Pinned pieces & FIDE

White to move.. is Qxb7 mate by your reasoning?

Following the reasoning along it must be! The queen cannot be captured on b7 because it is protected by the rook. One might say the rook cannot protect the queen because it is pinned by the bishop. However, the bishop is pinned by another rook and therefore cannot pin the rook and thus the queen will be protected when it arrives on b7.

My head hurts. I can see why this variant of the rules was not the one chosen, too complicated to be practical.

Originally posted by Kepler
Following the reasoning along it must be! The queen cannot be captured on b7 because it is protected by the rook. One might say the rook cannot protect the queen because it is pinned by the bishop. However, the bishop is pinned by another rook and therefore cannot pin the rook and thus the queen will be protected when it arrives on b7.

My head hurts. I can see why this variant of the rules was not the one chosen, too complicated to be practical.

but following Qxb7 Kxb7 the bishop is no longer pinned.

Originally posted by schakuhr
but following Qxb7 Kxb7 the bishop is no longer pinned.

Even more complicated. It's enough to make one take up something simpler as a pastime. Proving the Riemann Hypothesis suddenly looks like an attractive proposition compared to this version of chess.

Originally posted by Kepler
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 c ...[text shortened]... not just a matter of "clarifying" FIDE's rules, the rules were in existence before FIDE was.E

Kepler,

If you would have kept to just your points in this instance, it would have been just pretty insightful and imaginative as far as I am concerned. I once found a friend in a traffic cop who I thought was going to put me in Jail,, but I wouldn't recommend going about it in that way.

Other than all that, I think this is just great.

Elnore

Originally posted by Elnore
Kepler,

If you would have kept to just your points in this instance, it would have been just pretty insightful and imaginative as far as I am concerned. I once found a friend in a traffic cop who I thought was going to put me in Jail,, but I wouldn't recommend going about it in that way.

Other than all that, I think this is just great.

Elnore

Which bits didn't you want?

Kepler,

I thought you were calling me an Ignoramus, Other than that assumption, nothing was objectionable.

Elnore

Originally posted by schakuhr
but following Qxb7 Kxb7 the bishop is no longer pinned.

It doesn't matter about the pin. The idea of immediate take comes into play. The king can not move into check, even if the piece is that woiuld be attacking the king is pinned. If he did, then the piece supporting the piece taken could take the king outright.

I've started a thread on this matter earlier and that's the rule that was stated. I've tried doing it (moving the king into a square attacked by a pinned piece) at FICS and the move was illegal.

Originally posted by Elnore
Kepler,

I thought you were calling me an Ignoramus, Other than that assumption, nothing was objectionable.

Elnore

No, Ignoramous is the title I choose to use for myself!

I think we should all go and have a nice cup of tea over this.

It makes for better chess.

I farted.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
I think we should all go and have a nice cup of tea over this.

It makes for better chess.

One cup of Lapsang Souchong plus one hot crossed bun. Very nice.

Originally posted by Kepler
No, Ignoramous is the title I choose to use for myself!

Sorry

Originally posted by schakuhr
[fen]k5bR/1p6/8/8/8/1R3Q2/K7/8[/fen]

White to move.. is Qxb7 mate by your reasoning?

Hello schakuhr,

Do you agree with:

Rh8xBg8+ Ka8, a7
Qf3xb7 mate

Elnore

Originally posted by Eladar
It doesn't matter about the pin. The idea of immediate take comes into play. The king can not move into check, even if the piece is that woiuld be attacking the king is pinned. If he did, then the piece supporting the piece taken could take the king outright.

I've started a thread on this matter earlier and that's the rule that was stated. I've tried ...[text shortened]... (moving the king into a square attacked by a pinned piece) at FICS and the move was illegal.

Precisely. I can't see why it's hard to understand. Under chess rules, the game ends the move before the king is taken. If a half move later, you capture your opponent's king leaving your own king in check, your opponent's king is gone. The game is over. This is not a video game and you don't keep shooting bullets after you're dead.