Timeline for Can a piece pinned to my king put the opponent's king in check?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 10, 2016 at 20:27 | comment | added | dfan | @AricFowler I did not know that the term "checkless chess" was already used with a different meaning. Feel free to substitute some other term such as "chess without check" everywhere I say "checkless chess". | |
| Aug 10, 2016 at 15:08 | comment | added | Aric | I think you misunderstand the concept of checkless chess. According to the wikipedia article: "Checkless Chess (or prohibition chess) is a chess variant where neither player is allowed to give a check, with the exception of checkmate." link In checkless chess therefore, Bishop to C6 is illegal, and so is Rook to G2. | |
| Dec 27, 2015 at 14:26 | comment | added | ferit | I was about to write exactly your answer, then see your answer. Best explanation. +1 | |
| Oct 11, 2014 at 15:22 | comment | added | supercat | @LorenPechtel: Even in blitz chess, a player who would have no move other than to enter check would be entitled to a draw unless his clock fell before his last move and the opponent called attention to it before punching his clock. | |
| May 4, 2013 at 23:37 | comment | added | Loren Pechtel | You don't need to imagine "checkless chess" as that's how every high speed game I've played has been handled--check means nothing, the game ends with the capture of the king. It's crazy when everyone watching sees a check that neither player notices for multiple moves! | |
| May 4, 2013 at 22:11 | comment | added | Daniel | +1 Basically, the point is that your theoretical capture of his king would end the game before (just before) he is able to capture yours. So if he was allowed to leave his King in check by your pinned rook, you would win. | |
| May 4, 2013 at 19:14 | vote | accept | ken | ||
| May 4, 2013 at 19:14 | |||||
| May 4, 2013 at 19:14 | comment | added | ken | Thank you very much! I have only been playing a short while and still have much to learn. | |
| May 4, 2013 at 19:11 | comment | added | dfan | In a real "with check" game, the definition of "check" is that the king is attacked by a piece, not that the piece could legally move to the square that the king is on. My "checkless chess" example was intended to illustrate why this definition makes sense. | |
| May 4, 2013 at 19:07 | comment | added | ken | Thank you for the response, and it makes sense in a "checkless" context, but given that moving my rook would be illegal, I am still unclear as to why he was in check in a real "with check" game. I wouldn't be able to move Rg3 for example, so why would I be allowed to move Rxg8 given the normal rules? | |
| May 4, 2013 at 18:56 | history | answered | dfan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |