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 Keplerbut following Qxb7 Kxb7 the bishop is no longer pinned.
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 KeplerKepler,
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
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 ElnoreWhich bits didn't you want?
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
1 edit
Originally posted by schakuhrIt 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.
but following Qxb7 Kxb7 the bishop is no longer pinned.
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 EladarPrecisely. 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.
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.