Take a look at the position below:
- 8
- a
- 7
- b
- 6
- c
- 5
- d
- 4
- e
- 3
- f
- 2
- g
- 1
- h
According to the rules, the king can't capture the knight because of the king; however, black's king would have to move directly into check in order capture the king. Isn't this a loophole to the whole "no putting your king in check" thing?
-4
3 edits
Originally posted by vivifyIf the king took the knight, the black king takes the white king off the board and white does not get another move, so end of game. So they just say you can't move into check. Period. It would be the same for the king taking EITHER knight, the bishop gets you one way, the opponent king gets you the other way. So its mate, pure and simple.
Take a look at the position below:
[pgn][Date "????.??.??"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "8/8/7b/8/3PPn2/4K1r1/R2n1N2/2k5 w - - 0 1"]
{ According to the rules, the king can't capture the knight because of the king; however, black's king would have to move directly into check in order capture the king. Isn't this a loophole to the whole "no putting your king in check" thing? }
*[/pgn]
Originally posted by vivifyIf white's king will die first, he can't do it. It's that simple.
Take a look at the position below:
[pgn][Date "????.??.??"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "8/8/7b/8/3PPn2/4K1r1/R2n1N2/2k5 w - - 0 1"]
{ According to the rules, the king can't capture the knight because of the king; however, black's king would have to move directly into check in order capture the king. Isn't this a loophole to the whole "no putting your king in check" thing? }
*[/pgn]