist in this scenario because the pinning piece cannot then capture the enemy King after the opponent's King has already been captured.

Well, sometimes the pinned piece can move and give a checkmate while moving...

The king cannot move in a square under attack by an enemy piece, regardless whether the piece is pinned or not. Its just the rule, so when you try to make it an exception, its gonna be another layer of analysis when we do a check mate combination and as for me i dont want to think that much

Ask your self which king will die first? If a king was allowed to take a piece that is protected by a pinned piece, the pinned piece would leave its King exposed and Kill the enemy king first, so that is like suicide. Unfortunately, in chess, suicide is not allowed.

I was searching about this, 2014 seems a long time ago, anyway the way I think is that if it was about capturing the king for real it would still be the same as the king captures the queen which is protected by the pinned knight, then the knight captures the king putting his own king in check. But now the king is already captured, so the game is over before the the other king can be captured. For me this reasoning is the most simplest.

If you want to debate weird rules interpretations, try this one:

White played 1. Bg2+ and announced mate next move. Black laughed, replied with 1. ... d5 (blocking White's check and discovering a check by his Bishop on White's King) and said "You've mated yourself!"

White shook his head, captured the Black d-Pawn en passent, and said "Checkmate!". Black replied "You can't do that... you're in check!"

White said "No, your Pawn never reached the d5 square to block the check. It was captured en passent as it moved through d6. So you never blocked my original check. You are the one who is checkmated, not me."

The two players couldn't agree on who won the game, so they submitted it to the Tournament Arbiter.

What was his ruling? Who won the game?

it makes sense. In theory of the game, Should the king move into the attack path of a pinned piece (presuming the move wouldn't be illegal and thus you could blunder the king) then likewise the same would be in return. So, the king move in the way of the pinned piece, the pinned piece captures the king. the game is completely over. So yes, it makes complete sense. 

The absolute pinned piece can deliver checkmate.

If the piece pinning the pinned piece is also pinned.

that is literally the same as what i commented

Someone in this discussion said, that if the king could take the queen, the knight could capture back following the same reasoning (walking into check is allowed in this discussion).

But: while the bishop IS an attacking piece, the knight is not, because it's pinned. So following the same reasoning: the black king might step into an "incapacitated" check, while the white king would step into a real check, if the knight moves.

Therefore I think that argument wouldn't work.

But let's take the argument of who will capture first:

The black king is taken by the knight, before the bishop can take the white king. But since white had the first move, shouldn't the black player be able to get the follow up move, like during penalty shoot-outs at the end of soccer games, or other sports/games. Therefore draw in this case?

I guess those are arguments, why the strongest arguments in this discussion aren't so strong after all and might keep this discussion alive unfortunately.

The real reason might be that there is no logical conclusion, but it was just made the rule to keep it simple. Even though this makes no sense.

See this as a battle between two kingdoms. I attack your King with my Queen, and you take her (eliminate in battle) than I eliminate your King.

At that point, your bishop does not have a ruler anymore his (former) kingdom is destroyed, therefore he cannot attack my King, who just became his ruler 

um, no it would not be like that

again, if the king took the queen, it would be captured first

you are now claiming that the side whose king got captured FIRST would win

again, a pinned piece is the same as a non pinned piece when it comes to the topic of checkmate

its the same logic to why you cant check your opponent when in check

Hi

The guy who was wondering about this maybe figured it out in the past 9 years. Maybe.