#### Only Chess Forum

1. 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.
2. 03 Jan '09 23:18
Elnore, I don't see the slightest problem with the wording of any of these rules. They do not contradict one another.

Anyone else?
3. 04 Jan '09 01:10
Originally posted by streetfighter
[b]Elnore, I don't see the slightest problem with the wording of any of these rules. They do not contradict one another.[b]
ditto
4. 04 Jan '09 01:30
Elnore, in the only game you have played here Game 5814540 you were up a Q+B+p and had an unstoppable mate on your next move. Why did you agree to a draw?
5. 04 Jan '09 02:13
Monty,

My goal actually is to arrive at a stalemate, or a draw, but I'm not good enough to usually cause a stalemate. The draw is something I can offer to a better opponent in some circumstances.

Thanks, Monty,

Elnore
6. 04 Jan '09 02:21
Originally posted by Elnore
Monty,

My goal actually is to arrive at a stalemate, or a draw, but I'm not good enough to usually cause a stalemate. The draw is something I can offer to a better opponent in some circumstances.

Thanks, Monty,

Elnore
Why don't you want to win?
7. 04 Jan '09 02:23
Streetfighter, and all,

I wouldn't cede any undue influence to a piece legally and physically bound to one square. Access is what enables pieces to cause attacks.

Thanks,

Elnore
8. 04 Jan '09 02:33
Nortlys (my screen resolution is too small to read every letter accurately, If I have your name not correctly, I'm sorry)

Actually, I don't like to lose either, playing too aggressively for me turned-out to be a problem, I couldn't see as much of the situation I was in to avoid mistakes. Not that this eliminates mistakes for me, I just enjoy the games more.

Thanks,

Elnore
9. 04 Jan '09 08:29
Originally posted by Elnore
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 ...[text shortened]... the Rules and especially in International play agreement would be welcome.
Elnore, I think you're forgetting why it's illegal to move into check or leave yourself in check in the first place. The reason you can't move into ckeck is because on your opponent's next turn he could capture your king and the game would be over. In your example, if you moved the black king to f7 then the white knight could simply capture the king, ending the game. It wouldn't matter that the white king is now exposed to check because the game is over.
10. 04 Jan '09 11:30
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.
11. 04 Jan '09 12:20
Hmm. How about this... if we use Elnore's interpretation of the rules then in the following position the black king would have no influence over the b7 square allowing the white king to move in

white to move Kb7#!!
A king delivering checkmate!
12. 05 Jan '09 15:50
Originally posted by KneeCaps
Elnore, I think you're forgetting why it's illegal to move into check or leave yourself in check in the first place. The reason you can't move into ckeck is because on your opponent's next turn he could capture your king and the game would be over. In your example, if you moved the black king to f7 then the white knight could simply capture the king, endi ...[text shortened]... . It wouldn't matter that the white king is now exposed to check because the game is over.
Hi KneeCaps,
I agree that the rules and actual play don't allow moving into check, as you say, but until the other color's piece is free to move, the King is not ever in check. A really important aspect of Chess is that the King is not allowed to be captured. To that end, even pieces that are not the King, are safe from capture by a piece pinned to their King and unable to move off their own square.

In my case, my King has no threat on it when it takes White's Bishop. White's next move would have to be to free their Knight from its pin for it to be an actual threat. Upon that discovered check on my Black King, my move at that time would be to try to move out of the check, In a situation where this would then not be possible, the game would be over as it would be checkmate. The White Knight can not move for any reason as long as its moving would expose the White King to check. The White Knight is prevented from posing a threat until White first moves to free it somehow, which takes-up ithe next move.
Thank you, Elnore
13. 05 Jan '09 15:57
Originally posted by KneeCaps
Hmm. How about this... if we use Elnore's interpretation of the rules then in the following position the black king would have no influence over the b7 square allowing the white king to move in

[fen]1k6/R7/1K6/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 3 57[/fen]

white to move Kb7#!!
A king delivering checkmate!
KneeCaps,
Actually I agree with you that the Black King cannot move in that way, But neither can the White King.This would seem to be a not uncommon draw,
Thanks,
Elnore
14.  Kepler
Demon Duck
05 Jan '09 15:59
By your reasoning one way to get out of check would be to pin the piece giving check. That would presumably also apply to checkmate. If you pin the piece giving the check then checkmate has not happened.

That would be an interesting variant of the rules by which chess has been played for a few hundred years. Unfortunately those are not the rules by which chess is played. This is not just a matter of "clarifying" FIDE's rules, the rules were in existence before FIDE was.
15. 05 Jan '09 16:55
Hello greenpawn34,

Quite an example, and thank you for the timely perspective of centuries and translation considerations. In the event QxNg7, rule 1.2, preventing Rf7 from moving from its pin, should have allowed Kh8xQg7. I think the game would maybe then continue Rf7, f3 Black whatever, to a draw. The rules say the King is never captured, it would be illegal to do so, I say that "...a piece that is constrained from moving...can create a check on another square....", is wrong because it contradicts everything else about chess, and that including it in the rules now, isn't doing us any favors.

Thanks,
Elnore
,