The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.

Hot answers tagged

72

Yes, you can, as long as the king doesn't pass through or end up on an attacked square. From FIDE Laws of Chess: The right to castle has been lost: if the king has already moved, or with a rook that has already moved. Castling is prevented temporarily: if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the ...


51

It is not a question of ethics, but more about being courteous. Chess is a game where it is impossible to separate the joy of the game from the competitiveness/ego aspect so by declaring a forced win in N moves, you are effectively asking your opponent to resign immediately even though he hasn't seen the forced win yet owing to his lesser faculties/skill ...


42

Yes. Besides making sense, it's also explicitly stated in the rules of the game: 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 ...


41

Yes, if the rook is threatened, you may still castle. The threatened squares rule only applies to squares where the king passes (starting and final position included). For example, in the case of white castling queenside, for instance, a threat to a1 or b1 does not prevent the castle from taking place.


31

Really interesting question. I think the following shows that such a situation is sort of possible, depending on how you define the pin: [StartFlipped "0"] [FEN "7k/4p3/8/2KP3r/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"] 1... e5 and 2. dxe6 is illegal. The check would go from being stopped by both pawns, to being stopped by neither.


30

Can a piece put a king in check even though moving that piece would be an illegal move? Yes. One way to see why this makes sense is to imagine "checkless chess", a game that is just like chess, but you win by capturing the king, not by delivering checkmate, and no one is forced to move out of check. This game is exactly the same as chess except that it ...


27

The majority of the users find that insulting. Is it really insulting to [...] I can answer the question based on this excerpt alone. The answer is yes.


23

I can think of two questions you might be meaning to ask, given the wording of your question. Maybe neither of these is what you're after, but just in case: 1. Is it possible to castle out of check or even checkmate? Here the answer is no. If your king is in check, then castling is not a legal move. 2. Is it possible to castle while checkmating your ...


22

There are three ways to get out of check. Simply move the king away. Block the check, or place a piece in between the king and the opponent's attacking piece. Capture the piece that's checking the king. All of these cases are dependent on the fact that immediately after you make your move, the king is not in check. Therefore, you may capture the queen ...


22

In a tournament game, you are not supposed to speak at all other than to offer a draw or adjust a piece. This includes saying check. This tends to seep into casual games among more experienced players (I haven't said check in years). For players that do not compete in tournaments at all, I don't think that there is any obligation to point it out. When ...


21

One nice example of this is in this game, where a player named Feuer takes advantage of the ability to castle queenside while b1 is attacked to play a beautiful combination.


21

Double check is a fine tactic. An example would be a bishop lined up on the same diagonal as the king with a rook or knight in the way blocking the check. The rook or knight moves giving check to the king and also uncovering the check from the bishop. The king must move since there is no way to block two different lines or take two different pieces at the ...


20

The rules are that the king can't castle into check, through check, or when in check. This applies to the king's square, plus the two squares to the right or left. Castling is permitted when the rook is under attack (on the rook's square). On the queen side, that would also include the knight's square. But not on the kingside, because the king would be ...


19

You can find some examples in the following game collection: Games where check is answered with checkmate. Among those games, Nigel Short vs Alexander Morozevich, Russia - The Rest of the World (2002) is the only one that meets the qualification top players. This was a rapid game. The most entertaining example is the following: [FEN ""] [Event "...


18

Here's a preliminary answer to where such a belief about chess pawns could possibly have come from. In the Japanese variant Shogi, in which an opponent's captured pieces may be placed onto the board as one's own, it is not legal to place down a pawn that gives immediate checkmate. It's still perfectly legal to drop a pawn that gives check though (and to ...


17

You can move your other piece to make your queen attack the king in a normal position such as: 4r3/8/8/2QB1k2/p5q1/3K4/8/8 w - - 0 1 1.Bf3+**[Discovered-Check] (1.Be4+**[Double-check]) But you are forbidden to do so if the piece you move will put your own king in check, such as: 3r4/8/8/2QB1k2/p5q1/3K4/8/8 w - - 0 1 1.Bf3**[illegal-move] Here both ...


15

Yes, of course he can; you're indeed in check. Imagine if checks didn't exist--then on the next move, if your king hasn't moved, he could just take your king with his rook.


15

There is a rules in chess called Threefold repetition rule. This rule states that you can claim a draw if you are about to repeat the the position for a third time. This subsumes a situation called perpetual check which also leads to a draw. So what you did in your game wasn't a case of extortion or abusing a flaw in the game - it was completely by the ...


14

I would say this is not only insulting but unethical. Chess is a game that is intended to be a test of thought and concentration. It is unfair for a player to disrupt his opponents thought processes by drawing attention to any particular line of play as it may distract him from pursuing his intended strategy. Now you may think that the play is forced from ...


13

I have never heard this before... A pawn can check and also mate. http://chess.about.com/od/tipsforbeginners/ss/BasicCheckmates_7.htm http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/beutiful-pawn-mate http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/solid-pawn-mate


12

What you are describing is Perpetual Check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_check It is covered in the rules of chess and the result of such a game is a draw. It is up to your opponent to try and avoid this situation if he thinks he can win. Conversely, if you might lose you should try to get into some kind of draw situation to avoid a loss. ...


11

The king can capture the enemy queen, as long that does not place it in check from another piece.


11

Hi David and welcome to chess.stackexchange.com. This is a common question. It's illegal to move a king into check, or to leave it in check. This includes moving a king adjacent to the opposing king. If you have no legal moves then the game is over: if your king is in check then you are checkmated and you have lost, otherwise you are stalemated and the ...


10

I don't think that this is very polite nor common. If they are playing so poorly that they don't see the checkmate coming, telling this isn't very helpful for them. They still don't know how to counteract against moves that you are planning to do, so they only become more stressed and probably angry with you, too. Because it's looking like sneering at them - ...


10

I guess I've never seen this behavior myself, but while I was reading the question I remembered that, many years ago, when I still read chess books (you know, the ones printed on paper), I read more than once something like "and (put the name of a famous ancient player here) announced mate in 5". Actually, if you google for "announce mate chess", it seems it ...


10

Kd2 is indeed illegal. You can think of it this way: normally Black can't move his knight because White would "capture his king", but if White were able to play Kd2 then Black would capture White's king before White got a chance to capture his.


10

Triple check is impossible, unless you want to count an x-ray attack as the third check. A queen and rook attacking on the same file is normally thought to be one check.


10

Per FIDE Chess Laws, rule 3.1, a piece is said to attack an opponent’s piece if the player’s piece can make a capture on that square (and in one more special case not relevant here). In full: It is not permitted to move a piece to a square occupied by a piece of the same colour. If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece the latter is ...


9

The FIDE Laws of Chess say: 3.8 There are two different ways of moving the king: by moving to any adjoining square not attacked by one or more of the opponent’s pieces ... 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 ...


9

When it is your opponent's turn to move and none of your opponent's pieces can move other than his king, and if the king moves or captures your piece, it will be under check, then this type of position is called as stalemate and the result will be a draw. Few Examples: Simple one with just 3 pieces on Board (Black To Move): Here, Black king has nowhere ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible