Super dumb question about a rule.

This variant already exists! It's called "Superpins," though it's used in composed problems rather than in practical games.

You need to make a case for it being illogical, which you have so far failed to do.

The logic of the current rules is this. A piece's ability to move , and it's ability to threaten another square are two entirely different things.

A piece may not move if it exposes its own king to check because of the rule that one is not allowed to put one's own king in check.

A piece may threaten any square on the board that is within it's normal capture range. But there is no requirement that it has to be able to actually move to that threatened square. Indeed in any chess game that ends with a checkmate, there is no movement of the piece that delivers the checkmate, the king is never actually captured.

You are confusing these two separate functions : the ability to move and the ability to threaten.

You havent shown any reason for the rule being "illogical"  

Youre trying to equate this rule with running a red light (as long as no other cars are around)  They cant hit me, so its ok.

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.  

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.

 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 .

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.

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.

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

They can shoot round corners though.

only if you bend the arrow.

john, you are quite correct. But the trolls will still argue.

POTUS Trump-Wall for one

Sounds like FIDE realized the problem with their own rules and created a BS rule to cover it up.

Sorta like when they started allowing pawns to move two squares from the start, only to have to create the en passant rule to keep players from avoiding capture. 

Just like the pop-up fly rule in baseball..... there's a functional problem with the rules of the game, so let's make an arbitrary rule to fix it.  Who cares if it's totally illogical?

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.

That's the only answer that makes any bit of sense (not much, but some).  The idea that the king technically takes two steps to castle and that if the king castled in "slow motion" so to speak - with one step at a time, the rook would have time capture it, before the bishop could capture the other king.  Still weird.

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.

I know the rule won't be changed and I don't mind that people don't want it changed (I do, but that's besides the point). I just want people to admit it makes no sense. 

Nope.... just a bunch of "uhhhhh well that's the way it's always been so uhhhhh you're dumb." 

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.