Chess Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for serious players and enthusiasts of chess. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The title says it. Reading up on how to describe the position of a board, all of the requirements make sense (like two kings not being on adjacent squares and so on) except for the active color being in check. Why isn't that allowed? What is the rationale behind this?

share|improve this question
I'm not sure what you intend with the phrase "active color", but I would guess you mean the side which currently has the move. Is that right? Because if so, it's a requirement that the side without the move not be in check in order to have a legal position; the side with the move can of course be in check. – ETD Nov 13 '12 at 5:48
I wrote something about this, there are two rules 1)non-active is not in check, 2)active is checked less than 3 times, and in the case of two checks, it must never be pawn+(pawn, bishop, knight), bishop+bishop, knight+knight – ajax333221 Nov 13 '12 at 17:26
up vote 5 down vote accepted

The active color (i.e. the color which has the next move) is allowed to be in check, and as ajax points out, at most twice.

But perhaps you meant the inactive color not being allowed to be in check. Why is that? The answer is: if the inactive color is in check, it would mean that at least the last move by the inactive color was illegal, allowing its own King to remain in or be exposed to check.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.