if you have something pinned in front of your opponents king, say a knight and you want to take something with your king but its protected by the piece that can't move can you take it? i know you would be moving into check but if the other piece can't move does it count as check?

No, you can't.

Originally posted by trevor33
if you have something pinned in front of your opponents king, say a knight and you want to take something with your king but its protected by the piece that can't move can you take it? i know you would be moving into check but if the other piece can't move does it count as check?

Originally posted by omulcusobolani
It still counts as a check so you can't take the piece.

The reason for this is that if the pinned piece were to move, your king would die before his would.

the object of chess is to capture your opponents king. if you move into check your opponent would capture your king and the game would end.

Originally posted by MikeOldehoff
if you move into check your opponent would capture your king and the game would end.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
if the pinned piece were to move, your king would die before his would.

There's a contradiction between those two answers and I think that's really what's upseting Trevor here.

1) if you move into check your opponent would capture your king

means that the oponent king will die by going into one of the square defended by the (pinned) knight

2) if the pinned piece were to move, your king would die before his would

Well no, because the first king to be in check position will be the one of the oponent again


I can perfectley understand that the pinned knight can't move no matter what, but still think that Trevor point out an illogical consequence of the rule. It would have been more logic that a pinned piece will automatically loose its zones of influences.

Just interesting, I thought

Sounds like the King against King problem to me. you cannot chack the enemy King with yours... By not allowing the King to move into check a lot of ambiguity is resolved.

Btw I know of people who play by a differnt set of rules, which boil down to allow the King to move into check or to stay there. Consequentyl the King may be taken enidng the game without checkmate.

But we are dealing with the standard variation here I presume.

Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
I like to think of it this way; If black moves his King where it would be checked by white's pinned piece, let's say it's a bishop here and it is currently pinned to it's King by black's rook then the pinned bishop would leap forward to smite the black King and soon as he is smited his whole army literally crumbles, becoming piles of dust on the battl ...[text shortened]... erise the white King because he and the rest of the black army would be just piles of dust.

Originally posted by Ponderable
Sounds like the King against King problem to me. you cannot chack the enemy King with yours...

Originally posted by Valmore
Played with a lot of people who didnt know that.

And it's just a very bad time then to explain the rule when it happens - lot of tension.

I always make sure that the en-passant and promotion of pawn is agreed, but usually forget to have that king checking king bit.

Originally posted by RahimK
Agreed??

What kind of people do you play with?

Originally posted by Valmore
All kind, all levels

The point being to avoid harsh feelings at the end of it.
It just for the fun anyway even if nobody likes to loose.

Signing a paper! That's extrem now. I surely dont take it that seriously.

There is a flip side to this. A king normaly can't castle through a check, but if the piece is pinned, it can. So it is odd that you can't sit your king on a square that would be check if the piece was unpinned. But that is chess and cest la vie.