In thinking about the original rules, philosophies, and common sense ideas behind chess, I was curious why pieces in pinned positions could still deliver check, assist in checkmating, or actually checkmating themselves. Take the situation below:
Thinking about the rules of chess in common sense terms, the white king could not take the queen because the bishop is guarding the queen...but the bishop can't really "guard" or "protect" the queen since he himself is pinned.
Does anyone else see what I am getting at and have any comments? Or am I just a rambling, imaginative wierdo? 😛
Originally posted by JusuhGotcha...makes more sense now...
Bishop is not pinned in that way. After Kxg1 Bxg1 its completely irrelevant that black king can also be captured, because white is already dead. You cant play without king. therefore white can not play Rxa8, and black king is fine.
Thanks
While we're on the subject, I've always thought the stalemate rule is illogical. The object of the game, as I see it, is to capture the king. In a stalemate, the side to move is in zugzwang and must lose his king (I don't think it's possible to have a stalemate where there are no moves which put your king in check - can anyone prove me wrong?). So he should lose, but in fact he draws.
But it's part of the game, and I think it makes the game more interesting, so I wouldn't want to change it. Lots of endings, especially pawn endings and rook endings, and of course the wrong bishop and rook's pawn, would be trivial wins rather than interesting challenges.
also pawns use to only be able to move once. so they sped up the game but letting pawns move up 2 spaces because of the e2 e6 e4 e5 players. although i feel that it gives the person an extra move if they go 2 spaces up and the opponent does not recapture. weird how the game evolved. also the queen only use to be able to move 1 square
Originally posted by d36366In the Chinese version of chess, those rules apply. When in stalemate, it means you lose. The one who can invoke stalemate wins.
In a stalemate, the side to move is in zugzwang and must lose his king (I don't think it's possible to have a stalemate where there are no moves which put your king in check - can anyone prove me wrong?). So he should lose, but in fact he draws.
Rather interesting game, Chinese Chess, only hard to understand all those symbols🙂
Essentially checkmate is the move prededing a capture of the king, so that if chess were played as normal, except it ended with the capture of one king, it would be very much the same same (possible exception of handling stalemate).
The purpose of setting up stalemate is to force the stronger side to play more carefully, and give the weaker side a goal to shoot for. This makes for a more interesting game, although I believe "Stalemate loses" is probably more logical.
In looking back, I think it probably works better as a more careful game, as that extends the tension of the game which for me enhances enjoyment and makes it a better game.
If what I hear is true about pawn moves (and I believe that it is) then en passant was probably a balanced way of handling a new and unique capture problem, by allowing it to be captured "in passing" in the event it tried to slip past a square guarded by an enemy pawn. I can imagine the discussion on setting up en passant were interesting, with ideas ranging from omitting the rule entirely, to extending it to any piece attacking the square being passed through.
Anyone know anything about the development of "castling"?
Originally posted by geepamoogleIt waqs made to promote an earlier safer king and to activate one of the rook earlier too. At first the king moved like a knight, then he could move two sapces and then the rook move was incorporated too. The real story is a little bit more long but this is was it went basically.
Essentially checkmate is the move prededing a capture of the king, so that if chess were played as normal, except it ended with the capture of one king, it would be very much the same same (possible exception of handling stalemate).
The purpose of setting up stalemate is to force the stronger side to play more carefully, and give the weaker side a goa ...[text shortened]... square being passed through.
Anyone know anything about the development of "castling"?
Originally posted by PeakiteNeat, thanks. You learn something new every day. In my view, that really should be a draw.
And another
[fen]4n1NK/4PkPR/5P1P/8/8/8/8/8[/fen]
New challenge - can you design such a position which looks plausible from real play?
Although I must admit that, even in this example, in real play Ne8 (if that was the last move) definitely looks like black's best.
Any plausible stalemate position will have at least a 99.9% chance of either the king being able to move into check, or a friendly piece moving out of the pathway of an enemy, and thus removing themselves as the sole attack blocker and putting the king in check.
What makes any potential no-move-stalemate implausible is the pawn structure required to block in the king and any allied pieces, especially given that the pawn movements also have to be blocked as well, while leaving enemy pieces immune to capture.
The pawns are necessary because they are the only pieces which cannot reverse their moves.