Pinned pieces & FIDE

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

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

Hello again,schakuhr,

If Qxb7+ Ka8xQb7 (with Rb3 pinned), Rb3 cannot break free of rules preventing exposing its King, and preventing capture of a King. Then if Rh8xBg8 there is the discovered check on Black's King, and Black moves its King out of check.
Thanks,

Elnore

Hello Eladar,

How may we find your thread?

Thanks,

Elnore

Originally posted by Elnore
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

Rule 3.1 that you quoted specifically says otherwise.

As for whether the influence is 'undue' - do we really want a game in which Kings flaunt direct attacks:


Black to play

1...Kd5 mate(?)

It seems very odd that Black should win this game with a single attack on White's King, whilst 5 pieces are aimed at his King.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Rule 3.1 that you quoted specifically says otherwise.

As for whether the influence is 'undue' - do we really want a game in which Kings flaunt direct attacks:

[fen]2r4b/2N5/1P6/q3k3/1N6/rBK2Q1r/1PPR4/2n1b3 w - - 0 1[/fen]
Black to play

1...Kd5 mate(?)

It seems very odd that Black should win this game with a single attack on White's King, whilst 5 pieces are aimed at his King.

SwissGambit,

Black to move, in this case Rh3xQf3+
Kc3,c4 Ke5,e4
b6, b7 Rc8xNc7 mate
but I agree that your Kd5 mate makes sense, and the rules that say otherwise, don't.

Elnore

Originally posted by Elnore
SwissGambit,

Black to move, in this case Rh3xQf3+
Kc3,c4 Ke5,e4
b6, b7 Rc8xNc7 mate
but I agree that your Kd5 mate makes sense, and the rules that say otherwise, don't.

Elnore

Obviously, I cannot play for White. By not allowing for suddenly unpinned pieces its suddenly not what I worked out. Anyway, I am now up to "take 5" with the first four for Black already and no broken rules as far as I can see. I asked a friend here to also look at this.

Elnore

I can't find the thread I created earlier. The search feature on this site isn't very efficient.

In any case, the rule in chess is that a king can't move into check, even if the piece that would be attacking the king is pinned. It isn't a FIDE rule, it is a chess rule.

If you'd like, we can play an unrated game and let you see that this site follows that rule too.

Eladar,

Thanks for the clarification, Chess/FIDE. I expect that all chess algorithms have their logic set this way because it is written into the rules this way. My view is that a King cannot be in check by a piece not able to get there.

I don't know what an unmated game is, but if you can set it up that would be fine.

Thanks,

Elnore

Sorry, Eladar,

I think you wrote "unrated" game.

That would be ok, at least we both know the rule exists now.

Elnore

As I said earlier, the rule is perfectly reasonable if you think about the need to have the king on the board. If you move your king into check, then even a pinned piece can take your king before you can take your opponent's king.

The fact that a pinned piece can't move is predicated on the idea that you can't put your king into check at all. The reason for that would be if the pinned piece moved, your king would be taken after you moved the pinned piece.

Originally posted by Eladar
As I said earlier, the rule is perfectly reasonable if you think about the need to have the king on the board. If you move your king into check, then even a pinned piece can take your king before you can take your opponent's king.

The fact that a pinned piece can't move is predicated on the idea that you can't put your king into check at all. The reason ...[text shortened]... ould be if the pinned piece moved, your king would be taken after you moved the pinned piece.

The problem is in seeing a pinned piece as able to establish a check. A check requires being able to carry out the attack on the next move and would only require the other color's avoiding the threat or not on its move. If not, the game ends at that point.

No piece is ever under attack by a piece pinned to its King. In the case of a King, without the possibility of a next move by the pinned piece, the King is not in check.

The fact that a King is never captured, only threatened, is a reality of play. Arguments that include capture of a King are not valid.

Elnore

The reason the king is never captured is because you are not allowed to have it attacked by anything. Until that concept sinks in and you have your "ah ha" moment, this will continue to puzzle you.

The conept of a pin and the concept that the king can never be put into the check are part of the exact same concept.

Originally posted by Elnore
SwissGambit,
but I agree that your Kd5 mate makes sense, and the rules that say otherwise, don't.

Elnore

OK now I'm confused. How come in SwissGambit's example you agree the king can give mate but in my example you say it's a draw? 🙄

Originally posted by KneeCaps
OK now I'm confused. How come in SwissGambit's example you agree the king can give mate but in my example you say it's a draw? 🙄

Hi KneeCaps,

Actually I misread your email, took it to be Black's move and that had to be to c8 and a draw (at least I believe it would). Since you really asked about White's move I can see:
Ra7,c7 KB8,a8
Rc7,c8 mate

On SwissGambit's example, the King just moved out of its Bishop's way.

Elnore

actually - all of these arguments are totally besides the point until we have defined what the meaning of "is" is.

Thanks to everyone who respond to this issue,

The rules that I am refuting, don't belong in the game of Chess. Pieces that are pinned to keep their King from being in check, are already doing what's necessary to keep the game from being over. They can,t do anything to restrict the other color's movements other than standing in the way of check.

The only rebuttals the original posting received, actually involve breaking (at least) two cardinal rules, exposing their King to check, and worse, breaking the rule that the King is never captured. Without these 2 rules, it would not be the game of Chess we know.

Elnore