Why can't you endanger your king to a pinned piece?

I understand that it is illegal to put your king in check, but if a piece is pinned then your king technically isn't in danger, and when that piece is unpinned it will just give a check. Why is this against chess's rules?

https://youtu.be/pFGj4ylBSjw

If you think of the rules slightly differently where King Capture is allowed, whose king will get "captured" first. I find this as a good way to interpret this rule.

@MagnusCarlson202020212022

You don't understand, since the piece is pinned, you're not putting yourself in check. The piece cannot move and therefore cannot capture your king. As soon as your opponent moves his king to unpin his piece, then you will be put in check. That's how it should work.....

Yes, you are putting yourself in check. No one ever actually captures the king in chess. When a position is reached where your king CAN be captured, that is checkmate. Putting your king where it can be captured is the same as the king committing suicide--you lose. The only reason the pinned piece cannot move is that it would let you capture his king, but should that piece capture your king, the game would be over and you could not capture his king.

They really should allow the capture of the king end the game.

If it was legal for YOU to put your own King in check (by moving your King into the pinned piece's line-of-fire) then it would ALSO be legal for HIM to put his own King in check (by capturing your King).

There is no "should." The rules are meant to make a good game, not be intuitive to beginners.

... and that's the real answer. But if you need help remembering, then you can think of it like which king will be captured first, as someone already mentioned.

This is one of the most common questions asked by beginners. They expect that a pinned piece to lose not only the power to move off a pin-line, but also the power to check. Losing both powers is actually possible as a chess variant, and this idea – called "superpins" – is explored in some chess compositions. The ironic thing is that such a special rule gives rise to a whole bunch of complicated tactical effects that a beginner is unlikely to foresee. See this blog that examines such effects, along with two mate-in-2 problems that demonstrate them.

Superpins – What if pinned pieces don’t check?

You will be technically playing 2 moves in 1 turn which is illegal

Here's something which helps, a pinned piece can be used as support for checkmate

So let's say that your pinned bishop supports your queen in delivering mate, if your opponent captures your queen then the pinned bishop will capture the opponent's king first

Think of it in this way, whichever side captures the opposite king first wins

My guy everyone keeps saying this, the damn piece is pinned lmao

No, no it would not "technically be able to capture first" because it's pinned!

It doesn't have to be 2 moves in 1 turn. Example: White queen pins black bishop. Black does something irrelevant to our situation (e.g. advances a pawn) and then you can move your king into the line-of-fire of that pinned black bishop. Since it is pinned, it cannot capture your king, thus it is not check. As soon as the black king moves unpinning his bishop, you will then be checked

Have you ever thought that maybe chess just isn't your game?

bro if u just tryna answer a legit question with toxic energy then keep scrolling bud

Not trying to be toxic, just pointing out if you can't grasp a simple rule then maybe you should try a different game like Connect 4, tic tac toe?

I can grasp it, but I think it is illogical. Everyone else responded to my debate positively trying to change my opinion, and you come in here just to mock me. It's not my fault your parents broke up and your father walked out, don't bring that here

If you can grasp it, then surely you see why it makes sense within the rules of the game.

There is no definition of "danger" in chess rules but there is a definition of "check" and it doesn't say anything about the piece being pinned. So the pinned piece still delivers a check. That's it.

If you think it's "illogical", try to find some arguments please.