Think of it in archer/gun terms. The piece has a weapon and can fire at any square/piece in a designated range of squares. They still threaten those squares but when they are pinned, the only time that really comes into play is when the king tries to enter or traverse there. So, the king can't move into or through an attacked square without being shot 
.
Super dumb question about a rule.
Sort:
Jan 18, 2018
0
#22
Jan 18, 2018
0
#23
its not a dumb question at all.
a king can't move into check because it would be killed, however moving into check from a piece that is totally tied up would not lead to the king being killed.
can someone let FIDE know about this bug ?
thanks.
no, no, no!! if chess was archery, the white knight would hit the bull in the kings forehead on move 1.
Snookslayer wrote:
Lagomorph wrote:
You are confusing these two separate functions : the ability to move and the ability to threaten.
No confusion. If a piece can't LEGALLY MOVE to a certain square, it shouldn't be able to THREATEN that square. It's as though it has some magical influence. Ridiculous.
Thank you for confirming you are unable to differentiate between these two distinct functions, and are therefore unable to understand the role of a pinned piece.
Good luck with your new version of chess, I shall pay a visit to your site once you get it off the ground.
Jan 18, 2018
0
#25
Prince-Chowmein wrote:
....
no, no, no!! if chess was archery, the white knight would hit the bull in the kings forehead on move 1.
Knights are poor shots. Their shots always bank left or right when they shoot and their range is limited to a couple of squares away from them 
Jan 18, 2018
0
#27
Strangemover wrote:
They can shoot round corners though.
only if you bend the arrow.
john, you are quite correct. But the trolls will still argue.
Prince-Chowmein wrote:
what trolls are arguing ?
POTUS Trump-Wall for one
Jan 18, 2018
0
#31
The rule predates FIDE.
The question also comes up periodically. I recall reading an old clipping from a magazine or newspaper (it's been a while) with the exact same question.
But it isn't illogical at all and clearly follows from the idea of allowing kings to be captured (even if that is not done). In that case, as has been mentioned, you move your king into check from a pinned piece, your king is captured, end of game.
Jan 18, 2018
0
#32
You're highly unlikely to get much support for changing a rule that's been around for centuries, and that most people are happy with. It long predates FIDE.
Jan 18, 2018
0
#33
EscherehcsE wrote:
Snookslayer wrote:
I've argued this before.... HOW CAN A PIECE HAVE INFLUENCE OVER SQUARES IT CAN'T LEGALLY MOVE TO??? Ridiculous. White should be able to castle in this situation, but no.
Feel free to start your own chess variant. Give it a snazzy name. Have fun with it.
He can also do away with both stalemate and en passant and, while he's at it, start off with "white on left" ... all in uppercase.
Jan 18, 2018
0
#34
Nobody was going out of their way to make bizarre rules. When you see things like this, what you're actually seeing is the history of how the game developed. Initially you played until the king was captured. Thus, a piece that was pinned to the king could still capture the other king, and you would win since you captured first.
Then the rule was changed to play until checkmate, and putting yourself in check was made illegal; I don't know if there's any historical documentation of the reason for the change, but maybe a game where the goal was to capture/kill a king was politically risky in medieval Europe? Or maybe too many games were ended early by someone blundering the king, and somebody decided to fix that?
When the change was made, the rule that pinned pieces could still put you in check was a logical development from the old rules; changing that would have been a much more meaningful change to the game in that certain tactical patterns would no longer work and other ones would be created. The change to end the game with checkmate didn't actually change anything other than that it rendered certain game-losing blunders illegal.
The problem with saying a pinned piece doesn't threaten squares runs into some serious problems if you extend the logic out a bit. For example, in the setup below:
Can the white king move to c5? If we're saying that pinned pieces don't threaten squares, then he could because the black knight is pinned. But, is he really? Because if the king moves to c5, then the white bishop is pinned to the king and so wouldn't threaten the black king if the knight were to move. So the black knight is not pinned. But wait, the white queen is pinning the black rook to his king, and so he doesn't threaten squares, so the bishop is not pinned anymore, but then does that mean that the black knight is once again pinned?
If playing just for fun, then set your own rules.....like how 3-5 yrs old do it.
no
Jan 18, 2018
0
#38
Snookslayer wrote:
danedori wrote:
Can the white king move to c5? If we're saying that pinned pieces don't threaten squares, then he could because the black knight is pinned. But, is he really? Because if the king moves to c5, then the white bishop is pinned to the king and so wouldn't threaten the black king if the knight were to move. So the black knight is not pinned. But wait, the white queen is pinning the black rook to his king, and so he doesn't threaten squares, so the bishop is not pinned anymore, but then does that mean that the black knight is once again pinned?
You just blew my mind... and made perfect sense while doing it. Well done sir.
+461279214169421964291672499746125976425957292516
Jan 18, 2018
0
#39
Snookslayer wrote:
danedori wrote:
Can the white king move to c5? If we're saying that pinned pieces don't threaten squares, then he could because the black knight is pinned. But, is he really? Because if the king moves to c5, then the white bishop is pinned to the king and so wouldn't threaten the black king if the knight were to move. So the black knight is not pinned. But wait, the white queen is pinning the black rook to his king, and so he doesn't threaten squares, so the bishop is not pinned anymore, but then does that mean that the black knight is once again pinned?
You just blew my mind... and made perfect sense while doing it. Well done sir.
I completely agree.
Jan 18, 2018
0
#40
Prince-Chowmein wrote:
its not a dumb question at all.
a king can't move into check because it would be killed, however moving into check from a piece that is totally tied up would not lead to the king being killed.
can someone let FIDE know about this bug ?
thanks.
no, no, no!! if chess was archery, the white knight would hit the bull in the kings forehead on move 1.
I had the same problem with the "pinned piece somehow threatens the King" dilemma when I was a new player, but just got used to the rule. Then I thought, "does a game rule have to be logical?" The answer is actually NO.....so don't expect rules always to be logical and you will be okay. I also thought that somebody cheated me once when they castled when my Bishop was attacking their rook, but that is actually totally legal too....
If a piece can't LEGALLY MOVE to a certain square, it shouldn't be able to THREATEN that square.
Why not? It would normally be able to if it wasn't pinned, and the only reason it can't is because we play to mate instead of to king capture.