Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 12 Jun '16 03:19
    If the piece putting the king in checkmate moving would put his own king in check. Is that even possible?
  2. Subscriber BigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    12 Jun '16 05:57
    Originally posted by MilkyJoe
    If the piece putting the king in checkmate moving would put his own king in check. Is that even possible?
    no bro
  3. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    12 Jun '16 12:08 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by MilkyJoe
    If the piece putting the king in checkmate moving would put his own king in check. Is that even possible?
    The idea is when you move a piece to check the opponent king and it exposes your king to a check, it is then the opponents move and if it were allowed, he would just remove your king since it takes another move on your part to do the same to the opponent so game over.

    So they just say, no can do senior, you can't do something, make any kind of move, that ends up with your own king in check.
  4. 12 Jun '16 13:56
    I don't mean moving a piece to put your opponent in checkmate puts you in check, but when in a checkmate, the piece that could capture the king couldn't take the king without putting himself in check.
  5. Subscriber Ragwort
    Ex Duris Gloria
    12 Jun '16 16:04
    Originally posted by MilkyJoe
    I don't mean moving a piece to put your opponent in checkmate puts you in check, but when in a checkmate, the piece that could capture the king couldn't take the king without putting himself in check.
    Checkmate ends the game so anything that could happen after it is irrelevant.
  6. 12 Jun '16 17:03 / 1 edit
  7. Standard member vivify
    rain
    12 Jun '16 19:06 / 3 edits
    I understand what Joe means. It does seem like chess has loopholes. I started a thread a while back with this position:



    White is checkmated; however, the logic seems off. If white captures the knight being guarded by black's king, black would then have to capture the king by traveling into check. This makes no sense, since stalemate is based on the idea that the king can't travel into check. But then again white can't travel into check in the first place (to capture the knight), so it evens out.
  8. 12 Jun '16 21:12
    Originally posted by vivify
    I understand what Joe means. It does seem like chess has loopholes. I started a thread a while back with this position:

    [fen]8/8/7b/8/3PPn2/4K1r1/R2n1N2/2k5 w - - 0 1[/fen]

    White is checkmated; however, the logic seems off. If white captures the knight being guarded by black's king, black would then have to capture the king by traveling into check. ...[text shortened]... again white can't travel into check in the first place (to capture the knight), so it evens out.
    How is taking the white king with the black rook 'moving into check'?
  9. 12 Jun '16 21:41
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    The idea is when you move a piece to check the opponent king and it exposes your king to a check, it is then the opponents move and if it were allowed, he would just remove your king since it takes another move on your part to do the same to the opponent so game over.

    So they just say, no can do senior, you can't do something, make any kind of move, that ends up with your own king in check.
    In other words, instead of checkmate ending the game, pretend that you have to take the opponent's king to win.

    The fact that it is illegal to take (kill) the opponent's king is creating the issue here. If killing a king wasn't so looked down on when Chess rules came into being I think modern players wouldn't be so confused.
  10. Standard member vivify
    rain
    13 Jun '16 08:55
    Originally posted by Eladar
    How is taking the white king with the black rook 'moving into check'?
    Huh? I never mentioned the rook.
  11. Subscriber BigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    13 Jun '16 18:48
    Originally posted by vivify
    I understand what Joe means. It does seem like chess has loopholes. I started a thread a while back with this position:

    [fen]8/8/7b/8/3PPn2/4K1r1/R2n1N2/2k5 w - - 0 1[/fen]

    White is checkmated; however, the logic seems off. If white captures the knight being guarded by black's king, black would then have to capture the king by traveling into check. ...[text shortened]... again white can't travel into check in the first place (to capture the knight), so it evens out.
    It makes perfect sense. White's King would die first in a free-for-all with king-capturing allowed, so white can't take the N on d2.
  12. 13 Jun '16 23:22
    Originally posted by vivify
    Huh? I never mentioned the rook.
    Why? Did you miss it or did you simply choose to ignore the win?
  13. 13 Jun '16 23:43
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    It makes perfect sense. White's King would die first in a free-for-all with king-capturing allowed, so white can't take the N on d2.
    Not if you choose to ignore the winning move so that you can say you have a point.
  14. Subscriber BigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    14 Jun '16 06:26
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Not if you choose to ignore the winning move so that you can say you have a point.
    Say what?
  15. Subscriber Benjamin Barker
    Demon Barber
    14 Jun '16 07:03 / 2 edits
    I'm confused by this whole thread?

    You can't expose yourself to check and both Kings can never occupy adjacent squares as this would mean travelling into check.

    That's the crux of it surely?