wondered that aswell, but the rules are the rules.
Rules Contradiction...
Sort:
I think the reasoning is that your king would be taken first if you ignored it.
...besides, the king can never taken.
I Just looked in the archives of my chess attic. and King luis The VII set in Motion and enforced a rule That stands today.... rule #4177....... "You May Move Your King Into Puting Himself in check, But, you Must Lay Your king Over on his side when You Do...(which means Resignation) .
well that settles that (huh?)
just bullshiting....
The standard for that is very high here.
But pieces don't actually capture the king. A piece can put a king in check without ever having to take it. When you try to give a check by moving a pinned piece, you're not changing the fact that you're in check. The rules are broken right there; nothing else matters.
Have you ever wondered.......
Moving your king into check is against the rules. If the piece checking you, however, would have to uncover check to "take" your king, then, on some level, you are not really in check at all. Whaddya think? Can I argue my case before the supreme court of chess?