When is a Checkmate Not "Really" a Checkmate

The problem becomes easier when you think that, as the king is never captured in chess, they just surrender when there see there's no way they'll survive this, even if the other king would get killed too.

You do not understand how frustrating this can be when you hear it ALL THE TIME >.>.

They could have had the game end when the king gets captured; however, it was deemed not necessary so the game instead ended in the mate position. If the game did end with capture of the king, white would be able to capture it, and the game would end before black could.

Anyway, arguing rules with logic isn't always relevant -- after all who is to say that bishops (in real life) always move in a different angle than a foot soldier typically would? A lot of times in life you feel like walking forward, no matter who you are, and the game doesn't account for that either. It is pretty fun though to have a piece that moves diagonally, right?

Here's one that I posted before, in a different thread:

Black plays 1. ... Bb7+. White replies with 2. e4 and announces discovered-check-checkmate. Black insists that it isn't checkmate at all... he captures White's Pawn en-passent and claims that HE, not White, has won the game. White replies that the en-passent capture is illegal... Black cannot do that while in check by White's Bishop. Black argues that the White e-Pawn never reached the e4 square... it was captured en-passent on e3. So it never succeeded in blocking the check to White's King, and Black's check to White's King takes priority over White's check to Black's King, since it happened earlier.

How did the tournament director rule?

Well, when you push a pawn two squares in front of an enemy pawn, you don't ask it permission to move two squares, you simply move it two squares. True, it may or may not be captured a square behind the space it moved to, but that would occur after the pawn moved two squares. If I play ...f5 and you play exf6, it doesn't mean I didn't play ...f5; it means I played ...f5, and you took the pawn after I played it.

Of course, if you're trying to make it all "real life," what en passant would be like in real life, you'd also have to justify a lot of other strange things, like why a bishop feels that any space horizontal to him is totally impassable, even if it means doing something important like killing a queen. Rules are arbitrary and are meant to be; they can try to represent things in a poetic way, but as we know with metaphors, we pick and choose the parts of the metaphor that we feel like including and ignore the rest.

Regarding en passant, we, admittedly arbitrarily, allow the two space move to happen first -- that's just how it is, and it would be unnecessarily annoying to experienced chess players to suddenly change it.

Notice 2.e4.  Also notice the pawn is on e4.

So the TD would rule that... the pawn is... wait for it... on e4 lol.

Still, it's a fun little OP that I have thought about before -- it reminds me of when I tried to logically justify dividing by zero

I've thought about it too.  It's reasonable to have the rules such that if two consecutive moves are mate / king captures then it's a draw.  This isn't what the rules are however, so there's no use debating it.

People, its checkmate.  That generally means the game is over; one side has won, the other side has lost, etc...

Checkmate = game over

After black plays the only legal move ...Rb6-b5, I know someone who calls this a "weak checkmate."  The checkmate is weak because the rook which is giving mate is pinned.

In case of confusion, the one that can actually TAKE the opponents king first, wins. In OTB this sometimes happens. Your opponent leaves his king in check and moves. Then you just take his king and the game is yours. In these messy situations, it is the same. The one that has the king in his hand first, wins.

Here's another way to think about it. Consider each side's pieces as a mind-controlled army with the king of each side mentally controlling all his own pieces. In the original game, if Black played 4...Kxg7, then White would play 5.Rxg7, and without Black's king to tell his queen to capture on h1, the fact that White is "in check" is meaningless, because the Black pieces are now all incapable of doing anything, since they have no will of their own.

It's probably easiest though to just think that the first player who has an unstoppable threat to capture the enemy king wins the game, regardless of what the other player could do on the next move after his king was captured.

I think it's even easier to simply refer them to the rules of the game. If we go by interpretations, people make up their own rules, as was done by the OP. Simply put, the checkmate that was given did not require the pinned piece to move -- true, the rook on g2 can't move, but since it's not going to recapture on g7 (since the king would never manage to get there as the rules go), the point is moot.

The OP assumes "king takes queen," disregarding the rule that a king can't move into check, and yet he is quite ok with the rule that the rook on g2 can't move -- again, the rook only needs to threaten the enemy king; it does not have to actually capture the king as the game ends before this; thus it can stay on g2 and still deliver check. It seems like he picks and chooses the rules of the game he feels like following.

blueemu -- Black is mated. White's an idiot.

ghostofmaroczy -- 'Weak checkmate' is a stupid term. Black is mated, the game is over, and there's no need for new terms.

bronsteinitz -- Kings don't get captured, they get mated. It's always simple. If you find yourself in an argument about a matter of fact, quit looking for the 'other' idiot -- there isn't one. It's like banging your head and cussing out the kitchen table's lamp hanging in the same place for 35 years.

Folks, this silly thread has been over since five minutes after the first ridiculous post was left. Leave it. Walk away. Nothing to see here.

Or Kg2 - f2.

I think it's a fair question though and I'd like to know how it was called and, most importantly, why.

Well rumrunner, you never played a drunk in an official game with a referee present then.

rumrunner be nice.  By the way, White gets mated in the example I gave.  

The referee ruled that Black is mated. And that he's an idiot.

As far as "the White e-Pawn never reaching e4 because it gets captured en-passent at e3", refer to the official FIDE rules of chess (section 4.6): A move is considered completed when the player's hand releases the piece on its destination square.

I think pretending these are real questions is just a mean way to confuse beginners.

So if you're confused by the arguments, you have a weak command of the rules. Spend more time fixing that.

Don't let these 'pundits' mess you up.