Originally posted by MilkyJoeThe 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.
If the piece putting the king in checkmate moving would put his own king in check. Is that even possible?
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.
12 Jun 16
Originally posted by MilkyJoeCheckmate ends the game so anything that could happen after it is irrelevant.
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.
12 Jun 16
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.
12 Jun 16
Originally posted by vivifyHow is taking the white king with the black rook 'moving into check'?
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.
12 Jun 16
Originally posted by sonhouseIn other words, instead of checkmate ending the game, pretend that you have to take the opponent's king to win.
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.
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.
13 Jun 16
Originally posted by vivifyIt 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.
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.
