Chess Logic?

 I got into this situation today. Bishop checks the king on the line. Does it make sense or not, as it is “stuck” itself?

You are losing there because the queen can take the bishop with check.  The bishop was already pinned.

The position was hopeless from the start.

Questions like this have been asked before. The king is like the control switch that controls all of its pieces. The first person to reach the king first and turns it off, wins.

Thanks Dejarik

Obviously I am missing something since Dejarik's answer had nothing to do with the puzzle or was utter rubbish.

Hes asking a time honored question of how it makes sense that you can attack the king -- logically, threatening to 'take' it -- with a piece that can't move. 

if the king in the picture were the opponent's rook, for example, its a non-threat, you can't take it, because pinned.  So logically, then, he asks why it counts as check. 

And the only answer, really, is that the rules say that it does.  No amount of mental twisting makes it 'logical' if you are trying to treat the king as a normal piece and going with the 'checkmate means you actually captured the opponent's king' approach.   New players sometimes get tangled up with all this ...  and its difficult to explain it apart from 'the king is special'.   The switch thing works as well as any to say that. 

think of it this way, instead of checkmate being how to win the game, let it be capturing the king. Whoever captures the king first wins. If if was black to move in the position you posted, then black will take the white king and win, even though white can also take blacks king, the black bishop did first. So yes, it does make sense, even if it's stuck.

I really do not see why a discovered check should cause such difficulties to understand.

A king cannot remain in check because the king cannot be taken. Because of the one rule, there is the other.

The exact opposite of this is true. "To treat the king as a normal piece approach" gives a clean and logical answer immediately. Black is threatening to take the white king. If that happens, the game is over, and that's it. This is the simplest way to see it.

But the whole problem presented here was that black is not actually threatening to take the King, because the black Bishop can not move and hence can not really take the white King.

If the King was any other piece, the Bishop could not take that piece, because it is pinned.

But this cuts both ways, right? "It is pinned" only applies if we accept that the king can't remain in check. Therefore, the white king also can't remain in check. The logic is perfectly simple and clear no matter how I look at it.

The person who captures the other king first wins.  If this ended the game instead of checkmate, people would not be confused.  Maybe that should be the rule.

I accept the rule that the white King can not remain in check and has to move. These are the rules of chess and I have no problem understanding them... It is just that the black Bishop is not really threatening to take the King, which is what you stated earlier.

no it makes perfect sense

change the rule to "first to capture opp. king wins"

then bxk would win cuz black already lost

blacks queen cant win by taking the king cuz black already lost!

The black bishop is threatening to take the king. I don't know how you came to a conclusion that it isn't.

The Bishop can NOT move, hence it is NOT threatening to take. It is that simple.

Yes it is giving a check, but it is not really threatening to take.

That is NOT what I said. The Bishop is giving a check, yes, and that has to be respected, those are the rules of chess... but the Bishop is still not really threatening to take the King. Even a pinned piece can give a check or take an escape square away from the King or pin an opponent's piece to their King etc even if they are really not able to move to take the King or the pinned piece and so on.

No, no, no, no. You are mixing up the two rulesets. What you say does not make sense in either one.

1. In the world where you win only by taking the enemy king, the bishop is threatening to take the enemy king, I hope it is clear. In that world, pinning the king is not an absolute pin, as a king can get into check, the game is only lost when the king is actually taken.

2. In our world (where the king can't be taken), the bishop is not threatening to take the king... but hey, we just said that the king can't be taken, right? But a check is still a check and white's king has to get out.

In both worlds, the white king has to move (or capture the bishop or block or something). Confusion only arises when you apply different rules for white and for black.