Pinned Queen
Sort:
GrandpaRon11
Feb 25, 2011
0
#1
Rxg6!
Feb 25, 2011
0
#3
Well, that's sort of obvious, isn't it? However, it does not answer the question of the ability of a queen to attack while pinned.
Feb 25, 2011
0
#4
No, that is an illegal move. You can never put your own king in check. No matter what the situation. You can't even castle "through" check (as a castle can be seen as moving three moves at once [two toward the rook, rook jumps the king] If it any point during those two moves the king puts himself in check, then he cannot castle.
Hope that clears that up.
Can pawns move 2 squares during the opening ?
Feb 25, 2011
0
#6
i'm sorry, but it isn't clear. The black queen is immobilized, so to me, she should not be able to passively check the white king's move. I understand the castling situation which is an active check, but this is different.
no pawns cannot move 2 squares in the opening - they can optionally move 2 squares on their first move.
And to answer, if chess did not have check what would it have ? Your king cannot walk into check - I might wonder why not and the answer would be simple - if chess ever had a rule where the winner captures the opponents king then obviously black would win with Qxg1 leaving white with no ability to move. Much like an army of robots with all the brains contained in the king.
I am honored to have one of my threads to be considered a source of information.
Feb 25, 2011
0
#10
Thanks. I suspected that was the case, but I just needed it explained.
dalephilly wrote:
For some reason, this comes up from time to time. I'll try explaining why Kg1 or Kg2 is an illegal move in the situation.
There is NO RULE in chess that a pinned piece is "immobilized" as you put it. In fact, there is NO RULE in chess that even defines a 'pinned' piece. An absolute pin, meaning a piece pinned to a king, is an 'unofficial' tactical term only. There is NO RULE in chess that a piece loses influence over any squares that it would control if not for the 'pin'.
The ONLY rule in chess that is relevant here is that a player may never make a move which puts his king into check. Being in check means that your king is on a square controlled (attacked is the official term) by an enemy piece. White cannot move his king to g1 or g2 because those squares are controlled by the black queen. The black queen, if black's move, cannot move to g1 or g2, because such a move would place the black king in check. However, the black queen still CONTROLS (attacks) g1 and g2. In fact, it is explicitly stated in the FIDE rules that pieces still attack squares for purposes of delivering check, even if they could not legally move to that square because of a 'pin'.
A simplistic way of understanding the concept would be by pretending that chess is not a game won by checkmate, but by capturing the opposing king. The first player to capture the opposing king would immediately win (i.e. if white moved his king to g1, then black would play Qxg1 and immediately win). Chess is not played this way, however (it ends one move earlier, by checkmate) only because they originally didn't want to show the king being taken.
EXCELLANT POST !! not only does that absolutely pinned piece (pinned to the king) still control the squares it attacks, But in some advanced tactics puzzles it actually delivers MATE !! lol