why can't a king capture a piece protected by a pinned piece

Now, I already know this rule, but I never understood the way you explained it. It is just absolute nonsense, this rule is based on a situation where the game of chess has different rules, that being no illegal moves. How does that prove anything? "If you change the rules then white's king would be captured first, so in the actual rules a king can't capture a piece who's defender is in an absolute pin! Get it?" It is no longer the game of chess I'd there are no illegal moves, it is a different game; so how exactly is that a good reference in this scenario? How is that logical? It's not, it is absurd.

ThrillerFan wrote:

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.

I'd like to add that having control on a square, and moving to it, are two different things ! (BTW, a piece never controls the square on which it stands).

The pinned piece isn't allowed to move, but it still has control on some squares.

"A King cannot move into check." 

Or you (effectively) change the rules of Chess.

How simple-minded do you need it explained ??  Yikes.

i was stuck on a chess puzzle and then i saw this. thanks y'all for helping me! 

I believe the rule is that a king cannot move into  a position where it can be captured.  If a king moves into a position that is protected by a piece that is pinned to the king, that piece cannot legally  capture the king.  Therefore I think that this should be allowed.

While I understand your argument, the response to the topic question could simply be "Because the FIDE rules said it so" (a piece controls a square even if it cannot capture on its own) and be done with it.

The hypothetical situation assumes we do not have the rule "walking into check is illegal" and therefore all capturing of king is a win (let's exclude stalemates for this purpose).

Now, we are at the FIDE meeting and discuss improvement of the rules. Since many games are lost when letting the king be captured accidentally, we declare taking the king and walking into check illegal and giving the player just a small punishment (2 mins, etc). That introduces the concept of absolute pin (a piece has no legal moves due to the pin on the king), but a pinned piece still controls a given square.

Therefore, the situation(s) on provided diagrams did not strategically change - just that instead of a move being basically the worst move in the position, it is "only" illegal.

Not being able to move the king when an attacking piece is trapped is like saying you can't ride your horse across the battlefield because up on the hill there's a soldier tied to the stake and after they execute him, the queen is next. 

I think we should be able to ride the horse, but some archaic rule says no.

Wait, what? I have a hard time understanding what piece represent what character in your tale.

On the other hand, the rule is completely obvious and simple. You can't move into check. And that's it. It's not complicated.

Why isn’t my Mother my Dad. Why isn’t my Brother my Sister. Dumb thread. Stalemate.

but for him to attack he has to break the initial rule which keeps him there at that spot