simultaneous check, does black have to move king?
Sort:
it sounds like you are talking about an illegal situation, where you check the opposing king and then have time to block it yourself. However in the diagram you give, black does not have to move his king as he isnt in check. You only have to move your king if you are in check and you cant get out of check any other way, ie if you cant take the piece giving the check, or put something in the way. Here black could play Qxf4+ for example. However your description is confusing, white wasnt in check, and neither is black in check now.
Steve, I can't see any check...
But I'll try to answer, anyway:
#1 - If your king is checked, you have to move it away, block the check with another piece, or capture the piece which is giving the check.
#2 - You can never put your own king in a check, neither by moving it into the check, nor by moving away a piece that was blocking the check.
Hope it was useful...
Try reading this page:
http://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-rules--basics
It's always good rereading the basics!
Do you know how to play?
I do not see any check 0_o
I think I can help.
Long time listener, first time caller... oh sorry, wrong medium.
steebp, the guys with the crosses are the kings... the sharp pointed hats are the queens.
And to answer your question, I think 'yes' the "king" has to be moved because he is not allowed to remain 'in check'.
To add to the previous comment; assuming that the kings and queens are the wrong way round, black (to move) is in check. He can either put the bishop or the "queen" in the way, take with the queen, or move his king. It is prefectly plausible for opposing kings to be put in check in two consecutive moves. good luck at the tables!
If I understand correctly what's going on here . . .
The black knight is actually pinned on f5, meaning that it can't move because it's illegal to put one's own king in check. Nonetheless, white must either move his king out of the way or capture the knight, both of which are possible in this case. (The third way of ending check is to block the attacking piece, but knights cannot be blocked.)
Jan 27, 2008
0
#8
HowDoesTheHorseMove wrote:
If I understand correctly what's going on here . . .
The black knight is actually pinned on f5, meaning that it can't move because it's illegal to put one's own king in check. Nonetheless, white must either move his king out of the way or capture the knight, both of which are possible in this case. (The third way of ending check is to block the attacking piece, but knights cannot be blocked.)
That's correct.
This is also a good example of why the game doesn't end in the capture of the king. It's possible to be in checkmate but still be able to prevent the opponent from making a legal move that takes the king!
If the rules were changed so that the game ended with the capture of the king, they'd also have to be changed to allow moving into check to preserve the game as it is. I think most people find moving into check to be rather inelegant and would prefer to keep it illegal.
OK, so I feel a little dumb for mistaking the kind for the queen, but I've not played online before.
Howdoeshtehorsemove answered my question. In the diagram I put up there, if you switch the kings and queens positions, that describes the situation I was talking about.
Thanks and apologies for being confusing!
Steve
I think about it this way... pretend there are no illegal moves or anything of that sort, there is no check, there is no checkmate... whoever can capture the other king first wins... and since both cant go at the same time... isnt there a winner if you capture the king first?
Please ignore the moves that led to this position, just look at the current position.
White just moved rook to block check from the queen, at the same time putting black in check. since white can't move the rook or it would place him in check again, does the black king have to move?
thanks!
steve