4

This question already has an answer here:

Black was in a position to take a white bishop with the king. The white bishop was protected by a white knight. However, if the white knight was moved it would expose the white king to the black queen.

Thus, is the king actually in check if the attacking piece (white knight) cannot be moved?
Or, Can the king move into check if the attacking piece (white knight) cannot move?

Thank you.

marked as duplicate by Tom Au, yrodro, Zistoloen, Niklas, Daniel Oct 18 '13 at 3:50

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • See a similar question here. – dfan Oct 15 '13 at 19:08
  • One way to reason out such situations is as follows. Earlier in history,killing the opponents king was considered to be the victory. Hence as per this rule, technically, a player has won the game if he has killed the opponent's king and the game ends there. It does not matter that the player's own king could have been killed in the next move. Today, in contemporary chess, checkmate is considered an elegant way to end the game. But the same reasoning applies. – guru Oct 15 '13 at 19:29
5

Still considered in check. FIDE handbook from the WCF website.

3.9
The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.

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