Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 18 Apr '06 02:42
    Can a king knock out the the peice that is checking him?
  2. 18 Apr '06 02:49
    Yes as long as he doesn't put himself in check again.
  3. 18 Apr '06 03:34
    Originally posted by KingOnPoint
    Yes as long as he doesn't put himself in check again.
    Worded a little more clearly: As long as that piece is not protected (and thus putting himself in check again).
  4. 18 Apr '06 12:09
    Originally posted by o0obruceleeo0o
    Worded a little more clearly: As long as that piece is not protected (and thus putting himself in check again).
    Actually, KingOnPoint was more accurate. The piece taking the protected piece wouldn't necessarily cause check again.

    There is also the discovered check, where moving the piece which is knocking out the other piece would reveal another check (hence not making it possible).
  5. 18 Apr '06 18:34
    Originally posted by lausey
    Actually, KingOnPoint was more accurate. The piece taking the protected piece wouldn't necessarily cause check again.

    There is also the discovered check, where moving the piece which is knocking out the other piece would reveal another check (hence not making it possible).
    Actually he wasn't more accurate.
    This thread was not about taking the protecting piece. It is about the King taking a threatening piece.
    Don't thread jack.

    Some other thoughts.

    The King can never take a N that is threatening check.
    Due to the space between them.
    Obviously same for other peices supplying check from afar.

    If the King is in double check he obvously will not be able to kill both pieces that are threatening check. One of them perhaps.
  6. 19 Apr '06 18:55
    Originally posted by Bishopcrw
    If the King is in double check he obvously will not be able to kill both pieces that are threatening check. One of them perhaps.[/b]
    there are only ever 3 possible ways to remove check....(from a rook, bishop, pawn or Queen)

    evade - (Move king)
    obstruct - (place peices in front of)
    Capture - (self explanatory)


    Knight checks can only be evaded or captured (with another peice)


    Double checks can only be defended by moveing the king.....you cannot capture two pieces simaltaneouly, nor can you obstruct both checks in 1 move....

    I cannot think of a signle example where a King can capture in double check (from ones of the checking peices anyway)
  7. 20 Apr '06 02:31
    Originally posted by Tinneydude
    Can a king knock out the the peice that is checking him?
    No, but he may capture a piece, or a pawn.
  8. 20 Apr '06 17:15
    Originally posted by Shinidoki

    I cannot think of a signle example where a King can capture in double check (from ones of the checking peices anyway)


    Perhaps I misunderstand, but how about this.

    Black K on g8, White Bishop on g6, White Rook on g1.

    White plays Bh7+, Black plays Kxh7.
  9. 21 Apr '06 14:33
    Originally posted by techsouth
    ]Perhaps I misunderstand, but how about this.

    Black K on g8, White Bishop on g6, White Rook on g1.

    White plays Bh7+, Black plays Kxh7.
    ahh.....Yes, you're right, which means I need to further edit my statement....


    "I cannot think of a single example where a King can capture in double check...unless one of the pieces delivers a "contact check"

    I was considering positions like: -

    B@b3
    R@c4

    K[Black} @e6

    In which, it is impossible to double check and drop one of the peices (in the current position)
  10. 22 Apr '06 00:03
    Or, the king captures a non-checking piece, evading both checks....

    e.g. K checked by a N (by move) and a B (discovered) and captures the blockaded pawn in front of it.....
  11. 22 Apr '06 01:40
    Originally posted by sixsigma
    Or, the king captures a non-checking piece, evading both checks....

    e.g. K checked by a N (by move) and a B (discovered) and captures the blockaded pawn in front of it.....
    ehhhh............it appears i shouldn't have removed the little remarks in the brackets -- I mentioned that first time round....