Originally posted by TippedKingI would recomend not betting your life on a game of chess.
Originally posted by tazjr
[b]Can I checkmate my opponent if in doing so will put my own King in check?
Think about it more intuitively and it will make more sense. Your goal in the game is to protect your king and to kill your opponent's king before he does the same to you.
If you mate him by putting your king in check, then your oppo ...[text shortened]... e other king. You would be dead and it wouldn't matter that he would be dead on the next move.[/b]
Originally posted by BowmannI realize the English language used in England isn't exactly the same as what is used in the US, but I am quite sure my description was clear to most of the English speaking world. If you need more clarification, which apparently you do, then try this:
What the fu*k are you talking about?
In this totally fictitious position, if it is white's move he could Qg8 and the black king would be mated, but black's next turn would be Rxa1 and white's king would be removed from the board.
That is why you cannot move into check to checkmate your opponent. Doing so guarantees you will lose.
2 edits
Yes, actually what TippedKing is saying is vitally important when you're playing three-way chess: in three-way chess the victor is the first to mate, as in normal, two-way chess, but scenarios often emerge where one faction inadvertently helps a second faction to mate the third - in those instances the only way of deciding victory is to allot it to the player in a mating position whose next turn would occur, because he would have the power to remove the third player's king from the board. Actually, if chess was really democratic, it would be played through to the King's removal. Why should he be treated any differently to any other piece or pawn?
Okay, I may be about as terse as Polonius, but I think TK's point is germane.