Can other pieces capture a threatening piece and prevent a checkmate?Is it possible to position all chess pieces on the board such that all pieces defend at least one piece and attack at least one piece?Can a king capture an opposing queen?Can a pawn move to the last line in chess as part of a promotion even if the square is blocked by an opponent's piece?Was the blind chess match between Sherlock Holmes and James Moriarty in the movie Game of Shadows real/plausible?What is the appropriate way to snipe a king that castles through check?What is this game, played with chess board and pieces, but with totally different rules?Chesscademy exercise: material part 2 - why doesn't this move result in a 2 point material lead?Help with the rules of checkmateAre there any chess sets with more than 32 pieces?In chess, how many times can a piece be attacked at once?

Giving feedback to someone without sounding prejudiced

Why is it that I can sometimes guess the next note?

Dative vs Accusative

Why is so much work done on numerical verification of the Riemann Hypothesis?

risk of flooding in petra in november

Can I cause damage to electrical appliances by unplugging them when they are turned on?

Why can't the Brexit deadlock in the UK parliament be solved with a plurality vote?

Why is the Sun approximated as a black body at ~ 5800 K?

How do I fix the group tension caused by my character stealing and possibly killing without provocation?

Is this toilet slogan correct usage of the English language?

What (the heck) is a Super Worm Equinox Moon?

Why does Carol not get rid of the Kree symbol on her suit when she changes its colours?

Delete multiple columns using awk or sed

How to create a paid keyvalue store

When were female captains banned from Starfleet?

This is why we puzzle

How to convince somebody that he is fit for something else, but not this job?

xxx we would have made had we used xxx, what is had used for?

Taxes on Dividends in a Roth IRA

What is the difference between lands and mana?

What's the name of the logical fallacy where a debater extends a statement far beyond the original statement to make it true?

Is there a nicer/politer/more positive alternative for "negates"?

What is Cash Advance APR?

How to make money from a browser who sees 5 seconds into the future of any web page?



Can other pieces capture a threatening piece and prevent a checkmate?


Is it possible to position all chess pieces on the board such that all pieces defend at least one piece and attack at least one piece?Can a king capture an opposing queen?Can a pawn move to the last line in chess as part of a promotion even if the square is blocked by an opponent's piece?Was the blind chess match between Sherlock Holmes and James Moriarty in the movie Game of Shadows real/plausible?What is the appropriate way to snipe a king that castles through check?What is this game, played with chess board and pieces, but with totally different rules?Chesscademy exercise: material part 2 - why doesn't this move result in a 2 point material lead?Help with the rules of checkmateAre there any chess sets with more than 32 pieces?In chess, how many times can a piece be attacked at once?













15















Total beginner here. I have a board setup that an app I'm using to learn described as a "checkmate" -- see below (the white pawn just moved below the rook and is threatening the king):



enter image description here



If I were playing black, I know I cannot capture the pawn with the king, as I would placing my king in check.



But: Why can't I use the rook or the queen (right next to the threatening pawn) to capture the pawn and get out of the check?



For example:



  1. Keep the king where it is.

  2. Use the rook to capture the threatening pawn.









share|improve this question









New contributor




lesssugar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 18





    Note that there is a specific Stack Exchange site for Chess.

    – David Richerby
    Mar 17 at 17:27






  • 10





    Chess is also a boardgame and we welcome these questions here.

    – Pat Ludwig
    Mar 18 at 4:34















15















Total beginner here. I have a board setup that an app I'm using to learn described as a "checkmate" -- see below (the white pawn just moved below the rook and is threatening the king):



enter image description here



If I were playing black, I know I cannot capture the pawn with the king, as I would placing my king in check.



But: Why can't I use the rook or the queen (right next to the threatening pawn) to capture the pawn and get out of the check?



For example:



  1. Keep the king where it is.

  2. Use the rook to capture the threatening pawn.









share|improve this question









New contributor




lesssugar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 18





    Note that there is a specific Stack Exchange site for Chess.

    – David Richerby
    Mar 17 at 17:27






  • 10





    Chess is also a boardgame and we welcome these questions here.

    – Pat Ludwig
    Mar 18 at 4:34













15












15








15








Total beginner here. I have a board setup that an app I'm using to learn described as a "checkmate" -- see below (the white pawn just moved below the rook and is threatening the king):



enter image description here



If I were playing black, I know I cannot capture the pawn with the king, as I would placing my king in check.



But: Why can't I use the rook or the queen (right next to the threatening pawn) to capture the pawn and get out of the check?



For example:



  1. Keep the king where it is.

  2. Use the rook to capture the threatening pawn.









share|improve this question









New contributor




lesssugar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












Total beginner here. I have a board setup that an app I'm using to learn described as a "checkmate" -- see below (the white pawn just moved below the rook and is threatening the king):



enter image description here



If I were playing black, I know I cannot capture the pawn with the king, as I would placing my king in check.



But: Why can't I use the rook or the queen (right next to the threatening pawn) to capture the pawn and get out of the check?



For example:



  1. Keep the king where it is.

  2. Use the rook to capture the threatening pawn.






chess






share|improve this question









New contributor




lesssugar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




lesssugar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 17 at 16:55









Zags

6,73731560




6,73731560






New contributor




lesssugar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Mar 17 at 15:15









lesssugarlesssugar

18116




18116




New contributor




lesssugar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





lesssugar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






lesssugar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 18





    Note that there is a specific Stack Exchange site for Chess.

    – David Richerby
    Mar 17 at 17:27






  • 10





    Chess is also a boardgame and we welcome these questions here.

    – Pat Ludwig
    Mar 18 at 4:34












  • 18





    Note that there is a specific Stack Exchange site for Chess.

    – David Richerby
    Mar 17 at 17:27






  • 10





    Chess is also a boardgame and we welcome these questions here.

    – Pat Ludwig
    Mar 18 at 4:34







18




18





Note that there is a specific Stack Exchange site for Chess.

– David Richerby
Mar 17 at 17:27





Note that there is a specific Stack Exchange site for Chess.

– David Richerby
Mar 17 at 17:27




10




10





Chess is also a boardgame and we welcome these questions here.

– Pat Ludwig
Mar 18 at 4:34





Chess is also a boardgame and we welcome these questions here.

– Pat Ludwig
Mar 18 at 4:34










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















45














Yes, you can capture the attacking piece with any one of your pieces, as long as you get out of the check.



But in this case, the king is also attacked by the rook. So, you are checkmate.






share|improve this answer




















  • 9





    The real question is how did you get into this situation. I almost think the rook was already there but the both of you missed it. By the way, I like it that you try to learn this game.

    – Toon Krijthe
    Mar 17 at 15:27











  • These are simulated cases ;) I'm using a free Android app called "Chess Tactics Pro" which consists of chess "puzzles" on 3 different levels of difficulty. The case I described in this post is level "easy", puzzle no. 14. The idea here was to end the game in a single move.

    – lesssugar
    Mar 17 at 15:31






  • 16





    @ToonKrijthe presumably the pawn got to where it is by capturing a piece (although why it wasn't captured before that point I can't explain )

    – Arcanist Lupus
    Mar 17 at 16:35






  • 10





    The position would make some sort of sense if the pawn was previously on g6 and captured something on f7. Black pxg6 on the previous move doesn't fix the problem, since if white retakes with the rook on g1, either black will soon lose his queen or white can play qh5.

    – alephzero
    Mar 17 at 18:53







  • 1





    @PeterA.Schneider You do not want to play until the king is captured because it muddles a key rule of chess: You are forced to move your king out of check and into a safe position if possible. By introducing this new rule, you allow moves that may be otherwise illegal, such as moving the king in to danger or failing to escape from check. It does nothing to clarify the rules for beginners, but would actually introduce further confusion.

    – Master_Yogurt
    2 days ago



















27














This is called a double check. You're checked by both the pawn and the rook. Blocking, or capturing with a piece other than the king would only deal with one of those problems, so the only ways to deal with double check are to capture with the king (which you can't, here, because the pawn is protected) or to move the king some other way (which you can't, because both squares you could move to are covered by the bishop).



Double checks are very powerful, because they can only be dealt with by moving the king, and you don't have to cover much to prevent the king from being able to do that.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




David Richerby is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 1





    Capturing with the king moves it, so I wouldn't consider those separate options.

    – jpmc26
    Mar 18 at 11:25






  • 5





    @jpmc26 I they're distinct enough to be worth a separate mention, even though one is a special case of the other.

    – David Richerby
    Mar 18 at 11:50











  • I'm not disputing that. However, the important aspect of the capture is the fact that it moves the King to a safe location. I think that wording it as a separate option de-emphasizes this fact, which reduces the clarity of the answer. I was suggesting being more explicit about the relationship between the two.

    – jpmc26
    Mar 18 at 16:09











  • @jpmc26 OK -- I've edited to "capture with the king [...] or move the king some other way."

    – David Richerby
    Mar 18 at 16:21






  • 3





    Worth noting, I think, that "double check" is not a special concept in the rules of chess. It's rather a useful name players have come up with to describe a situation that falls out of other rules. If the king is attacked by two pieces at once, either it is checkmate or the king must be moved. This is not because there is any specific rule about what to do in double check, but simply because we can show that any other choice would be illegal, based on the usual rules about check.

    – amalloy
    Mar 19 at 0:03



















3














enter image description here



I've marked up this board a bit to show why this is checkmate, showing all the attacks that make it one. Lets go through them one by one:



  • The pawn - The black king is currently in check by the white pawn on the diagonal. The king would need to move away, or the pawn be taken to remove this.

  • The rook - The black king is in check because of the white rook at the bottom of the same column. The king would have to move out of that column, another piece would need to block, or the rook be taken to remove that check.

  • The bishop - The black king can't move into the corner to get out of check because the white bishop is threatening that square.

  • The knight - The black king can't take the pawn to get out of check by the rook and pawn because the knight is threatening that square.

There's no single move here that will get the king out of check. If the pawn is taken by another piece, the rook is still holding the king in check. If the king moves to the corner, out of check by the rook and pawn, he is now in check by the bishop and if the king takes the pawn, moving out of check from the rook at the same time he is in check by the knight.






share|improve this answer
































    1














    There are three ways to get out of check (including checkmate). You can...



    1. Run away

    2. Block the check

    3. Capture the checking piece

    There are two checks here (pawn and rook). If the king runs to either empty square, the bishop (and in one case, the rook) can capture. If the king captures the pawn, the knight can capture. That takes away #1.



    You can block the rook check (with the queen or bishop) but not the pawn check. That takes care of #2.



    You can capture the pawn (with the rook or queen or king), but you can't capture the rook, so that takes care of #3.



    So, it is checkmate.



    If the white pawn wasn't checking, or if the white knight couldn't recapture, it wouldn't be checkmate (you could block the check or take the pawn with the king). If the white rook wasn't checking, it wouldn't be checkmate (take the pawn with the rook or queen). It takes both checks in this case to produce checkmate.



    This is a rather complicated checkmate. In my experience, most beginners would not be able to understand it, nor would they be able to find the move that produced it (the pawn capturing something to give check, which also produces a discovered check with the rook). Don't give up on the game because the app gave you a rather nasty position. Most real life chess is simpler than that.






    share|improve this answer






























      0














      For total beginners, it may be best to play chess without checks and just play to capture the king. Whoever captures the king first wins, even if your king is being threatened.



      I say this because it is difficult to understand check at first and playing until the king is dead is the same as playing chess regularly, except if you were to miss a move that kills the king or someone accidentally puts themselves into check on their move.



      In this case, there is no place the king can go or capture that won't be captured next move. King takes pawn, knight takes king. King moves to long black diagonal, bishop takes king, Something else attacks pawn, rook takes king. Something blocks rook, pawn takes king.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      Kaiwen Chen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.















      • 9





        That's not how blitz (or rapidplay) is played under the FIDE (international) rules. Rule 7.4a explicitly lists "capturing the opponent's king" as an illegal move and requires the position to be set back to what it was before the illegal move was made. Neither Appendix A (rapidplay) nor Appendix B (blitz) countermands that. In fact, by rule B3c, if you take my king, that is an illegal move and you have forfeit the game. What you should have done is pointed out my illegal move (leaving my king in check) so that I would forfeit.

        – David Richerby
        Mar 18 at 16:31






      • 1





        While this may not be how chess really works, I also find that, when I coach chess and have beginners (especially kids, but not only kids), the concept of capturing the king does make a lot more sense to them. I do mention that the game stops before the king is captured, but when they ask me if it is checkmate, we look at every possible move to see if the king gets captured or not, and the kids then decide if it is checkmate or not.

        – Guy Schalnat
        2 days ago











      • @GuySchalnat I absolutely agree that it's a useful simplification for beginners; unfortunately, this answer claims more than that.

        – David Richerby
        2 days ago











      • @DavidRicherby The answer does claim more than that, but he is a new poster here (and on other stack exchange sites), so I'm being nice. Besides, he's a better chess player than I am, and while I can help beginners by simplifying the game, once the question gets too far advanced, it is up to better chess players than I to answer, so I want to encourage him to stick around

        – Guy Schalnat
        2 days ago











      • Kaiwen, your second point was better than the first, and deserves to stand on its own. You may want to edit your answer and cross out the first point so future readers don't get confused, and let the second point be the main point of the answer.

        – Guy Schalnat
        2 days ago










      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "147"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );






      lesssugar is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f45537%2fcan-other-pieces-capture-a-threatening-piece-and-prevent-a-checkmate%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      45














      Yes, you can capture the attacking piece with any one of your pieces, as long as you get out of the check.



      But in this case, the king is also attacked by the rook. So, you are checkmate.






      share|improve this answer




















      • 9





        The real question is how did you get into this situation. I almost think the rook was already there but the both of you missed it. By the way, I like it that you try to learn this game.

        – Toon Krijthe
        Mar 17 at 15:27











      • These are simulated cases ;) I'm using a free Android app called "Chess Tactics Pro" which consists of chess "puzzles" on 3 different levels of difficulty. The case I described in this post is level "easy", puzzle no. 14. The idea here was to end the game in a single move.

        – lesssugar
        Mar 17 at 15:31






      • 16





        @ToonKrijthe presumably the pawn got to where it is by capturing a piece (although why it wasn't captured before that point I can't explain )

        – Arcanist Lupus
        Mar 17 at 16:35






      • 10





        The position would make some sort of sense if the pawn was previously on g6 and captured something on f7. Black pxg6 on the previous move doesn't fix the problem, since if white retakes with the rook on g1, either black will soon lose his queen or white can play qh5.

        – alephzero
        Mar 17 at 18:53







      • 1





        @PeterA.Schneider You do not want to play until the king is captured because it muddles a key rule of chess: You are forced to move your king out of check and into a safe position if possible. By introducing this new rule, you allow moves that may be otherwise illegal, such as moving the king in to danger or failing to escape from check. It does nothing to clarify the rules for beginners, but would actually introduce further confusion.

        – Master_Yogurt
        2 days ago
















      45














      Yes, you can capture the attacking piece with any one of your pieces, as long as you get out of the check.



      But in this case, the king is also attacked by the rook. So, you are checkmate.






      share|improve this answer




















      • 9





        The real question is how did you get into this situation. I almost think the rook was already there but the both of you missed it. By the way, I like it that you try to learn this game.

        – Toon Krijthe
        Mar 17 at 15:27











      • These are simulated cases ;) I'm using a free Android app called "Chess Tactics Pro" which consists of chess "puzzles" on 3 different levels of difficulty. The case I described in this post is level "easy", puzzle no. 14. The idea here was to end the game in a single move.

        – lesssugar
        Mar 17 at 15:31






      • 16





        @ToonKrijthe presumably the pawn got to where it is by capturing a piece (although why it wasn't captured before that point I can't explain )

        – Arcanist Lupus
        Mar 17 at 16:35






      • 10





        The position would make some sort of sense if the pawn was previously on g6 and captured something on f7. Black pxg6 on the previous move doesn't fix the problem, since if white retakes with the rook on g1, either black will soon lose his queen or white can play qh5.

        – alephzero
        Mar 17 at 18:53







      • 1





        @PeterA.Schneider You do not want to play until the king is captured because it muddles a key rule of chess: You are forced to move your king out of check and into a safe position if possible. By introducing this new rule, you allow moves that may be otherwise illegal, such as moving the king in to danger or failing to escape from check. It does nothing to clarify the rules for beginners, but would actually introduce further confusion.

        – Master_Yogurt
        2 days ago














      45












      45








      45







      Yes, you can capture the attacking piece with any one of your pieces, as long as you get out of the check.



      But in this case, the king is also attacked by the rook. So, you are checkmate.






      share|improve this answer















      Yes, you can capture the attacking piece with any one of your pieces, as long as you get out of the check.



      But in this case, the king is also attacked by the rook. So, you are checkmate.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Mar 17 at 17:52









      ikegami

      40.6k366138




      40.6k366138










      answered Mar 17 at 15:18









      Toon KrijtheToon Krijthe

      7,28543849




      7,28543849







      • 9





        The real question is how did you get into this situation. I almost think the rook was already there but the both of you missed it. By the way, I like it that you try to learn this game.

        – Toon Krijthe
        Mar 17 at 15:27











      • These are simulated cases ;) I'm using a free Android app called "Chess Tactics Pro" which consists of chess "puzzles" on 3 different levels of difficulty. The case I described in this post is level "easy", puzzle no. 14. The idea here was to end the game in a single move.

        – lesssugar
        Mar 17 at 15:31






      • 16





        @ToonKrijthe presumably the pawn got to where it is by capturing a piece (although why it wasn't captured before that point I can't explain )

        – Arcanist Lupus
        Mar 17 at 16:35






      • 10





        The position would make some sort of sense if the pawn was previously on g6 and captured something on f7. Black pxg6 on the previous move doesn't fix the problem, since if white retakes with the rook on g1, either black will soon lose his queen or white can play qh5.

        – alephzero
        Mar 17 at 18:53







      • 1





        @PeterA.Schneider You do not want to play until the king is captured because it muddles a key rule of chess: You are forced to move your king out of check and into a safe position if possible. By introducing this new rule, you allow moves that may be otherwise illegal, such as moving the king in to danger or failing to escape from check. It does nothing to clarify the rules for beginners, but would actually introduce further confusion.

        – Master_Yogurt
        2 days ago













      • 9





        The real question is how did you get into this situation. I almost think the rook was already there but the both of you missed it. By the way, I like it that you try to learn this game.

        – Toon Krijthe
        Mar 17 at 15:27











      • These are simulated cases ;) I'm using a free Android app called "Chess Tactics Pro" which consists of chess "puzzles" on 3 different levels of difficulty. The case I described in this post is level "easy", puzzle no. 14. The idea here was to end the game in a single move.

        – lesssugar
        Mar 17 at 15:31






      • 16





        @ToonKrijthe presumably the pawn got to where it is by capturing a piece (although why it wasn't captured before that point I can't explain )

        – Arcanist Lupus
        Mar 17 at 16:35






      • 10





        The position would make some sort of sense if the pawn was previously on g6 and captured something on f7. Black pxg6 on the previous move doesn't fix the problem, since if white retakes with the rook on g1, either black will soon lose his queen or white can play qh5.

        – alephzero
        Mar 17 at 18:53







      • 1





        @PeterA.Schneider You do not want to play until the king is captured because it muddles a key rule of chess: You are forced to move your king out of check and into a safe position if possible. By introducing this new rule, you allow moves that may be otherwise illegal, such as moving the king in to danger or failing to escape from check. It does nothing to clarify the rules for beginners, but would actually introduce further confusion.

        – Master_Yogurt
        2 days ago








      9




      9





      The real question is how did you get into this situation. I almost think the rook was already there but the both of you missed it. By the way, I like it that you try to learn this game.

      – Toon Krijthe
      Mar 17 at 15:27





      The real question is how did you get into this situation. I almost think the rook was already there but the both of you missed it. By the way, I like it that you try to learn this game.

      – Toon Krijthe
      Mar 17 at 15:27













      These are simulated cases ;) I'm using a free Android app called "Chess Tactics Pro" which consists of chess "puzzles" on 3 different levels of difficulty. The case I described in this post is level "easy", puzzle no. 14. The idea here was to end the game in a single move.

      – lesssugar
      Mar 17 at 15:31





      These are simulated cases ;) I'm using a free Android app called "Chess Tactics Pro" which consists of chess "puzzles" on 3 different levels of difficulty. The case I described in this post is level "easy", puzzle no. 14. The idea here was to end the game in a single move.

      – lesssugar
      Mar 17 at 15:31




      16




      16





      @ToonKrijthe presumably the pawn got to where it is by capturing a piece (although why it wasn't captured before that point I can't explain )

      – Arcanist Lupus
      Mar 17 at 16:35





      @ToonKrijthe presumably the pawn got to where it is by capturing a piece (although why it wasn't captured before that point I can't explain )

      – Arcanist Lupus
      Mar 17 at 16:35




      10




      10





      The position would make some sort of sense if the pawn was previously on g6 and captured something on f7. Black pxg6 on the previous move doesn't fix the problem, since if white retakes with the rook on g1, either black will soon lose his queen or white can play qh5.

      – alephzero
      Mar 17 at 18:53






      The position would make some sort of sense if the pawn was previously on g6 and captured something on f7. Black pxg6 on the previous move doesn't fix the problem, since if white retakes with the rook on g1, either black will soon lose his queen or white can play qh5.

      – alephzero
      Mar 17 at 18:53





      1




      1





      @PeterA.Schneider You do not want to play until the king is captured because it muddles a key rule of chess: You are forced to move your king out of check and into a safe position if possible. By introducing this new rule, you allow moves that may be otherwise illegal, such as moving the king in to danger or failing to escape from check. It does nothing to clarify the rules for beginners, but would actually introduce further confusion.

      – Master_Yogurt
      2 days ago






      @PeterA.Schneider You do not want to play until the king is captured because it muddles a key rule of chess: You are forced to move your king out of check and into a safe position if possible. By introducing this new rule, you allow moves that may be otherwise illegal, such as moving the king in to danger or failing to escape from check. It does nothing to clarify the rules for beginners, but would actually introduce further confusion.

      – Master_Yogurt
      2 days ago












      27














      This is called a double check. You're checked by both the pawn and the rook. Blocking, or capturing with a piece other than the king would only deal with one of those problems, so the only ways to deal with double check are to capture with the king (which you can't, here, because the pawn is protected) or to move the king some other way (which you can't, because both squares you could move to are covered by the bishop).



      Double checks are very powerful, because they can only be dealt with by moving the king, and you don't have to cover much to prevent the king from being able to do that.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      David Richerby is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.















      • 1





        Capturing with the king moves it, so I wouldn't consider those separate options.

        – jpmc26
        Mar 18 at 11:25






      • 5





        @jpmc26 I they're distinct enough to be worth a separate mention, even though one is a special case of the other.

        – David Richerby
        Mar 18 at 11:50











      • I'm not disputing that. However, the important aspect of the capture is the fact that it moves the King to a safe location. I think that wording it as a separate option de-emphasizes this fact, which reduces the clarity of the answer. I was suggesting being more explicit about the relationship between the two.

        – jpmc26
        Mar 18 at 16:09











      • @jpmc26 OK -- I've edited to "capture with the king [...] or move the king some other way."

        – David Richerby
        Mar 18 at 16:21






      • 3





        Worth noting, I think, that "double check" is not a special concept in the rules of chess. It's rather a useful name players have come up with to describe a situation that falls out of other rules. If the king is attacked by two pieces at once, either it is checkmate or the king must be moved. This is not because there is any specific rule about what to do in double check, but simply because we can show that any other choice would be illegal, based on the usual rules about check.

        – amalloy
        Mar 19 at 0:03
















      27














      This is called a double check. You're checked by both the pawn and the rook. Blocking, or capturing with a piece other than the king would only deal with one of those problems, so the only ways to deal with double check are to capture with the king (which you can't, here, because the pawn is protected) or to move the king some other way (which you can't, because both squares you could move to are covered by the bishop).



      Double checks are very powerful, because they can only be dealt with by moving the king, and you don't have to cover much to prevent the king from being able to do that.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      David Richerby is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.















      • 1





        Capturing with the king moves it, so I wouldn't consider those separate options.

        – jpmc26
        Mar 18 at 11:25






      • 5





        @jpmc26 I they're distinct enough to be worth a separate mention, even though one is a special case of the other.

        – David Richerby
        Mar 18 at 11:50











      • I'm not disputing that. However, the important aspect of the capture is the fact that it moves the King to a safe location. I think that wording it as a separate option de-emphasizes this fact, which reduces the clarity of the answer. I was suggesting being more explicit about the relationship between the two.

        – jpmc26
        Mar 18 at 16:09











      • @jpmc26 OK -- I've edited to "capture with the king [...] or move the king some other way."

        – David Richerby
        Mar 18 at 16:21






      • 3





        Worth noting, I think, that "double check" is not a special concept in the rules of chess. It's rather a useful name players have come up with to describe a situation that falls out of other rules. If the king is attacked by two pieces at once, either it is checkmate or the king must be moved. This is not because there is any specific rule about what to do in double check, but simply because we can show that any other choice would be illegal, based on the usual rules about check.

        – amalloy
        Mar 19 at 0:03














      27












      27








      27







      This is called a double check. You're checked by both the pawn and the rook. Blocking, or capturing with a piece other than the king would only deal with one of those problems, so the only ways to deal with double check are to capture with the king (which you can't, here, because the pawn is protected) or to move the king some other way (which you can't, because both squares you could move to are covered by the bishop).



      Double checks are very powerful, because they can only be dealt with by moving the king, and you don't have to cover much to prevent the king from being able to do that.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      David Richerby is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.










      This is called a double check. You're checked by both the pawn and the rook. Blocking, or capturing with a piece other than the king would only deal with one of those problems, so the only ways to deal with double check are to capture with the king (which you can't, here, because the pawn is protected) or to move the king some other way (which you can't, because both squares you could move to are covered by the bishop).



      Double checks are very powerful, because they can only be dealt with by moving the king, and you don't have to cover much to prevent the king from being able to do that.







      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      David Richerby is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Mar 18 at 16:21





















      New contributor




      David Richerby is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      answered Mar 17 at 17:32









      David RicherbyDavid Richerby

      37015




      37015




      New contributor




      David Richerby is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      David Richerby is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      David Richerby is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.







      • 1





        Capturing with the king moves it, so I wouldn't consider those separate options.

        – jpmc26
        Mar 18 at 11:25






      • 5





        @jpmc26 I they're distinct enough to be worth a separate mention, even though one is a special case of the other.

        – David Richerby
        Mar 18 at 11:50











      • I'm not disputing that. However, the important aspect of the capture is the fact that it moves the King to a safe location. I think that wording it as a separate option de-emphasizes this fact, which reduces the clarity of the answer. I was suggesting being more explicit about the relationship between the two.

        – jpmc26
        Mar 18 at 16:09











      • @jpmc26 OK -- I've edited to "capture with the king [...] or move the king some other way."

        – David Richerby
        Mar 18 at 16:21






      • 3





        Worth noting, I think, that "double check" is not a special concept in the rules of chess. It's rather a useful name players have come up with to describe a situation that falls out of other rules. If the king is attacked by two pieces at once, either it is checkmate or the king must be moved. This is not because there is any specific rule about what to do in double check, but simply because we can show that any other choice would be illegal, based on the usual rules about check.

        – amalloy
        Mar 19 at 0:03













      • 1





        Capturing with the king moves it, so I wouldn't consider those separate options.

        – jpmc26
        Mar 18 at 11:25






      • 5





        @jpmc26 I they're distinct enough to be worth a separate mention, even though one is a special case of the other.

        – David Richerby
        Mar 18 at 11:50











      • I'm not disputing that. However, the important aspect of the capture is the fact that it moves the King to a safe location. I think that wording it as a separate option de-emphasizes this fact, which reduces the clarity of the answer. I was suggesting being more explicit about the relationship between the two.

        – jpmc26
        Mar 18 at 16:09











      • @jpmc26 OK -- I've edited to "capture with the king [...] or move the king some other way."

        – David Richerby
        Mar 18 at 16:21






      • 3





        Worth noting, I think, that "double check" is not a special concept in the rules of chess. It's rather a useful name players have come up with to describe a situation that falls out of other rules. If the king is attacked by two pieces at once, either it is checkmate or the king must be moved. This is not because there is any specific rule about what to do in double check, but simply because we can show that any other choice would be illegal, based on the usual rules about check.

        – amalloy
        Mar 19 at 0:03








      1




      1





      Capturing with the king moves it, so I wouldn't consider those separate options.

      – jpmc26
      Mar 18 at 11:25





      Capturing with the king moves it, so I wouldn't consider those separate options.

      – jpmc26
      Mar 18 at 11:25




      5




      5





      @jpmc26 I they're distinct enough to be worth a separate mention, even though one is a special case of the other.

      – David Richerby
      Mar 18 at 11:50





      @jpmc26 I they're distinct enough to be worth a separate mention, even though one is a special case of the other.

      – David Richerby
      Mar 18 at 11:50













      I'm not disputing that. However, the important aspect of the capture is the fact that it moves the King to a safe location. I think that wording it as a separate option de-emphasizes this fact, which reduces the clarity of the answer. I was suggesting being more explicit about the relationship between the two.

      – jpmc26
      Mar 18 at 16:09





      I'm not disputing that. However, the important aspect of the capture is the fact that it moves the King to a safe location. I think that wording it as a separate option de-emphasizes this fact, which reduces the clarity of the answer. I was suggesting being more explicit about the relationship between the two.

      – jpmc26
      Mar 18 at 16:09













      @jpmc26 OK -- I've edited to "capture with the king [...] or move the king some other way."

      – David Richerby
      Mar 18 at 16:21





      @jpmc26 OK -- I've edited to "capture with the king [...] or move the king some other way."

      – David Richerby
      Mar 18 at 16:21




      3




      3





      Worth noting, I think, that "double check" is not a special concept in the rules of chess. It's rather a useful name players have come up with to describe a situation that falls out of other rules. If the king is attacked by two pieces at once, either it is checkmate or the king must be moved. This is not because there is any specific rule about what to do in double check, but simply because we can show that any other choice would be illegal, based on the usual rules about check.

      – amalloy
      Mar 19 at 0:03






      Worth noting, I think, that "double check" is not a special concept in the rules of chess. It's rather a useful name players have come up with to describe a situation that falls out of other rules. If the king is attacked by two pieces at once, either it is checkmate or the king must be moved. This is not because there is any specific rule about what to do in double check, but simply because we can show that any other choice would be illegal, based on the usual rules about check.

      – amalloy
      Mar 19 at 0:03












      3














      enter image description here



      I've marked up this board a bit to show why this is checkmate, showing all the attacks that make it one. Lets go through them one by one:



      • The pawn - The black king is currently in check by the white pawn on the diagonal. The king would need to move away, or the pawn be taken to remove this.

      • The rook - The black king is in check because of the white rook at the bottom of the same column. The king would have to move out of that column, another piece would need to block, or the rook be taken to remove that check.

      • The bishop - The black king can't move into the corner to get out of check because the white bishop is threatening that square.

      • The knight - The black king can't take the pawn to get out of check by the rook and pawn because the knight is threatening that square.

      There's no single move here that will get the king out of check. If the pawn is taken by another piece, the rook is still holding the king in check. If the king moves to the corner, out of check by the rook and pawn, he is now in check by the bishop and if the king takes the pawn, moving out of check from the rook at the same time he is in check by the knight.






      share|improve this answer





























        3














        enter image description here



        I've marked up this board a bit to show why this is checkmate, showing all the attacks that make it one. Lets go through them one by one:



        • The pawn - The black king is currently in check by the white pawn on the diagonal. The king would need to move away, or the pawn be taken to remove this.

        • The rook - The black king is in check because of the white rook at the bottom of the same column. The king would have to move out of that column, another piece would need to block, or the rook be taken to remove that check.

        • The bishop - The black king can't move into the corner to get out of check because the white bishop is threatening that square.

        • The knight - The black king can't take the pawn to get out of check by the rook and pawn because the knight is threatening that square.

        There's no single move here that will get the king out of check. If the pawn is taken by another piece, the rook is still holding the king in check. If the king moves to the corner, out of check by the rook and pawn, he is now in check by the bishop and if the king takes the pawn, moving out of check from the rook at the same time he is in check by the knight.






        share|improve this answer



























          3












          3








          3







          enter image description here



          I've marked up this board a bit to show why this is checkmate, showing all the attacks that make it one. Lets go through them one by one:



          • The pawn - The black king is currently in check by the white pawn on the diagonal. The king would need to move away, or the pawn be taken to remove this.

          • The rook - The black king is in check because of the white rook at the bottom of the same column. The king would have to move out of that column, another piece would need to block, or the rook be taken to remove that check.

          • The bishop - The black king can't move into the corner to get out of check because the white bishop is threatening that square.

          • The knight - The black king can't take the pawn to get out of check by the rook and pawn because the knight is threatening that square.

          There's no single move here that will get the king out of check. If the pawn is taken by another piece, the rook is still holding the king in check. If the king moves to the corner, out of check by the rook and pawn, he is now in check by the bishop and if the king takes the pawn, moving out of check from the rook at the same time he is in check by the knight.






          share|improve this answer















          enter image description here



          I've marked up this board a bit to show why this is checkmate, showing all the attacks that make it one. Lets go through them one by one:



          • The pawn - The black king is currently in check by the white pawn on the diagonal. The king would need to move away, or the pawn be taken to remove this.

          • The rook - The black king is in check because of the white rook at the bottom of the same column. The king would have to move out of that column, another piece would need to block, or the rook be taken to remove that check.

          • The bishop - The black king can't move into the corner to get out of check because the white bishop is threatening that square.

          • The knight - The black king can't take the pawn to get out of check by the rook and pawn because the knight is threatening that square.

          There's no single move here that will get the king out of check. If the pawn is taken by another piece, the rook is still holding the king in check. If the king moves to the corner, out of check by the rook and pawn, he is now in check by the bishop and if the king takes the pawn, moving out of check from the rook at the same time he is in check by the knight.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 18 hours ago

























          answered 2 days ago









          AndrewAndrew

          5,7851839




          5,7851839





















              1














              There are three ways to get out of check (including checkmate). You can...



              1. Run away

              2. Block the check

              3. Capture the checking piece

              There are two checks here (pawn and rook). If the king runs to either empty square, the bishop (and in one case, the rook) can capture. If the king captures the pawn, the knight can capture. That takes away #1.



              You can block the rook check (with the queen or bishop) but not the pawn check. That takes care of #2.



              You can capture the pawn (with the rook or queen or king), but you can't capture the rook, so that takes care of #3.



              So, it is checkmate.



              If the white pawn wasn't checking, or if the white knight couldn't recapture, it wouldn't be checkmate (you could block the check or take the pawn with the king). If the white rook wasn't checking, it wouldn't be checkmate (take the pawn with the rook or queen). It takes both checks in this case to produce checkmate.



              This is a rather complicated checkmate. In my experience, most beginners would not be able to understand it, nor would they be able to find the move that produced it (the pawn capturing something to give check, which also produces a discovered check with the rook). Don't give up on the game because the app gave you a rather nasty position. Most real life chess is simpler than that.






              share|improve this answer



























                1














                There are three ways to get out of check (including checkmate). You can...



                1. Run away

                2. Block the check

                3. Capture the checking piece

                There are two checks here (pawn and rook). If the king runs to either empty square, the bishop (and in one case, the rook) can capture. If the king captures the pawn, the knight can capture. That takes away #1.



                You can block the rook check (with the queen or bishop) but not the pawn check. That takes care of #2.



                You can capture the pawn (with the rook or queen or king), but you can't capture the rook, so that takes care of #3.



                So, it is checkmate.



                If the white pawn wasn't checking, or if the white knight couldn't recapture, it wouldn't be checkmate (you could block the check or take the pawn with the king). If the white rook wasn't checking, it wouldn't be checkmate (take the pawn with the rook or queen). It takes both checks in this case to produce checkmate.



                This is a rather complicated checkmate. In my experience, most beginners would not be able to understand it, nor would they be able to find the move that produced it (the pawn capturing something to give check, which also produces a discovered check with the rook). Don't give up on the game because the app gave you a rather nasty position. Most real life chess is simpler than that.






                share|improve this answer

























                  1












                  1








                  1







                  There are three ways to get out of check (including checkmate). You can...



                  1. Run away

                  2. Block the check

                  3. Capture the checking piece

                  There are two checks here (pawn and rook). If the king runs to either empty square, the bishop (and in one case, the rook) can capture. If the king captures the pawn, the knight can capture. That takes away #1.



                  You can block the rook check (with the queen or bishop) but not the pawn check. That takes care of #2.



                  You can capture the pawn (with the rook or queen or king), but you can't capture the rook, so that takes care of #3.



                  So, it is checkmate.



                  If the white pawn wasn't checking, or if the white knight couldn't recapture, it wouldn't be checkmate (you could block the check or take the pawn with the king). If the white rook wasn't checking, it wouldn't be checkmate (take the pawn with the rook or queen). It takes both checks in this case to produce checkmate.



                  This is a rather complicated checkmate. In my experience, most beginners would not be able to understand it, nor would they be able to find the move that produced it (the pawn capturing something to give check, which also produces a discovered check with the rook). Don't give up on the game because the app gave you a rather nasty position. Most real life chess is simpler than that.






                  share|improve this answer













                  There are three ways to get out of check (including checkmate). You can...



                  1. Run away

                  2. Block the check

                  3. Capture the checking piece

                  There are two checks here (pawn and rook). If the king runs to either empty square, the bishop (and in one case, the rook) can capture. If the king captures the pawn, the knight can capture. That takes away #1.



                  You can block the rook check (with the queen or bishop) but not the pawn check. That takes care of #2.



                  You can capture the pawn (with the rook or queen or king), but you can't capture the rook, so that takes care of #3.



                  So, it is checkmate.



                  If the white pawn wasn't checking, or if the white knight couldn't recapture, it wouldn't be checkmate (you could block the check or take the pawn with the king). If the white rook wasn't checking, it wouldn't be checkmate (take the pawn with the rook or queen). It takes both checks in this case to produce checkmate.



                  This is a rather complicated checkmate. In my experience, most beginners would not be able to understand it, nor would they be able to find the move that produced it (the pawn capturing something to give check, which also produces a discovered check with the rook). Don't give up on the game because the app gave you a rather nasty position. Most real life chess is simpler than that.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 2 days ago









                  Guy SchalnatGuy Schalnat

                  1213




                  1213





















                      0














                      For total beginners, it may be best to play chess without checks and just play to capture the king. Whoever captures the king first wins, even if your king is being threatened.



                      I say this because it is difficult to understand check at first and playing until the king is dead is the same as playing chess regularly, except if you were to miss a move that kills the king or someone accidentally puts themselves into check on their move.



                      In this case, there is no place the king can go or capture that won't be captured next move. King takes pawn, knight takes king. King moves to long black diagonal, bishop takes king, Something else attacks pawn, rook takes king. Something blocks rook, pawn takes king.






                      share|improve this answer










                      New contributor




                      Kaiwen Chen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.















                      • 9





                        That's not how blitz (or rapidplay) is played under the FIDE (international) rules. Rule 7.4a explicitly lists "capturing the opponent's king" as an illegal move and requires the position to be set back to what it was before the illegal move was made. Neither Appendix A (rapidplay) nor Appendix B (blitz) countermands that. In fact, by rule B3c, if you take my king, that is an illegal move and you have forfeit the game. What you should have done is pointed out my illegal move (leaving my king in check) so that I would forfeit.

                        – David Richerby
                        Mar 18 at 16:31






                      • 1





                        While this may not be how chess really works, I also find that, when I coach chess and have beginners (especially kids, but not only kids), the concept of capturing the king does make a lot more sense to them. I do mention that the game stops before the king is captured, but when they ask me if it is checkmate, we look at every possible move to see if the king gets captured or not, and the kids then decide if it is checkmate or not.

                        – Guy Schalnat
                        2 days ago











                      • @GuySchalnat I absolutely agree that it's a useful simplification for beginners; unfortunately, this answer claims more than that.

                        – David Richerby
                        2 days ago











                      • @DavidRicherby The answer does claim more than that, but he is a new poster here (and on other stack exchange sites), so I'm being nice. Besides, he's a better chess player than I am, and while I can help beginners by simplifying the game, once the question gets too far advanced, it is up to better chess players than I to answer, so I want to encourage him to stick around

                        – Guy Schalnat
                        2 days ago











                      • Kaiwen, your second point was better than the first, and deserves to stand on its own. You may want to edit your answer and cross out the first point so future readers don't get confused, and let the second point be the main point of the answer.

                        – Guy Schalnat
                        2 days ago















                      0














                      For total beginners, it may be best to play chess without checks and just play to capture the king. Whoever captures the king first wins, even if your king is being threatened.



                      I say this because it is difficult to understand check at first and playing until the king is dead is the same as playing chess regularly, except if you were to miss a move that kills the king or someone accidentally puts themselves into check on their move.



                      In this case, there is no place the king can go or capture that won't be captured next move. King takes pawn, knight takes king. King moves to long black diagonal, bishop takes king, Something else attacks pawn, rook takes king. Something blocks rook, pawn takes king.






                      share|improve this answer










                      New contributor




                      Kaiwen Chen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.















                      • 9





                        That's not how blitz (or rapidplay) is played under the FIDE (international) rules. Rule 7.4a explicitly lists "capturing the opponent's king" as an illegal move and requires the position to be set back to what it was before the illegal move was made. Neither Appendix A (rapidplay) nor Appendix B (blitz) countermands that. In fact, by rule B3c, if you take my king, that is an illegal move and you have forfeit the game. What you should have done is pointed out my illegal move (leaving my king in check) so that I would forfeit.

                        – David Richerby
                        Mar 18 at 16:31






                      • 1





                        While this may not be how chess really works, I also find that, when I coach chess and have beginners (especially kids, but not only kids), the concept of capturing the king does make a lot more sense to them. I do mention that the game stops before the king is captured, but when they ask me if it is checkmate, we look at every possible move to see if the king gets captured or not, and the kids then decide if it is checkmate or not.

                        – Guy Schalnat
                        2 days ago











                      • @GuySchalnat I absolutely agree that it's a useful simplification for beginners; unfortunately, this answer claims more than that.

                        – David Richerby
                        2 days ago











                      • @DavidRicherby The answer does claim more than that, but he is a new poster here (and on other stack exchange sites), so I'm being nice. Besides, he's a better chess player than I am, and while I can help beginners by simplifying the game, once the question gets too far advanced, it is up to better chess players than I to answer, so I want to encourage him to stick around

                        – Guy Schalnat
                        2 days ago











                      • Kaiwen, your second point was better than the first, and deserves to stand on its own. You may want to edit your answer and cross out the first point so future readers don't get confused, and let the second point be the main point of the answer.

                        – Guy Schalnat
                        2 days ago













                      0












                      0








                      0







                      For total beginners, it may be best to play chess without checks and just play to capture the king. Whoever captures the king first wins, even if your king is being threatened.



                      I say this because it is difficult to understand check at first and playing until the king is dead is the same as playing chess regularly, except if you were to miss a move that kills the king or someone accidentally puts themselves into check on their move.



                      In this case, there is no place the king can go or capture that won't be captured next move. King takes pawn, knight takes king. King moves to long black diagonal, bishop takes king, Something else attacks pawn, rook takes king. Something blocks rook, pawn takes king.






                      share|improve this answer










                      New contributor




                      Kaiwen Chen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.










                      For total beginners, it may be best to play chess without checks and just play to capture the king. Whoever captures the king first wins, even if your king is being threatened.



                      I say this because it is difficult to understand check at first and playing until the king is dead is the same as playing chess regularly, except if you were to miss a move that kills the king or someone accidentally puts themselves into check on their move.



                      In this case, there is no place the king can go or capture that won't be captured next move. King takes pawn, knight takes king. King moves to long black diagonal, bishop takes king, Something else attacks pawn, rook takes king. Something blocks rook, pawn takes king.







                      share|improve this answer










                      New contributor




                      Kaiwen Chen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited 4 hours ago









                      Nij

                      2,6681825




                      2,6681825






                      New contributor




                      Kaiwen Chen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                      answered Mar 18 at 12:55









                      Kaiwen ChenKaiwen Chen

                      173




                      173




                      New contributor




                      Kaiwen Chen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.





                      New contributor





                      Kaiwen Chen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






                      Kaiwen Chen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.







                      • 9





                        That's not how blitz (or rapidplay) is played under the FIDE (international) rules. Rule 7.4a explicitly lists "capturing the opponent's king" as an illegal move and requires the position to be set back to what it was before the illegal move was made. Neither Appendix A (rapidplay) nor Appendix B (blitz) countermands that. In fact, by rule B3c, if you take my king, that is an illegal move and you have forfeit the game. What you should have done is pointed out my illegal move (leaving my king in check) so that I would forfeit.

                        – David Richerby
                        Mar 18 at 16:31






                      • 1





                        While this may not be how chess really works, I also find that, when I coach chess and have beginners (especially kids, but not only kids), the concept of capturing the king does make a lot more sense to them. I do mention that the game stops before the king is captured, but when they ask me if it is checkmate, we look at every possible move to see if the king gets captured or not, and the kids then decide if it is checkmate or not.

                        – Guy Schalnat
                        2 days ago











                      • @GuySchalnat I absolutely agree that it's a useful simplification for beginners; unfortunately, this answer claims more than that.

                        – David Richerby
                        2 days ago











                      • @DavidRicherby The answer does claim more than that, but he is a new poster here (and on other stack exchange sites), so I'm being nice. Besides, he's a better chess player than I am, and while I can help beginners by simplifying the game, once the question gets too far advanced, it is up to better chess players than I to answer, so I want to encourage him to stick around

                        – Guy Schalnat
                        2 days ago











                      • Kaiwen, your second point was better than the first, and deserves to stand on its own. You may want to edit your answer and cross out the first point so future readers don't get confused, and let the second point be the main point of the answer.

                        – Guy Schalnat
                        2 days ago












                      • 9





                        That's not how blitz (or rapidplay) is played under the FIDE (international) rules. Rule 7.4a explicitly lists "capturing the opponent's king" as an illegal move and requires the position to be set back to what it was before the illegal move was made. Neither Appendix A (rapidplay) nor Appendix B (blitz) countermands that. In fact, by rule B3c, if you take my king, that is an illegal move and you have forfeit the game. What you should have done is pointed out my illegal move (leaving my king in check) so that I would forfeit.

                        – David Richerby
                        Mar 18 at 16:31






                      • 1





                        While this may not be how chess really works, I also find that, when I coach chess and have beginners (especially kids, but not only kids), the concept of capturing the king does make a lot more sense to them. I do mention that the game stops before the king is captured, but when they ask me if it is checkmate, we look at every possible move to see if the king gets captured or not, and the kids then decide if it is checkmate or not.

                        – Guy Schalnat
                        2 days ago











                      • @GuySchalnat I absolutely agree that it's a useful simplification for beginners; unfortunately, this answer claims more than that.

                        – David Richerby
                        2 days ago











                      • @DavidRicherby The answer does claim more than that, but he is a new poster here (and on other stack exchange sites), so I'm being nice. Besides, he's a better chess player than I am, and while I can help beginners by simplifying the game, once the question gets too far advanced, it is up to better chess players than I to answer, so I want to encourage him to stick around

                        – Guy Schalnat
                        2 days ago











                      • Kaiwen, your second point was better than the first, and deserves to stand on its own. You may want to edit your answer and cross out the first point so future readers don't get confused, and let the second point be the main point of the answer.

                        – Guy Schalnat
                        2 days ago







                      9




                      9





                      That's not how blitz (or rapidplay) is played under the FIDE (international) rules. Rule 7.4a explicitly lists "capturing the opponent's king" as an illegal move and requires the position to be set back to what it was before the illegal move was made. Neither Appendix A (rapidplay) nor Appendix B (blitz) countermands that. In fact, by rule B3c, if you take my king, that is an illegal move and you have forfeit the game. What you should have done is pointed out my illegal move (leaving my king in check) so that I would forfeit.

                      – David Richerby
                      Mar 18 at 16:31





                      That's not how blitz (or rapidplay) is played under the FIDE (international) rules. Rule 7.4a explicitly lists "capturing the opponent's king" as an illegal move and requires the position to be set back to what it was before the illegal move was made. Neither Appendix A (rapidplay) nor Appendix B (blitz) countermands that. In fact, by rule B3c, if you take my king, that is an illegal move and you have forfeit the game. What you should have done is pointed out my illegal move (leaving my king in check) so that I would forfeit.

                      – David Richerby
                      Mar 18 at 16:31




                      1




                      1





                      While this may not be how chess really works, I also find that, when I coach chess and have beginners (especially kids, but not only kids), the concept of capturing the king does make a lot more sense to them. I do mention that the game stops before the king is captured, but when they ask me if it is checkmate, we look at every possible move to see if the king gets captured or not, and the kids then decide if it is checkmate or not.

                      – Guy Schalnat
                      2 days ago





                      While this may not be how chess really works, I also find that, when I coach chess and have beginners (especially kids, but not only kids), the concept of capturing the king does make a lot more sense to them. I do mention that the game stops before the king is captured, but when they ask me if it is checkmate, we look at every possible move to see if the king gets captured or not, and the kids then decide if it is checkmate or not.

                      – Guy Schalnat
                      2 days ago













                      @GuySchalnat I absolutely agree that it's a useful simplification for beginners; unfortunately, this answer claims more than that.

                      – David Richerby
                      2 days ago





                      @GuySchalnat I absolutely agree that it's a useful simplification for beginners; unfortunately, this answer claims more than that.

                      – David Richerby
                      2 days ago













                      @DavidRicherby The answer does claim more than that, but he is a new poster here (and on other stack exchange sites), so I'm being nice. Besides, he's a better chess player than I am, and while I can help beginners by simplifying the game, once the question gets too far advanced, it is up to better chess players than I to answer, so I want to encourage him to stick around

                      – Guy Schalnat
                      2 days ago





                      @DavidRicherby The answer does claim more than that, but he is a new poster here (and on other stack exchange sites), so I'm being nice. Besides, he's a better chess player than I am, and while I can help beginners by simplifying the game, once the question gets too far advanced, it is up to better chess players than I to answer, so I want to encourage him to stick around

                      – Guy Schalnat
                      2 days ago













                      Kaiwen, your second point was better than the first, and deserves to stand on its own. You may want to edit your answer and cross out the first point so future readers don't get confused, and let the second point be the main point of the answer.

                      – Guy Schalnat
                      2 days ago





                      Kaiwen, your second point was better than the first, and deserves to stand on its own. You may want to edit your answer and cross out the first point so future readers don't get confused, and let the second point be the main point of the answer.

                      – Guy Schalnat
                      2 days ago










                      lesssugar is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      lesssugar is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      lesssugar is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                      lesssugar is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Board & Card Games Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f45537%2fcan-other-pieces-capture-a-threatening-piece-and-prevent-a-checkmate%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                      Bunad

                      Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum