x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

When is a Checkmate Not "Really" a Checkmate

  • #81

    Cool puzzle, thanks for sharing!

  • #82

    Discussions like this one are an outgrowth of the "social media" phenomenon. The idea these media radiate is that the universe consists exclusively of opinion and therefore all opinions are equally "real".  

    Fortunately, there are external, objective sources of reference which take precedence over their imaginary universes. So wake up, boys and girls!

    For chess rules, the source of reference are the FIDE laws of chess to be found here: http://www.janko.at/Retros/Glossary/FideLaws2004.htm. In the latest versions the phrase "under attack" is used to define checkmate while capturing the king is explicitly disallowed. Here are the quotes that should settle the discussion:

    1.2

    The objective of each player is to place the opponent's king 'under attack' in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have 'checkmated' the opponent's king and to have won the game. Leaving one's own king under attack, exposing one's own king to attack and also 'capturing' the opponent's king are not allowed. The opponent whose king has been checkmated has lost the game.

    1.3

    It is not allowed to capture the King

  • #83

    Excuse me> @gamerat, but your logic constitutes a woman's Point of view of the man made rules of this game; which delete's all probabilities of what you may think could happen. This would involve making a different game with one specific alternative - where the King can actually take the Piece (whatever that Piece might be). and continue the game. Make the game yourself - it's just a thought - it's just a thought...wink.png

  • #84

    I would take the sexism out of this. In any case, in the OP diagram it's the black king who gets "eaten" first...

    It's true that a pinned piece (like the rook on g2) doesn't defend another piece (like the queen on g7) from an attack - but the exception is when the attacker (like the king on g8) is the king. 

    For the king alone, the queen on g7 is a protected piece and cannot be taken. 

    If a bishop was standing on f8, of course, it would take that queen with impunity - but alas, the king was left to its own devices, subjected to a cruel fate. 

  • #85

    What game have you ever played where the king was taken.

  • #86

    this is not how chess works

  • #87
    rumrunner55 wrote:

    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.

    Says it all, but the world was wiser 4 years ago.

  • #88

    lol

  • #89
    sameez1 wrote:

    What game have you ever played where the king was taken.

     

    Checkers!

  • #90
    sameez1 wrote:

    What game have you ever played where the king was taken.

    I have played many chess games in OTB tournaments where the king was taken.

  • #91
    The rules are clear, pinned pieces still attack. But it's still fun to explore the nature of the rules. Would the game still be the same if the victory condition was capturing the king? So the concepts of check and checkmate don't exist. Putting one's king so it can be captured is obviously a losing move, so why have a rule to prevent it. Actually the game would play a bit differently, and certainly the world of chess problem composition would be the poorer for it.
  • #92
    seanysean2 wrote:
    sameez1 wrote:

    What game have you ever played where the king was taken.

    I have played many chess games in OTB tournaments where the king was taken.

    Yeah taken off the board to setup the next game. The king can't move the game is over,you can argue past that point ,your argument might even seem intelligent if you leave that point out of it .

  • #93

    You cannot capture/kill the king. This is chess, not war. If it's checkmate, the king cannot move to another square or capture the mating piece. Therefore, he cant take the queen because it meens putting himself in check. Please go to the 'rules' section on chess.com before you post useless stuff like this next time.

  • #94
    Either way, you can't take a king, but the rook supports it, a king can't take a piece/ go on a square protected by another piece
  • #95

    Perish the thought that any King ever gets killed; they are total wimps and immediately order their forces to lay down their arms as soon as they see that they are unable to escape. "Plenty more where they came from", thinks the King.

    Set 'em up for the next game!

  • #96

    Nope. The army surrenders

  • #97
    sameez1 wrote:
    seanysean2 wrote:
    sameez1 wrote:

    What game have you ever played where the king was taken.

    I have played many chess games in OTB tournaments where the king was taken.

    Yeah taken off the board to setup the next game. The king can't move the game is over,you can argue past that point ,your argument might even seem intelligent if you leave that point out of it .

    You've obviously never played in a blitz tourny OTB.

  • #98

    The idea with checkmate is that it gives a side the opportunity to capture the other King first

    It is still checkmate if the act of actually capturing the other King would put one's own King under attack

  • #99

    It's still Checkmate because the king can't move so he can't capture either because the rooks are protecting the queen.Now you understand?

Top

Online Now