The Not-So-Absolute Pin

Here is a position that puzzles me about the rules of chess.  If an absolute pin has been established before Black played the queen, why can't White just take the queen?  It would make sense that the pin should still be enforced, no?

Let's say the queen weren't there, and it was just the bishop checking the king.  Let's also say the bishop were supported by a pawn, and Black's next move were to move his king.  Why isn't that treated like a type of discovery? 

1.Kxe2 Bxe2 2.Rxc6

The white king is the first to get eliminated

Yes but that ignores the pin that occured on the bishop.

@OP: Any illustrations involving captures of the King miss the point.

The prevailing philosophy is: Check must be respected.

White's King is in check by the Queen. White's King cannot capture the Queen, because the Bishop would be giving check to the White King.

All considerations end there, because check must be respected. Thus the position is ruled checkmate.

@whirlwind2011:

I understand this is checkmate, and checks must be respected, yet in this position, an absolute pin is an implied check, should black move the bishop, and so that check behind the pin, amusingly wasn't to be respected.  I know you're right in this, it's just a bit of a logical conundrum on my part.  The position shows how an absolute pin isn't absolute.

At any rate, white is the one who breaks a rule (putting the king in check) so if black responds with breaking another rule ( Kings aren't supposed to be captured, they are mated) he clearly wins because he gets the white king first.

A pin?  What is that?  A rule you can't move into check?

KxQ?  What is that?  Moving into check?

You can't have it both ways.  It's either an illegal move for both players or not for either of them.

@AlcherTheMovie:

I don't think you understand the problem.  It's an issue about how White cannot take the queen because the pinned bishop, although it cannot move because of the pin, still checks the king after White takes the queen.  White never actually put Black's king in check, and so I don't understand what you're saying.

Regardless, I understand the rationale now.  Check is check, and doesn't matter if the checking piece can move.  Thanks everyone.  

waffle, lol, you're right i'm an idiot.

@OP I perfectly understand it. The answer is because it's illegal. Period. 

No way are you an idiot :p  This is a common question and it makes sense to ask it IMO.

Not that I want a rule change, but I've sometimes wondered why can't this be a draw option for white, where black can capture white's king, but he loses his on the next turn so draw.

In simpler terms, do not think using the pin or checkmates way. If you take it that "whoever has his/her king captured first loses", then that would make more sense than bringing up this whole pin and check thing. Now do you get it?

Dude this is so a white gets checkmated because if white king takes the queen then the bishop just takes the king( not possible ). Let's just say that the king is all the other pieces life-source, ok?

There is no "pin rule." The rule is that you can't end your turn with your King in check. Kxe2 has White break this rule, so Black can do the same. Otherwise it would be a double standard.

I like the last answer

The pin is a tactical device mid-game, not a rule. It works because the rule is you cannot make a move that puts you in check

But it was a good question

This comes up every now and then. The question is wether an absolutely pinned piece can give check and the answer is yes. The rules could have been made differently, but they haven't.

Edited: I wrote chess instead of check. Typical German mistake .