noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! you canot do it
Can a King move into "check" if the attacking piece is pinned?
Sort:
In chess the winner is the first one who captures the oppenents king. In your diagram the piece would take your king and it doesnt matter what happens after that. It would be considered an illegal move in a tournament and you would have to take it back(and your opponent would get extra time) but if it were a bllitz tournament they would win.
Hope this helps.
@blueemu's problem, Black is wrong, since Black taking the pawn en passant does not block check coming from White's light square bishop. Had it done so, it would've been legal. Although this is a good example, it doesn't speak to the problem presented by the original post regarding checks where the attacking piece is absolutely pinned.
The problem in the original post was incorrectly associating checking the king with "capturing" the king, and it's only more confusing when people say the winner in chess is the "first to capture the king", when it really isn't, since the example with absolute pins debunks that definition. You cannot capture something, if you cannot move the attacking piece. The winner is the first to check the king with additional stipulation that there are no ways to block, take the checking piece, or move away from check. This then leads to the logical question of what is a check? It's not the threat of capturing, but cutting off the king's mobility via an attacking line, to which the current square the king sits on is no longer available, and so the player must respond accordingly. This means that an attacking piece checks, even if it cannot move, since a king taking a piece and walking into the line of fire of a pinned piece is still putting itself in check. It does sound like pulling hairs, but if understood in that manner, there is no confusion.
@stephen_33: The quoted you posted says that the pinning piece "still delivers check", but doesn't go on to explain why, which is the point of confusion presented in the original problem where absolute pins are concerned.
See Estragon, there's hope! Don't give up on us cavemen lol. Is that morning wood on that dog? ugh!
arguing semantics will drive you crazy ultimately..... the laws are clear. a player may not move his king into check under any circumstance. period. also if he is in check he must get himself out of check immediately. period. or else the game is over. end of discussion.
No, even the piece is pinned it still retained it's checking power.
Quote 27 say's it exactly right,and easiest to understand,K can not move into a pinned piece that put's it in check,it's not hard to understand!!!
Jan 3, 2013
0
#28
verybadbishop wrote:
stephen_33 wrote:
verybadbishop wrote:
eddysallin wrote:
the king cannot move into check......reasons don't matter.
If we look at the problem the OP posted, and the question as to why the king just couldn't take, then it does demonstrate that this person did not understand this difference between check and take, and so that presumption, even if it wasn't stated as "I don't know what check means", was wrong, because we don't know what we don't know, and of course he didn't understand the nature of the problem to ask it in that manner because he didn't know lol. I'm sounding like a bad rapper.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this verybadbishop, as we clearly see it from different viewpoints.
I think the OP knows perfectly well what the condition 'check' is because he/she asks 'can a king be moved into check...' & show that they understand taking that white bishop in the diagram (#1) places the black king in check!
The thing they seem to be unsure of is the rule that applies to check...
the king cannot move into check......reasons don't matter.
Think of it as being split into two parts: First you learn what check means & then you learn that you may not move your king into check under any circumstances - that's all players need to know.
you should of cleared up them sort of questions on your first ever game.
Jan 3, 2013
0
#30
billyoyx wrote:
you should of cleared up them sort of questions on your first ever game.
I couldn't agree more !
Estragon
Thank you so much. You have made me truly happy during a miserable week of the flu. New Years Eve, my dog panicked during the fireworks, and wrestled me for pillow space, punching me in my ear ache, stepping on my eyes, sitting on my head, and ignoring my begging her for a moment of sleep.
You have restored a sense of proportion.
My poor kingdom is yours for the asking.
Edit:
I used to love the "Booth" cartoons in the New Yorker. Your photo looks like a Booth dog.
Thanks for your response everyone. And thank you ThrillerFan for helping me understand the concept internally.
No
blueemu wrote:
White is in check by the enemy b7-Bishop. He plays e4 (blocking the check and discovering an attack by his own f1-Bishop onto Black's King), and announces checkmate. Black insists that he is not checkmated, White is... he captures the White Pawn en-passent. White claims that this move is illegal, since it leaves the Black King in check. Black claims that the White Pawn never reached e4... it was captured en passent on e3... so it never blocked Black's original check to White's King.
Who is correct?
Obviously white is correct, since capturing the pawn en passent doesn't remove the check on black's king. The white pawn did reach e4 at the end of white's move, and black wouldn't be able to capture en passent until the start of his move, which he couldn't do anyway because his king is in check. It's no different from the other puzzle above with the two rooks. The question is whose king is in check first. If the game were to be continued to another move, black's king would be captured, and then game over.
This does apply somewhat to the question of pinned pieces delivering check, in that if the next move were to be made, that king moving into check from a pinned piece would be captured and then game over (if you play by capturing-the-king-is-legal rules).
But rule #1 for anyone learning chess should be that kings can never, ever move into check. Ever.
Jan 3, 2013
0
#35
has nobody noticed that it was blacks N which moved last, so blacks K cant do anything on the next move, its white to play ;-)
Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I happen to be in a game in this exact situation and I looked up the definition of "check" and found "A check is a condition in chess...that occurs when a player's king is under threat of capture on their opponent's next turn." In this case, the king isn't under threat of capture on the next turn because the attacking piece is pinned. I accept that the move is considered illegal but according to the definition above, it should be legal - especially since I'm the one wanting to make such a move - it would be amazing! Is there a different definition of check that is more official?
P.S. The above definition for check was from Wikipedia and is incomplete. The FIDE website has a more extensive definition of check that explicitly covers this exception to the Wikipedia definition: "The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check." I'm glad I found the more complete definition, because by the Wikipedia definition, it was legal!
Yes, because then 1. ... KxB NxK
game imediately stops because white wins by capturing the opposing king (which is truly the object of the game)
King may not move into check - period.
Jion_Wansu wrote:
Yes, because then 1. ... KxB NxK
game imediately stops because white wins by capturing the opposing king (which is truly the object of the game)
Not correct. The object is to checkmate the king. Any discussion about "capturing" the king serves only to confuse newcomers to the game and leads to questions such as the first post on this thread.
All you need to know is that a king cannot move into check....ever !
Here's a simple way to think about it. Picture chess as though the first to capture the King wins. In essence, all checkmate is is a forced King capture in 1.
In your example, if you try to take the Bishop, White could take your King because it's a question of who captures the King first. The fact that Black would then be able to capture White's King is a move too late.
Again, before people start going around talking about capture the King not being legal in chess, I'm merely giving him or her a different way to think about it in case a simple "no" doesn't make "logical" sense to the asker.
Excellent response, ThrillerFan, and excellent anticipation of critical responses as well. I've always thought of it this way too. If we played until the king was actually captured (rather than checkmated), this question wouldn't have to be asked. The first to capture the king wins. Capturing the king (under this assumption) is a legal move even when it exposes your own king. It doesn't really expose your king, because your opponent's pieces can't move without their king.