When is a Checkmate Not "Really" a Checkmate

1. It is turn based. The black queen receives no orders once the king is dead. Or the black king is checkmated aka surrendering and tells his pieces to stand down. Would the black king not surrender and attack the white queen knowing that the queen has back up positioned to kill him?

2. If moves were counted by amount of space crossed, it would throw the whole game of chess out of whack. Instead, you could imagine it as some of the pieces using ranged weapons, and then moving to the spot in order to confirm the kill. 

This is checkmate, because the checkmated king gets captured first.

One proof can be found in the rules of a chess variant called Grand Chess. It is played on a 10x10 board, and has different pawn promotion rules. A pawn can promote on rank 8 or 9, but doesn't have to, but must promote to move to the 10th rank. However, pawns cannot promote to duplicate pieces (example; two queens, three rooks, or two chancellors (a piece new to this game - it is called the Marshall, but the name Chancellor is more commonly used to identify the rook-knight compound)). From Wikipedia:

" If no captured piece is available for promoting a white pawn about to reach the tenth rank, the pawn must stay on the ninth rank, but it can still give check. This is not as strange as it appears, since pinned pieces can still give check in standard chess."

So that is checkmate, because pinned pieces can give check.

Pinned pieces can always attack. The question is whether it is worth losing what it was pinned against. If it stops the opponent from further play, then it would be worth moving.

A pinned piece in this example, refers to a piece that is unable to move because it would leave the king in check, not just any piece.

It's checkmate. Checkmate is when the other player cannot move their king out of being under attack, which they can't.

Yes, but the assumption was that the opposing king captures the queen which puts itself in check. If it is capable of doing that, then the rook takes out that king.

Interesting and all etc, but why would you post a forum as dumb as this??????? no offense, but it would take a real idiot to make a fool of himself like this

NO. IT'S NOT A FORUM, CRADON. THIS IS A THREAD. INSIDE IT ARE POSTS. THE FORUM IS THE OVERALL BOARD THAT HAS SUB-BOARDS WHERE YOU POST THREADS.

Less discussion, folks. To think this is a matter in dispute means people need to learn the rules. IT'S NOT A CONTROVERSY. Black is mated and there's NOTHING ambiguous about it. If you think there's a problem with the mate, you need to strengthen your command of THE RULES. There are beginner videos here and lots of 'how to play' books to be found in real life.

For beginners, knights move unpredictably, pawns capture other pawns by sliding under them, castling takes place with the rook in check, and checkmate isn't really checkmate.

What a nightmare. Have some compassion.

Nonsense. As a high school junior, I coached a team that took a State Chess Team Title.

I heard a lot of 'rule dispute' arguments.

Everyone got the rules down when I counted ANY rule dispute as a double forfeit.

Some of these guys will claim 'I'm NOT a beginner.' So you made my point for me.

For the record, I understand that the checkmate is valid according to the rules of chess.  I'm not arguing there is any confusion in regard to the rules.  I started this thread just pointing out that to the degree that chess is an analogy of a battle, an end game that results in a "Mexican standoff" (to use Hollywood babel) position, as shown in the original example, is one in which the analogy of a real battle breaks down.  

Admittedly, chess rules declare white the winner with the move Qxg7. There is no confusion about the rules.  The king is not allowed to capture the queen because she is defended by the rook, and capturing her puts the king in the rooks line of sights.

But the rule preventing the king from taking the queen, even though the rook is actually pinned to protecting it's own king, causes a breakdown in the analogy of battle which chess represents.

The postion represents one which "in real life" white's king can only win the game by sending his defender (the rook) to "whack" his rival knowing that he will in turn be immediately killed in retribution because an attacker is in place to kill him as soon as his defender moves to execute the kill order.

It's not the rules that are broken.  Nor is the game broken.

But it is worth noting, as I have, that the rules in this case lead to a break from the analogy of "real life" battle tactics.  If one believed that the analogy should be preserved as much as possible, it is at least arguable that the rules should be changed to strengthen the analogy. 

Put another way, a rule to the effect that a piece that is protecting a king from check cannot simultaneously defend a piece captured by the opposing player's king if the move exposes it's own king to capture on the next move, could be implemented to allow, in this original example, the king to capture white's queen since the rook can't both defend and attack at the same time.  That would force white to explore different strategies and the game could proceed from there.

Such a rule change would likely increase the number of stalemates, and it would certainly force players to seek a winning position in which their king is in "safer" position.

But I have no idea on whether or not such a variation would contribute to or hinder the enjoyment of chess as a game.  Nor do I know how far reaching the effects of such a rule would be on game tactics or how often it would even come into play.

Nor am I arguing that we should convene a panel to petition the "official chess authorities" to make this an official rule. 

I'm just observing that such a rule would probably be more "true" to the analogy of battle tactics (which the game of chess was invented to represent).  Admittedly, the game rules evolved into a position where the "victory" (according to the official rules of chess) can be obtained by having the checkmating piece protected by an otherwise pinned defender.   But in terms of the analogy of battle, such positions represent positions in which one is really looking at Pyrrhic victory, or a Shakespeare tragedy wherein all the main characters have killed each other.

Commenters who simply say, "but this is the rule of chess" are missing the point.  It is how the rules do or do not fail to further the analogy of chess as a representation of battle tactics in the circumstances described which I am raising for discussion.

Interesting thought. What happens if we stretch the battle analogy further and think about playing moves simultanously instead of turn-based? That would be the most consequent way to follow up your idea, I suppose. This would break the game and make it unplayable. Simple example, thee Scandinavian defence. After 1.e4 d5 you basically run into the same problem. White could capture on d5 but black could capture on e4 at the same time. What now? Remove both pawns?  Strictly thought of, if this chess position would reflect a real battle situation you've got two forces challenging each other with the exact same power. So you either have to remove them both or let them stay both on the board.

There is no "Mexican Standoff" if all sides are willing to go for a Pyrrhic victory. You might as well play until all pieces for one side are off the board. Is that realistic though? Wouldn't one side surrender or flee knowing they've lost? It might be better to consider the soldiers more like mercenaries. They'll quit when there is no one to pay them.

I read things that talked about this sort of thing being debated back in the day, like in the Renaissance.  With the modern rules, it's a checkmate, though.  I think people who don't ever question this sort of stuff miss the point, but, practically speaking, it's still a checkmate.

I dont understand all these discussions on this website about a pinned piece not being able to defend another piece delivering mate.

The rules on chess are very clear. End of discussion.

I believe Edward Lasker's "Chess Strategy" cautions against drawing too literal of a comparison between chess and actual warfare, since there isn't much direct correlation with real-life strategy, tactics, etc.

J

The rook may not move but its power is not limited. It still covers the file.

This started out a silly thread.

"It's not the rules that are broken.  Nor is the game broken."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I'm so glad we've got a conclusion here.

lol