Here's the article explaining why not...
https://support.chess.com/article/373-checkmate-with-a-pinned-piece-whats-going-on
Here's the article explaining why not...
https://support.chess.com/article/373-checkmate-with-a-pinned-piece-whats-going-on
Here's the article explaining why not...
https://support.chess.com/article/373-checkmate-with-a-pinned-piece-whats-going-on
Thanks man.
However that example is not answering my question, which is can you move a pinned piece and put BOTH kings in mate at the same time?
The principle is the same though. You can never put your own king in check.
That's because putting your king in check is actually putting your king in mate ![]()
and that means you force yourself to lose.
However when putting both kings in mate at the same time could be considered a draw? and that's what I'm not really sure.
I think this (from the article) is the answer...
because you cannot move your king into check, or move a piece that would put your king into check.
I'm sure other forum members will chime in with better explanations though.
After thinking about it you are right.
Reason is:
When you put both pieces in a mate position, the mate position in and of itself is not the end of the game. There's always the move "piece captures king" which is never plaved physycally but that's actually the last move.
Hence putting both kings in a mate position means that it's the turn of the other player to move and he captures your king and wins.
I'm not a fan of that article at all.
Checkmate is when no matter what piece a player moves, their king will be captured on the next move.
This is objectively wrong, as stalemate proves. Not only must the king be guaranteed death is the next move, but it must also be in check. Without the check, it is a stalemate, as the game is unable to progress. The king is both threatened with immediate death yet unable to escape.
As for why you can't move your king in check, it boils down to if the rules say so and that rule trumps even a theoretical checkmate. You can think of putting the king in check as something the opponent has to actually achieve, instead of it being handed to them. You can think of it that the move of the king's demise can never actually be performed, and having the last move be by the losing player just doesn't work. The main rules of chess are generally a basic set of facts, rather than a game where you have numerous rulings creating a complex narrative as to the game's mechanics. They are set to create a functioning game where the possible decisions under those rules created the complexity.
Is it legal to move a pinned piece and put both kings in mate?