pinned knight capable of check?

Dear chess players,

I haven’t found any rules regulating if this particular setup is mate. The problem is obviously with the knight. The knight is protecting the only (otherwise) available move; however, the night is pinned. As the move to capture a piece (with pinned piece) is illegal when pinned, does that nullify the attack and therefore give the king a legal move?

Also, I could use a new prefrontal lobe after this…

:)

cheers,

Jameson

Hmmm, why does this come up so often lately?

Yes it's mate.

Think of it this way, imagine the King ould be captured. The White King would be captured before the Black King.

Yeah, it's that whole awkward thing where checkmate seems to end the game early, leading to ambiguous situations.  I found it helpful as a beginner to think of checkmate as a resignation.  As in, the game is over when my king is captured, but instead of letting my opponent actually capture him I resign the game 1 move early when I see that any possible move will result in the capture of my king.  When in doubt, run the variation 2-3 plies forward until a king is captured, that king looses.  Hope this helps, it worked for me.  And make sure the enemy king can't escape somehow whenever you're counting on a pinned piece!

Ah, the great mysteries of the chess universe.  Man may never know...

Qi7 mate.

Talk about mysteries....

When, I showed this to my physic's professor, he (jokingly) called it "Schrödinger's mate"

... lol ... I definitely agree it could be considered mate, but no rule that I have found addresses it. Thanks for all replies.

-Jameson

I have devoted my LIFE to finding out the answer to this question. When I was a young boy growing up in the beautiful countryside of Oklahoma, I was playing a friendly game of chess with my intoxicated step-father and a similar position like the one above appeared. I remember looking up and asking him the same question you're asking now. It was destiny. Until the day I die, I'll never forget what he said next. It shook my world to it's core. He slowly looked up at me, a slightly glazed kind of look over his eyes and he said "...............What?", AND SO MY QUEST BEGAN. I too have been plagued for years wondering if this position would ever make sense to mankind, I have travelled to the far reaches of the globe to search for The Truth, I tried to get assistance from my friends, but they told me I was "Dumb", which is complete horse-hockey, I have a solid IQ of 82, I know how to add, subract, and read, but I digest. Very recently after a dissappointing trip to the Gaza Strip,  I got a break in Nepal from a blind medicine woman, I lost two goats in the deal, but I think the tradeoff is completely worth it, I mean, they were old and not putting out as much milk anymore, I'm pretty sure one or both of them has arthritis, and one of them is missing a leg while the other is missing a lung, after checking them out she muttered something about a "Curse". But I don't think they're cursed, which I tried to tell her but she simply looked at me with her soul piercing gaze, shook her head and walked away. Language barriers, right? Ha!  I'm currently following the lead, which is taking me to Argentina. I will let you know how the trip turns out. I'm boarding my plane now. Fingers crossed!

FIDE laws of chess 3.9 (emphasis added)

"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."

http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article

 The Sherpas could've told you that.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/tactical-defence?

Didn't you mean, 'digress', oh wordy-one?

 It's part of the joke, but I'm sure that you knew that, ha ha.

 Yeah, I wonder if there's any other types of "Mysteries" in playing chess from the online to the real world battles.  This is one example: "There are some moves that can be used and not counted illegal in the real-world chess but it's taboo if any other people saw what you did"

I dont see how this can be such an issue.

The rules of the game are simple.

You can not move into check. Moving to G6 is against the rules, reguardless of whether the Knight can move or not.

Think of it like this. Say the BK is on G6 and the move order is: 1. Re1+, Ke7+...the BK would have to move from G6 because he is in check, and if you have no place to move him then you lose.

Dont think of it like "the king dies". When is the last time you actually moved your piece and took the king off the board? The game ends when the King can not escape check.

yeah it's mate

Im starting to get annoyed by the # of these kinds of questions. The white king dies first, so he loses. End of story.

It doesn't matter if it's pinned, just take that in chess the KING CANNOT move into check.

lol, laws of chess

There are a few, sure, most of them the "trouble" rules like castling and en-passant.  Some "players" insist that even after a pawn promotion, a player can't have more than 1 queen.  Can you castle queenside as white when b1 is under attack from a bishop on g6? (the rook passes through an attacked square) yes, that's legal.

Is stalemate a draw, is en-passant a real rule, are the kings and queens set up on the same file, etc.

jamesondp: Schrodinger's mate.  I like that.