Originally posted by o0obruceleeo0o Worded a little more clearly: As long as that piece is not protected (and thus putting himself in check again).
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 lausey 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).
Actually he wasn't more accurate.
This thread was not about taking the protecting piece. It is about the King taking a threatening piece.
Don't thread jack.
Some other thoughts.
The King can never take a N that is threatening check.
Due to the space between them.
Obviously same for other peices supplying check from afar.
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.
Originally posted by Bishopcrw 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]
there are only ever 3 possible ways to remove check....(from a rook, bishop, pawn or Queen)
evade - (Move king)
obstruct - (place peices in front of)
Capture - (self explanatory)
Knight checks can only be evaded or captured (with another peice)
Double checks can only be defended by moveing the king.....you cannot capture two pieces simaltaneouly, nor can you obstruct both checks in 1 move....
I cannot think of a signle example where a King can capture in double check (from ones of the checking peices anyway)