When is a Checkmate Not "Really" a Checkmate

This puzzle ends in what I see is a very unusual checkmate . . . one which may be a checkmate according to the strict rules of chess but is clearly more a stalemate (or a "Mexican standoff") in the spirit of chess as a representation of a war between two kingdoms.

Qg7 checks the king, but the queen is not "really" defended by the rook at G2, because the rook is pinned to protecting the king from black's queen. If the rook is not really free to defend the queen, black's king would (in a "real life" situation) be free to capture white's queen with impunity . . . knowing that the rook has a higher obligation to protect his own king from black's Queen

This could be a scene from "Game of Thrones!" With a bloody ending wherein the white rooks end up taking both the black king and queen but only after first watching the white queen and king going down.

In the spirit of the chess, I would argue, the pinned rook isn't "really" able to protect the chekmating piece (the queen in this case) and the king to which it is pinned. So this isn't a "clean" win for White.  Because the rules fail to provide for a stalemate in cases of a  "Mexican standoff," where the piece "protecting" the checkmating piece from the King is not really free to protect the checkmating piece because it is pinned to protecting the king, it is a win for White.  But the position represented in that win is one that represents, by analogy to a battle, a "victory" in which White will immediately lose it's own King.  

(If one used spaces of travel as a measure of time, and assumed that after black king takes white queen that white rook and black queen attack simulataneously, the analogy suggests that white's king could even die first when ordering the rook to kill the black king!)

Lol.

I don't really have anything to say other than that. Black would lose his king first, and that constitutes a loss. Also, if you wanted to say you could continue play from here, white would still win, as he has a passed pawn and two rooks against a bishop and a rook.

The king gives the orders. If there are no orders, there are no moves. 

Sunshiny, I like your comment "the king gives the orders."  But that actually underscores my point.  If the black king captures white's queen, would white king tell white rook "Kill her" knowing that as soon as he does the black queen will kill him?  In fact, if we imagine this as all concurrent rather than turn based, by the time the rook moves 5 spaces to kill the king the black queen will already have moved two spaces to kill the other king.  So now which King died first??

Looking at the board, I'd say white just loses Queen because the protective rook is pinned. Is it really a controversy? Who does win?

White wins...Black must move the king out of check, which it cannot therefore loses.  The Black king cannot take the White Queen, it would be moving itself into check which is against the rules of chess.

There doesn't need to be a rule change, since the rules cover the situation adequately. You can never move into check.

It doesn't underscore your point. White happily orders the rook to kill the king, knowing that the black king will not retaliate by telling his queen to capture white's king, because the Black king will be dead!

It's important to remember that while I'll illegal to move into check, that's only because it instantly loses the game, as the "real" point of chess is to "kill" the enemy king first.. so if white accomplishes that first, as in your example, it doesn't really matter.  

It's a mate, pure and simple. You need to learn the rules and not quibble. Shame on you for posting it in the first place!

by definition " checkmate" means game over.

While this game is a little unusual because it is check followed by checkmate. This kind of close run game happens quite a lot. In fact I think many of my games against the computer have ended with me one move away from checkmate, but then I get check spammed, and it beats me before I can deliver the final blow.

With your reasoning I could argue that the game is actually a draw because, even though one side got checkmated, the other side could checkmate back the very next turn. In a real battle maybe it would be hard to say who won, but chess is more black and white. :)

one could argue that since the rook is pinned he cannot move.

And therefore he does not cover the queen. And from there you could say the king doesnot move in check. Because it is at a square where no enemy piece can come.

we've had other members here who had difficulty interpreting the rules of chess, there was a thread about 80 pages long by someone who couldn't understand stalemate, so it's ok, these things happen.

That would also mean that this isn't a checkmate because the White King can just move to a2 where the Black King can't capture him without moving into check, which isn't allowed. This could get pretty silly as many checkmates involving the King would no longer be possible.

No twist here. It's mate. The black King is in an attack he can't get out of since he can't take a guarded piece. Game's over.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

the rules state that a piece pinned against the king can still deliver check to the enemy king, (if a pinned piece couldn't deliver check you could pin a piece against the king in order to end the check) so even though the rook is pinned it can still deliver check, so if the king captures the queen the rook will still check the king while pinned so it is checkmate

hope that explains it:D

Thought of the same theory as you. HOWEVER

It is based on whoever kills the king first, which is how it applies to this. IE in checkmate, the losing colour can still move another piece, but the winning colour simply, "Kills," the king.