x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

Super dumb question about a rule.

  • #41

    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."  angry.png

  • #42
    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.

  • #43

    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? grin.png  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.

     

  • #44

    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?
     
     

     

  • #45
    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.  diamond.png

  • #46

    If playing just for fun, then set your own rules.....like how 3-5 yrs old do it.

  • #47

    no

  • #48
    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

  • #49
    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.

  • #50
    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....

  • #51
    danedori wrote:

    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? 

    That's an interesting position to illustrate what might seem problematic with the rule that "pinned pieces don't check", but there's nothing actually wrong or logically inconsistent with such a rule. Ultimately it's a matter of convention which rule we decide to use (and I'm happy with the existing one). So in your position, The WQ-BR pin means that the BR doesn't check on the c-file, so if the WK is on c5, the WB is free to move, which means the WB DOES pin the BN, and the latter doesn't check the WK on c5 - therefore 1.Kc5 is legal. Now if there is no WQ on a8, then the BR DOES pin the WB, which is thus unable to check, and that means the BN is free to move and check the WK on c5 - therefore 1.Kc5 is illegal without the WQ.

     

    Such convoluted "pin logic" is explored by problem composers as a matter of course when they use this rule, called "Superpins" as mentioned above. For an example of a Mate-in-2 problem that uses this rule, see this position by the composer C Sydenham (in the solution, S (not N) = knight).

  • #52
    Rocky64 wrote:

    Such convoluted "pin logic" is explored by problem composers....

    Good points. And you nailed the perfect word to explain why the rule exists - "convoluted." 

     

    It's still illogical that (absolutely) pinned pieces can check, but at least now I understand the necessity of the rule. To keep the game from being ridiculously convoluted.

  • #53

    So after all the question I asked wasn't dumb, nor was it a new questipn grin.png

  • #54
    Lagomorph wrote:
    Prince-Chowmein wrote:
    what trolls are arguing ?

     

    POTUS Trump-Wall for one

    those trolls should be made pay a toll, that will stop their nefarious antics once and for all!

     

Top

Online Now