Originally posted by o0obruceleeo0oActually, KingOnPoint was more accurate. The piece taking the protected piece wouldn't necessarily cause check again.
Worded a little more clearly: As long as that piece is not protected (and thus putting himself in check again).
Originally posted by lauseyActually he wasn't more accurate.
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).
Originally posted by Bishopcrwthere are only ever 3 possible ways to remove check....(from a rook, bishop, pawn or Queen)
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]
Originally posted by techsouthahh.....Yes, you're right, which means I need to further edit my statement....
]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.
Originally posted by sixsigmaehhhh............it appears i shouldn't have removed the little remarks in the brackets -- I mentioned that first time round....
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.....