The Mate that wasn't

Situation below (I made it up quickly, I know its not feasible as is, but I'm sure real position could be thought up with time)  What is the result?

White has the king pinned, check-mate, but it's black's move and there are none available.  Isn't it then a draw?  The real question is, does the game end at checkmate, or one more later with a king capture?  Curious what people think.  Thanks!

A couple of things:  1) It's a fallacy to think that kings are captured to end the game - it's sometimes common among very beginners who've not learned the game properly.   Understandable, but:  2) A checkmate is if the king is under attack and there is no legal move to get out of check.  The game ends there and the king is not taken.

So, in your situation, I"m choosing to ignore the actual location of the pieces - that's not your point.    The fact that there is no legal move at all is beside the point.    If you're in check and you can't move out of check by moving, blocking, or taking a piece (or any other legal move), you've lost the game by checkmate.

Getting more technical, It's also not a question of whose move it is.  White just moved, period.   It can't be White's move now since the previous move was a checkmate which wasn't identified and whatever move black made was an illegal move by not moving out of check.  

Actually, in theory, a postion of checkmate which came from an illegal move or an illegal move several moves ago would nullify the checkmate.  If it's recent, they'd put the pieces back to where they were and continue.

Your detective work isn't very strong then. Perfectly legal.

ORLY? Remember saying this?

Try again what? She OWNED you.

Oh dear.

It's an interesting position.

As specified in the rules of chess, the game ends when the opposing side is in check and there is no legal move available. In this case, White wins in the first position.

However, if we modify the rules of chess slightly, making the king non-royal (and thus can be captured; capturing the king ends the game with the player with the captured king loses), the position is now drawn by stalemate.

Note that this is the inverse of most stalemate positions: in regular chess it's a draw, but in non-royal-king chess it's a loss for the stalemated player as the only legal moves expose the king in check. (Sometimes the stalemated player can actually have no move at all like in your position, that it's astill a draw even in non-royal-king chess.)

My opinion is that it's a win for White because it's chess and it has clearly defined rules. Unless, you're playing a non-royal-king chess game, in which it's a draw instead. So what game are you playing again?

Chess positions are like people having opinions. Showing they are legal is easy. Showing that they are sensible is futile and pointless.

Back on the original question, the FIDE laws of chess are pretty clear. (Well, as clear as FIDE gets at least.)
Glossary states checkmate is "where the king is attacked and cannot parry the threat" where attack means "a piece is said to attack an opponent's piece if the player's piece can make a capture on that square."
Article 1.2: "[...] and 'capturing' the opponent's king are not allowed." (thank you FIDE -.-)
Article 5.1: "The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game," [provided the move was legal etc] (Very good.)

The FIDE laws, despite being poorly organised are unambiguous enough to answer this question. Unless you're a problemist who wants a codex or something written in lawyerese for complete unambiguity. :D

This was posted in a late night haze of ingenuity, but I'll play devils advocate and respond in turn:

Quoodle:  First of all, thank you for disregarding the actual position, it was given just to illustrate the point, and I'm sure a more likely one could be found.  That being said I don't think its a fallacy at all to assume that the king is captured to end the game.  All a checkmate does is guarantee that the next move the losing side makes results in a king capture, making playing the rest of the game out pointless.  But your point about no move after a checkmate being legal is legitimate (ie you aren't allowed to blunder into a king capture).

Tigerprowl and Remellion:  I'm very surprised that position actually is possible, if ridiculous, thank you for back-calculating.  And the rules should address all possible positions, not just ones that grand masters might find themselves in.

Tommo2:  I would argue that you are perfectly fine moving out of a pin, but only if it were to result in the capture of the king.  The game would end there, and therefore the rook would never get a chance to capture the white king.  Its the same reason why pinned pieces can still participate in a mate by blocking king moves.

chaotic_iak and Remellion:  You are right, this is where any theory argument I can make dies in flames.  The rules to clearly state the game ends at checkmate and the actual position of that checkmate is irrelevant.  I always wondered why that rule was necessary, but maybe this position is the reason?

'Twasn't? Man...

Many people suggest new rules on here all the time.

It is a total fallacy to think in terms of the king being captured. That move does not exist in the current version of chess.

It is illegal to move a pinned piece that would expose your king to check.

If you realiuse you are are wrong, why are you refuting those pointing it out.

You may wish to ply chess by a new set of rules, the majority on here are happy with them as they are.

My head hurts...

Well done. Looking at the quality of moves in the game I suspect you used a bullet game I played.  But thank you for proving the position was legal. 

The position is perfectly legal. I think that the matter was that, wasn´t it? tigerprowl5 should acknowledge his inaccurate statement.

I still refuse to agree that its a fallacy.  The only thing the rules do is make it so its illegal to blunder into said king capture by making such blunders illegal. The intent of the game (and therefore the current rules of chess) is still very clearly that you are trying to capture the king, they simply stop the game short of that moment because it would be pointless to play it out once its inevitable (ie checkmate).

As for pinned pieces, if they were unable to move in all situations, they would not pose a threat to the king and therefore could not participate in mate, making it legal for a king to move into a square threatened by a pinned piece.  A pinned piece is therefore still active, as long as that activity kills the king.

Very simple example.  Clearly a checkmate position, but with a pinned pawn.  If the pawn truly cannot move, then why couldnt the king move to f7?  And don't blindly quote a rule.  Instead, ask yourself; WHY can't it? The reason is that the pawn CAN capture on f7, even though it is 'pinned.'

Please all, it was a completly contrived, legal (per Remellion) but unlikely (per tigerprowl) position.  The exact position was not important to the question, a million others could be contrived, some more or less likely without the question changing.

I don't agree with this premise.

At a minimum, the goal is to win the game.  However, if you consider the military and political aspects of the strategy game, it's war, yes, but it's midieval warfare.    Modern warfare would kill above all - but warfare from a more civilized time would not be so mechanistically brutal as our time is.    

Consider, a real king is cornered - and could be killed, but is taken capture instead, ransomed, or imprisoned.   The battle is over when the king cannot  be defended anymore.   At this point, the king is not resigning, he's defeated.

One must decide on a point where the game ends - it either ends where it currently ends, or when a king is captued, or when it's captured and broken in half, or spiked on the ground and stomped on, or taken as a prize by the winner to put on his mantle, or.....

I would guess not taking the king is a matter of respect for the other player.  The game or battle is over, shake hands.    This is a civilized game.   

If anyone read the FIDE rules I quoted a little more closely, you'll notice FIDE is also poor at describing checkmate.

By their Glossary (and part of 1.2 that I didn't quote), check(mate) is when the king is attacked [etc etc].
By their Glossary (and 3.1 also I believe?), "attack" is when a piece could be captured.
By 1.2, the king cannot be captured.

Ergo, the king cannot come under attack, and so cannot be checked. There is no such thing as check or checkmate. Under the FIDE definitions.