Think of the rule of check and illegal move as simply a means to extend the game.
If a king were to capture a piece protected by a pinned piece, that king would infact, by rules without illegal moves be captured before the enemy king.
Yes, you are crazy. A move is illegal on the basis that it puts your King in check. Think of it a little differently. Let's say there is no uch thing as an "Illegal Move", but rather, first one to capture the King wins, so "Checkmate" really means you will win in 1 move.
Well, let's say the Black King is on d8, a White Queen moves from a7 to d7. d7 is not covered by any other Black piece than the King. Black Rook on h8, White Bishop on h3, White King on h1. Based on your theory, Black should be able to take the Queen with his King because the Bishop on h3 is in an Absolute Pin. Well, instead, go on the basis of first to capture the King wins. Well, when you take on d7 with the King, Bxd7 captures the King, and so while White is in check as a result of the move, Black is captured and dead before he gets to capture White.
Ok got it. In otherwords If I were able to capture piece protected by pinned piece with my king .........
It would nullify and conflict with the original rule that is keeping the enemies piece pinned in the first place
How I always respond: If a half-tempo difference makes no difference, what about this position:
With Rh5+, white can save the game! Black is in check, and needs to move.
The same goes for your position: the 1/2 tempo makes all the difference.
And yes, I think you have the right idea now.
Whites king is already in check I was talking about the example assault postef
Because the moment the enemy king is captured, his entire army surrenders and can no longer move.
Whites king is already in check I was talking about the example assault postef
I understand what you are getting at but this would violate 2 rules:
1. The premise is that you try to put a king in checkmate, but by the looks of it there is insufficient material. It should be a draw at this point before your theoretical proposal.
2. KxR, why not also allow NxK, RxK, then we have a N and R on the board without kings? The kings are supposed to stay on the board.
There is no rule in chess that a R, Q, B, N, or even a P loses its attacking power even when pinned. The only reason why they wouldn't attack would be to protect their king.
You can checkmate with just a rook. Not sure if you are talking about that diagram though.
Because the game has rules.
Because rule #1 in chess moves is that the king can never move into check. Doesn't matter if the checking piece is pinned or not. Putting a king into check is the same as allowing it to be captured, and once it's captured you lose. That's why the rule against kings moving into check came about.
Mostly restating what others have said, but maybe I can offer a different view. As pointed out, the rule for checkmate is kind of based on the idea: I am about to take your king and there is nothing you can do about it. The rule against making a move that places your king in check is kind of based on the idea: don't give away your king accidentally. If you want to give your king away, resign, but this second rule is kind of a sportsmanship type rule under normal rules (and in blitz rules, where you can accidentally do all sorts of bad things and that's expected, you basically do give your king away).
So the rules are all around taking the king even though you don't actually do that. But they are also all about being first to take the king. If you put someone in checkmate but in doing so, you sacrifice your position and material such that you can also be forced into a mate after their king is taken, no one cares.
This first guideline is why pinned pieces are still attackers and defenders for purposes of mate. If you take a defended piece with your king and a pinned piece takes back, your king was still lost first. I think this is the mental image that is the "reason" behind this rule for many (even though, as a rule in an abstract game, it doesn't need to have a reason and we don't actually take the king in real chess games).
If you were to change this rule about being first, so that if both kings got lost it was a draw, there would be many more drawn positions. You would need to play through without one king after the first one is taken if it cannot be ensured through obvious inspection that the outcome is forced, making games even longer, and many strategies would change. This would be a very different game, and it's not clear it would be a very interesting one because of the disincentive for sacrificial tactics, positional damage in mating nets, and simple things like making valuable piece mates undesirable (a scholars mate would almost certainly be a draw, since you lose your queen in the process, giving black a huge material advantage). It would lose the metaphor that the king is the commander of the troops, and just generally have a whole different character. I'm not saying it isn't worth thinking about, but it's not chess and probably not something I'd be too interested in.
We already had this discussion on the forums:
We had this not only once. The general question is whether an absolutely pinned piece can deliver check. The answer to this question is yes. The rules could have been made differently ages ago, but they haven't.
You guys have entirely too much time on your hands.
Set up a -- "We Want New Chess Rules Group," and then knock yourselves out.
And contrary to what the fools are saying here, you CAN NOT checkmate with just a Rook. You need at least two pieces/pawns to checkmate. A Rook and a King can checkmate. Two Rooks can checkmate. A Queen and a Pawn (to protect the Queen) can checkmate. But a Rook can not checkmate alone.
Hello AJ414! My name is Magnus Carlsen, in case you been living in a Budest Temple, I am the world champion and I move my Knight and pronounce CHECK! My Knight attacks the King and now the King must move. When a Knight gives check, the King must move and if there no square for your King to move, then it is Checkmate! I win again! Yeah! I love chess and I love being the Chess Champion of the whole wide world! Yeah! Want to play again? Anyone?
Magnus is that really you? Wow the world champ! I always wanted to ask the chess champion a question!
Can you castle if your rook is attacked?
Ahhh the lovely, mundane stalemate...
I was told when young, however long ago that may have been, that chess is a gentleman's game. The king sends his forces out to do the work. When that game comes to a close, no matter how many pieces' lives have been lost on the board, the king is brought to a position where he can't get out of, and the game is then over. You shouldn't be so crude as to think of killing the king. He is merely shown that he is trapped, then it's over.
Why is it that a king cannot capture a pawn/piece protected only by pinned pawn/piece in front of the enemy king (rendering the protection useless. It seems like a more natural rule to ALLOW this. You all understand.. so if I capture with a king .. enemy king moves... now my king is in check. Am I crazy? What's the problem with that.. seems like a a more natural and interesting rule.