03 Jan '09 23:04>
If a board consists of White: Ke1, Bc4, & Ne5, and Black: Kg8, pawn f7, & Re8. White moves Bc4xf7+. Common sense allows Black to move Kg8xBf7. However at present, FIDE incorrectly concludes that Ne6, which cannot move, has the same influence in the game as if it could move.
To wit:
" 3.1 A piece is considered to attack a square, even if such a piece is constrained from moving to that square because it would then leave or place the king of its own colour under attack."
" 3.9 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 are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check...."
This contradicts 1.2, which defines legal play as "1.2...Leaving one's own king under attack, exposing one's own king to attack and also 'capturing' the opponent's king are not allowed," This is a lot more concise wording than the word "constrained", easily an unfortunate occurrence.
Additionally unfortunately, 3.9 above contradicts itself as well here: "3.9... No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check." There is no way such a piece legally constrained from moving is able to put a King in check at that time. A piece that cannot move to a square has no influence on that square and this accounts for what a chess game is throughout.
Additionally, since a piece that cannot move, will not be moved ( a fortunate agreement ) . Instead, a logical play on White's next move could relieve Ne6 of blocking the attack on Ke1, and one possible legal outcome could be then a discovered attack on Kg8 which Black could move away from to continue play. This would avoid a breach of 7.4a, " If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent's king, has been completed...."
Whatever it takes to resolve this properly in the Rules and especially in International play agreement would be welcome.
To wit:
" 3.1 A piece is considered to attack a square, even if such a piece is constrained from moving to that square because it would then leave or place the king of its own colour under attack."
" 3.9 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 are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check...."
This contradicts 1.2, which defines legal play as "1.2...Leaving one's own king under attack, exposing one's own king to attack and also 'capturing' the opponent's king are not allowed," This is a lot more concise wording than the word "constrained", easily an unfortunate occurrence.
Additionally unfortunately, 3.9 above contradicts itself as well here: "3.9... No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check." There is no way such a piece legally constrained from moving is able to put a King in check at that time. A piece that cannot move to a square has no influence on that square and this accounts for what a chess game is throughout.
Additionally, since a piece that cannot move, will not be moved ( a fortunate agreement ) . Instead, a logical play on White's next move could relieve Ne6 of blocking the attack on Ke1, and one possible legal outcome could be then a discovered attack on Kg8 which Black could move away from to continue play. This would avoid a breach of 7.4a, " If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent's king, has been completed...."
Whatever it takes to resolve this properly in the Rules and especially in International play agreement would be welcome.