An interesting point - perhaps this is a better example.
1.Qxg7 Kxg7(!) 2.Rxg7 Rxf2 draw.
I wonder if when the rules of the game as we know it today were being
written up by the Spainiards in the 15th century, did they consider a
pinned piece in situations like the one above.
Yes the Black King has been taken but White has had an extra move.
If we allow Black to have the same number of moves as White,
which is only fair, then this sequence of play would be legal.
So in the above position if you swap the colours then.
Black to play
1....Qxg7+ 2.Kxg7 Rxg7 is game over. Black wins.
This is based on the (new rule) that Black must have the same
number of moves as White.
So in certain positions White would draw because he moved first.
Black would win because he moved second.
I wonder how close we were to the above situation being legal
because someone thought it only fair that the second player in chess
must be allowed to have the same number of moves as the firsst player.