Ok here is my question, lets say that someone puts me in check with his/her queen or any other piece for that matter, and I in turn block the check with my knight or any other piece and at the same time I put him in check with the knight. Is that still considered a check and my opponent has to move his king? My collegue argues that it is not a check and he does not have to move his king since I would not be able to take his king with my knight the next move because it would be an illegal move since that would put me back in check. As far as i remembered I know that it is still a check but i don't know how to prove that it is, if someone would be able to provide me with a copy of the rules that address this issues or an explanation of the rule I would appreciate it.
Peter
Yeah that's what I thought but now I know for sure. The only problem I got is that my partner wants it written on paper, in the official rules and he don't believe me unless he sees it. Would anyone happen to have a copy of the rules in a PDF or any other format??
Peter
Originally posted by tygrysekLook in the FIDE 'laws of chess' at
Yeah that's what I thought but now I know for sure. The only problem I got is that my partner wants it written on paper, in the official rules and he don't believe me unless he sees it. Would anyone happen to have a copy of the rules in a PDF or any other format??
Peter
http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101
in 'Article 3: The moves of the pieces'
"
3.8 b. The king is said to be 'in check', if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if
such pieces cannot themselves move.
"
That last sentence should suffice to convince your partner.
Mephisto.