Rules Question: Can pinned pieces cause check?
use...@davidfilmer.com
King and an opposing Rook). The Bishop thus cannot move, and
essentially it projects no power while it is pinned.
Can the opposing King move onto the pinned Bishop's diagonal?
Or, suppose a player blocks a check by moving his Knight (so the Knight
is pinned), but the Knight's new position (in theory) exerts power onto
a square occupied by the opposing King. Is the opponent in check?
My instinct tells me that a pinned piece cannot cause check, because it
could not actually play a part in the capture of the King. If the
piece becomes un-pinned (the player moves the king, etc) then it could
immediately place the opponent in check. But that's a guess...
Can anybody tell me the actual rule? Thanks!
--
David Filmer (http://DavidFilmer.com)
help bot
use...@DavidFilmer.com wrote:
> Suppose, for example, a player's Bishop is pinned (say, between his own
> King and an opposing Rook). The Bishop thus cannot move, and
> essentially it projects no power while it is pinned.
Except the power to force an opponent to defend his King
from check.
> Can the opposing King move onto the pinned Bishop's diagonal?
Not unless there is another man in between them.
> Or, suppose a player blocks a check by moving his Knight (so the Knight
> is pinned), but the Knight's new position (in theory) exerts power onto
> a square occupied by the opposing King. Is the opponent in check?
Yes.
> My instinct tells me that a pinned piece cannot cause check, because it
> could not actually play a part in the capture of the King.
No piece may ever play a capture of the King in regular chess,
so this is not making any sense. You must get out of check,
and it makes no difference whether or not the checking man is
pinned, forked, skewered or all three.
> If the
> piece becomes un-pinned (the player moves the king, etc) then it could
> immediately place the opponent in check. But that's a guess...
>
> Can anybody tell me the actual rule? Thanks!
Yes, someone can.
The same thing applies to just-promoted pawns: the new
piece delivers check immediately, whether pinned or not.
Assuming your opponent has played a legal move, you
must immediately get out of check -- otherwise you are
checkmated or else you have replied with an illegal move.
The object of the game is to checkmate your opponent's
King, so it should come as no great surprise that King
safety cannot be ignored simply on account of a pin.
One of the drawbacks of chess is that not all its rules
are straightforward and intuitive. For example, suppose
I am playing a game at GetClub and have already
castled on the Kingside. Now a few moves later I take
a break and adjourn the game, to be resumed later.
Upon resumption, I note that I am (as usual) ahead in
material, but that as if by magic, my KR is back on h8,
where it had been before castling! My position is a bit
awkward now, since I am suddenly behind in development.
Do I steer my King toward e8 and clear the decks from
there to h8, so I can try castling again? Or do I write and
complain to Sanny *yet again*, risking that my antics will
result in forever being banned from GetClub, where I have
become -- according to the man himself -- a "star"? Ah,
what a dilemma. "Greatness" has its price. ;>D
-- help bot
Shijith
> are straightforward and intuitive. For example, suppose
> I am playing a game at GetClub and have already
> castled on the Kingside. Now a few moves later I take
> a break and adjourn the game, to be resumed later.
> Upon resumption, I note that I am (as usual) ahead in
> material, but that as if by magic, my KR is back on h8,
> where it had been before castling! My position is a bit
> awkward now, since I am suddenly behind in development.
> Do I steer my King toward e8 and clear the decks from
> there to h8, so I can try castling again? Or do I write and
> complain to Sanny *yet again*, risking that my antics will
> result in forever being banned from GetClub, where I have
> become -- according to the man himself -- a "star"? Ah,
> what a dilemma. "Greatness" has its price. ;>D
>
This is not the drawback of chess, simply the drawback of "GetClub".
Richard Cavell
is pinned. Think of it another way: Imagine that the object of the
game is to capture the opponent's king. If this were the case, then
there could be no such thing as a piece being pinned by the rules of
the game. It might be 'pinned' in the sense that a smart player would
know not to move it, but it would still be legal to move it. If you
did that, then you would capture your opponent's king immediately
before he has a chance to capture yours.
Modern chess provides that the king is not actually captured - the game
ends one move before that happens.
help bot
Shijith wrote:
Right. You must have missed my winking smiley. Of
course I will not clear the decks just to try and see if the
program will allow me to castle once more -- that would
be silly (and take around a week to accomplish, if not
longer). Regulars will note that in spite of my going
easy on Sanny -- at least in comparison to his bitter
enemies -- I am one of the most frequent critics of this
program's many flaws.
--------
Not all the rules of chess are intuitive. For example,
castling *through* check could have been legal or not,
based on a majority vote. Obviously, the King which
passes through check cannot actually be captured, as
it is not the opponent's move until after this move has
been completed. Once completed, the King is in no
danger of capture, so this was an arbitrary decision.
The same thing applies -- even today -- regarding touch
move. The USCF, for instance, frequently "revises" its
interpretations and rules on what this means in practice,
depending on the latest round of complaints.
Yet as far as I know, the pinned man (yes, a pawn can
be pinned just as well as pieces) has for centuries effected
check on the King despite being pinned.
I have played several opponents who were fairly good, yet
who nevertheless lacked a basic understanding of the
technical rules, such as this. A quick glance at the
rulebook reveals a boring, repetitive style of prose, which
tends to discourage extensive study. Bot it didn't stop me!
:>D
-- help bot
Sanny
The first person to kill opponents king is the winner. King can not be
exchanged.
In case of pin if you bring king where Bishop can give Check. The
Bishop will kills the King and win despite being pinned between it's
king as Bishop will be the first to Take the King.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
help bot
Sanny wrote:
> It could be understood as follows.
>
> The first person to kill opponents king is the winner. King can not be
> exchanged.
>
> In case of pin if you bring king where Bishop can give Check. The
> Bishop will kills the King and win despite being pinned between it's
> king as Bishop will be the first to Take the King.
If I am not mistaken, this is precisely the same style of
prose as to be found in the aforementioned "rules of chess".
Is it any wonder, then, that no one seems to have actually
read the horrid tome? I rest my case.
-- help bot
Arfur Million
news:1167709245.8...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
As others have pointed out, a pinned piece can indeed cause check, the
actual rule is "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."
The rules of chess can be found here: <
http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101 > and the above quote
is from 3.8.
Regards,
Arfur
Kenneth Sloan
> Suppose, for example, a player's Bishop is pinned (say, between his own
> King and an opposing Rook). The Bishop thus cannot move, and
> essentially it projects no power while it is pinned.
>
> Can the opposing King move onto the pinned Bishop's diagonal?
no
>
> Or, suppose a player blocks a check by moving his Knight (so the Knight
> is pinned), but the Knight's new position (in theory) exerts power onto
> a square occupied by the opposing King. Is the opponent in check?
yes
>
> My instinct tells me that a pinned piece cannot cause check, because it
> could not actually play a part in the capture of the King. If the
> piece becomes un-pinned (the player moves the king, etc) then it could
> immediately place the opponent in check. But that's a guess...
Your instinct guessed wrong.
>
> Can anybody tell me the actual rule? Thanks!
Have you considered purchasing a rulebook?
>
--
Kenneth Sloan Kennet...@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
Kenneth Sloan
Now I understand why your program plays so badly (and so slowly).
CeeBee
> Can anybody tell me the actual rule? Thanks!
You can find the official rules of chess on the FIDE website.
http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101
"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."
My advice is to closely read through all the rules, including the basic
rules of how to move the pieces.
--
CeeBee
*** entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem ***
help bot
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> Sanny wrote:
> > It could be understood as follows.
> >
> > The first person to kill opponents king is the winner. King can not be
> > exchanged.
> >
> > In case of pin if you bring king where Bishop can give Check. The
> > Bishop will kills the King and win despite being pinned between it's
> > king as Bishop will be the first to Take the King.
> >
> > Bye
> > Sanny
> >
> > Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
> Now I understand why your program plays so badly (and so slowly).
Same old joke. Hey, everybody and his brother knows by
now that Sanny doesn't write the code; he has a team of
programmers which do it for him. Blame Sanny for his poor
selection of programmers, but don't blame him for the actual
chess programming errors -- that task has been assigned to a
team of "experts". IMO, Sanny is probably not a native
English speaker, and this (at least in part) is why his above
comments make no sense.
-- help bot
Kenneth Sloan
Sanny's abomination. Playing at the "10 seconds/move" level, the
position is:
White: Kf4, Qc6, Pc4, Pd5, Pe4, Pf3, Pg4, Ph3
Black: Kc7, Ra1, Pc5, Pd6
It's Sanny's monster to move. The display says
"Thinking on King (5)/ Time: 4230 Seconds."
and counting. Note that Black has precisely 2 legal moves (Kb8 and
Kd8), both of which allow White to capture Black's d pawn with check.
After that, my sadistic plan is to protect the White pawn on h3 and push
ALL the White pawns....slowly....ever so slowly...
That is, if Sanny's silliness ever decides that it's 10 seconds are up
and actually MOVES.
I take this opportunity to announce a new contest. The goal is to force
Sanny's Stupidity to take the most amount of time on a single move.
Send screenshots of the program sitting and thinking. (the time just
jumped to 4562 seconds - still on "king (5)").
Don't bother to send a screenshot unless the time reported is less than
10000 seconds. It looks as if we might hit that level on this position.
And...no need for Photoshop fakes. Why fake it when it's so easy to get
the real thing (time just jumped again to 4708 seconds).
Anyone care to guess when the program will move? Apparently, you have
plenty of time to get in a bet.
Kenneth Sloan
Timer is now at 9496 Seconds...and counting...
tenacious, isn't it?
help bot
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> Speaking of "same old joke"...I'm playing a game right now against
> Sanny's abomination. Playing at the "10 seconds/move" level, the
> position is:
>
> White: Kf4, Qc6, Pc4, Pd5, Pe4, Pf3, Pg4, Ph3
> Black: Kc7, Ra1, Pc5, Pd6
>
> It's Sanny's monster to move. The display says
>
> "Thinking on King (5)/ Time: 4230 Seconds."
>
> and counting. Note that Black has precisely 2 legal moves (Kb8 and
> Kd8), both of which allow White to capture Black's d pawn with check.
> After that, my sadistic plan is to protect the White pawn on h3 and push
> ALL the White pawns....slowly....ever so slowly...
Bad plan, but as this game is still in progress, I shall
refrain from pointing out the mate-in-seventeen you have
after Kg3!!! (almost any), Kh2!!!!
> That is, if Sanny's silliness ever decides that it's 10 seconds are up
> and actually MOVES.
>
> I take this opportunity to announce a new contest. The goal is to force
> Sanny's Stupidity to take the most amount of time on a single move.
> Send screenshots of the program sitting and thinking.
That's a tall order; Sanny's program is now so fast that
I seriously doubt if even a screenshot can keep up with
the action.
> (the time just
> jumped to 4562 seconds - still on "king (5)").
If the program moved, you would be complaining about
how quickly you beat it. When the program doesn't move,
you moan that it is too slow. Some people are impossible
to please.
> Don't bother to send a screenshot unless the time reported is less than
> 10000 seconds. It looks as if we might hit that level on this position.
>
> And...no need for Photoshop fakes. Why fake it when it's so easy to get
> the real thing (time just jumped again to 4708 seconds).
*Strong players* like Bobby Pfuscher have had no trouble
beating the program in short order. Why it is taking you so
long is most easily explained by the fact that you aren't one
of them.
> Anyone care to guess when the program will move?
My guess is you will either give up or else "adjourn" the
game to be resumed later. But be forewarned: in my
current game, which has been adjourned, the program
put my KR back on h8 after I had already castled. This
really didn't help my position *at all*.
> Apparently, you have plenty of time to get in a bet.
LOL!
One of the things which has always annoyed me about
computers is the way most chess programs are totally
unaware that, say, they have just two legal moves from
which to choose. Or one, for that matter.
Sanny's programmers do not seem to know much
about chess; for instance, they apparently did not know
about the possibility of draws.
It is quite likely that the program has no inkling of the
fact that it has only two "legal" moves, since it doesn't
seem to know the difference between legal and illegal
moves, period.
But consider yourself lucky in that the program *is*
counting up its usage of time, giving you credit for your
patience. On my computer, more often than not the
program burns up my time without counting, by reverting
back to a lesser ply depth as though I had not already
sat there patiently for a half-hour, for nothing.
If I ever write a chess program (not likely), the first
thing I want to do is check if there is only one legal
move, and just play it -- BAM! You never know, I
might win on time or something.
-- help bot
Ange1o DePa1ma
news:1167709245.8...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
The rules are not only simple, they are logical. Everything takes a back
seat to attack on the king (check). Therefore a player may not move into
check, period, regardless of the status of the pinning piece. A pin (against
a king, I presume you mean) is not a check; it is nothing more than the
legal restriction on how a piece may move, goverend by the "check" rule.
With your K on e2 and R on e3, and an opponent's Q on e4 the Rook is
technically pinned since it cannot move to f2 or d2, but it can move to e4,
taking the Queen. You can take the move restriction argument a step further.
Kenneth Sloan
> Kenneth Sloan wrote:
>
>> Speaking of "same old joke"...I'm playing a game right now against
>> Sanny's abomination. Playing at the "10 seconds/move" level, the
>> position is:
>>
>> White: Kf4, Qc6, Pc4, Pd5, Pe4, Pf3, Pg4, Ph3
>> Black: Kc7, Ra1, Pc5, Pd6
>>
>> It's Sanny's monster to move. The display says
>>
>> "Thinking on King (5)/ Time: 4230 Seconds."
>>
>> and counting. Note that Black has precisely 2 legal moves (Kb8 and
>> Kd8), both of which allow White to capture Black's d pawn with check.
>> After that, my sadistic plan is to protect the White pawn on h3 and push
>> ALL the White pawns....slowly....ever so slowly...
>
> Bad plan, but as this game is still in progress, I shall
> refrain from pointing out the mate-in-seventeen you have
> after Kg3!!! (almost any), Kh2!!!!
AARRGGHHH! My mistake. Black's R is on h1, not a1. Sorry about that.
So...:
White: Kf4, Qc6, Pc4, Pd5, Pe4, Pf3, Pg4, Ph3
Black: Kc7, Rh1, Pc5, Pd6
and...I left the program running over night. The display claims that
the program is still "Thinking on King (5)" and the Time is
"54242 Seconds".
Hey Sanny! Can you please teach the program to *resign*????
Sanny
> Black: Kc7, Rh1, Pc5, Pd6
>
> and...I left the program running over night. The display claims that
> the program is still "Thinking on King (5)" and the Time is
> "54242 Seconds".
>
Were you playing recorded game, if yes please provide me your username
so that my programmers may look into the matter.
I don't think such a situation can ever happen. It looks like the game
was not loaded correctly. In such case one should restart the game.
Since game is recorded one can start from the position one has left.
Nomorechess and others have played lots of recorded game and I see the
moves are made in reasionable time on their computer. Simmilarly it
plays fast on my computer too. Always refresh or start a new game in
new browser to freeup space for the game.
Kenneth Sloan
>> White: Kf4, Qc6, Pc4, Pd5, Pe4, Pf3, Pg4, Ph3
>> Black: Kc7, Rh1, Pc5, Pd6
>>
>> and...I left the program running over night. The display claims that
>> the program is still "Thinking on King (5)" and the Time is
>> "54242 Seconds".
>>
>
> Were you playing recorded game,
No.
> if yes please provide me your username
> so that my programmers may look into the matter.
>
> I don't think such a situation can ever happen.
This attitude is the reason that your program does not improve.
> It looks like the game
> was not loaded correctly. In such case one should restart the game.
> Since game is recorded one can start from the position one has left.
I never "left". The game was played continuously, from move 1. The
program was moving at its usual snail's pace until it reached the
position above. I let it run for about 20 hours before putting it out
of its misery.
>
> Nomorechess and others have played lots of recorded game and I see the
> moves are made in reasionable time on their computer. Simmilarly it
> plays fast on my computer too. Always refresh or start a new game in
> new browser to freeup space for the game.
yes, of course. The problem is *always* with the user's computer.
that's the right approach.
Trust me - it ain't my computer.
Tell you what - set up the position on YOUR computer and let us know
what brilliant move the computer chooses (and how long it takes).
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
Jason 911
<use...@DavidFilmer.com> wrote in message
news:1167709245.8...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> King and an opposing Rook). The Bishop thus cannot move, and
> essentially it projects no power while it is pinned.
This is the part where you make it obvious you have an IQ < 70. What is this
"projects no power nonsense"?
The first person to capture a king wins. There is only a "pin" in so far as
it cannot move without allowing it's king to be captured, but if in moving
it is capturing the enemy king, you win because you captured your opponent's
king first. How could this extremely simple concept escape you?
JMR
help bot
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> > It looks like the game
> > was not loaded correctly. In such case one should restart the game.
> > Since game is recorded one can start from the position one has left.
Not always. For instance, in my current game I had to
adjourn and when I returned, the program repeated the
same problem as before: it seems to get to the current
position by (invisibly) replaying the moves of the game,
only it can't handle castling properly when resuming.
Every time, it puts the castled Rook back on its original
square! In my current game, the King's Rook belongs
on e8, where I moved it (from f8) after castling. But the
display shows this Rook on h8 -- its original square.
Because of this, I have not played any more moves --
the game is in limbo.
> I never "left". The game was played continuously, from move 1. The
> program was moving at its usual snail's pace until it reached the
> position above. I let it run for about 20 hours before putting it out
> of its misery.
In other words, you surrendered. Never do this! It simply
reinforces the program's negative behavior pattern, and it
will actually "train" the program to move slowly, because
of the associated "reward". Instead, beat your computer
against a wall; scream at it; throw it down and kick it!
This will "train" the program to move a bit faster, or else
suffer the consequences. It's elementary psychology,
really.
> > Nomorechess and others have played lots of recorded game and I see the
> > moves are made in reasionable time on their computer. Simmilarly it
> > plays fast on my computer too. Always refresh or start a new game in
> > new browser to freeup space for the game.
>
> yes, of course. The problem is *always* with the user's computer.
> that's the right approach.
It's not always the computer; sometimes it's the OS or
the user's browser software which causes the problem.
Must Sanny be expected to fix every problem, with every
inferior browser and OS that comes along? Why can't you
just buy a decent computer, for god's sake, like maybe
an Apple.
> Trust me - it ain't my computer.
>
> Tell you what - set up the position on YOUR computer and let us know
> what brilliant move the computer chooses (and how long it takes).
I would expect it to take Sanny almost as long to
finish this game up as it has KS; weak players are
notorious for their inability to mop-up efficiently. For
an example of the proper technique of disposing of
a weak program, see my games or the games of
Bobby Pfuscher.
-- help bot
PS: anybody want to buy a large box full of broken
computer parts?
Guy Macon
help bot wrote:
>If I ever write a chess program (not likely), the first
>thing I want to do is check if there is only one legal
>move, and just play it -- BAM! You never know, I
>might win on time or something.
Amazing how many chess programs will spend time thinking
about such a position, especially at high levels.
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>
Shijith
>>computer parts?
Did you try to "train" sanny's program to play fast?
David Richerby
> If I ever write a chess program (not likely), the first thing I want
> to do is check if there is only one legal move, and just play it --
> BAM!
Whether this is a good idea or not depends on the time control. If
the control is x seconds per move (or a delay system, where you get x
seconds on each move before your clock starts ticking down) then you
should not make only moves immediately. Those x seconds should be
spent filling the hash table with data that you might be able to
exploit next move.
OTOH, at any other time control (that I can think of), an only move
ought to be mae immediately.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Voodoo Flower (TM): it's like a flower
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that has mystical powers!
Kenneth Sloan
> I would expect it to take Sanny almost as long to
> finish this game up as it has KS; weak players are
> notorious for their inability to mop-up efficiently. For
> an example of the proper technique of disposing of
> a weak program, see my games or the games of
> Bobby Pfuscher.
>
NAAH - in positions such as this one, the proper plan is:
a) promote all the pawns, so that you have a complete set of pieces (2R,
2N, 2B - on different colors!, 1Q, 1K).
b) move all of these pieces back to their original squares.
c) slowly advance and surround the Black K, preferably mating on e4,
with a N.
Kenneth Sloan
I often spend time OTB thinking about such positions. There's no
pressure to choose a correct move, and it's a convenient time to
consider long-range plans or deep tactics.
And, it drives my opponent nuts.
help bot
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
> help bot wrote:
>
> > I would expect it to take Sanny almost as long to
> > finish this game up as it has KS; weak players are
> > notorious for their inability to mop-up efficiently. For
> > an example of the proper technique of disposing of
> > a weak program, see my games or the games of
> > Bobby Pfuscher.
> >
>
> NAAH - in positions such as this one, the proper plan is:
>
> a) promote all the pawns, so that you have a complete set of pieces (2R,
> 2N, 2B - on different colors!, 1Q, 1K).
>
> b) move all of these pieces back to their original squares.
If you were somehow able to manage this, it wouldn't
surprise me if Sanny's program allowed you to castle
*again*.
> c) slowly advance and surround the Black K, preferably mating on e4,
> with a N.
This plan has one serious flaw: to execute it would
require approximately four years. By then, Sanny's
program will have "improved" to grandmaster strength
by virtue of the quadrupling of processor speed and
memory, elimination of Java applets, and most
important, Sanny's enterprise being bought out by
Microsoft for ten million dollars. Otherwise, it seems
like a good plan.
-- help bot
Sanny
> adjourn and when I returned, the program repeated the
> same problem as before: it seems to get to the current
> position by (invisibly) replaying the moves of the game,
> only it can't handle castling properly when resuming.
> Every time, it puts the castled Rook back on its original
> square! In my current game, the King's Rook belongs
> on e8, where I moved it (from f8) after castling. But the
> display shows this Rook on h8 -- its original square.
> Because of this, I have not played any more moves --
> the game is in limbo.
Your Problem Solved, Earlier this problem was solved using a technique
but that brought new problem when Queening was not done properly.
Now my programmers have found a new way to tackle this problem so that
bot Queening and Chastling are done as intended in the saved games.
Your game was reset as it was an illegal game and would have problem in
Recorded Games.
Now on you can have chastling done with rook and King both moved at
correct position, and I hope Queening will also work correctly.
help bot
Look, this method works perfectly *on paper*. How was
I supposed to know that Sanny's program was so very
stubborn? That it will likely take years of careful
"training" for the program to learn the proper behavior
patterns? Did Dr. Pavlov have to face any creature so
stubborn? I think not. I am certain the theory is not
to blame here; there must be another explanation.
Perhaps I need to try less "punishment", and more
"reward"? Yes, that's it! From now on, when the
program moves quickly, I shall respond by sending
it a "cookie", to be kept on its hard drive. If it somehow
manages to play well, I will upload a nice game for it
to play when its all alone, when nobody is logged on
at GetClub. Let's see... there's Pong, Breakout (no,
that may be too advanced for this program to handle),
um, well, there's Pong.
-- Dr. bot
help bot
Thank you!
----------
For some reason, I often do castle and/or promote pawns
in these games, so this improvement will definitely come in
handy. Sure, there may be weak players like say, Kenneth
Sloan or -- (who was that guy who seemed to throw his
games?) -- who may rarely if ever promote a pawn or castle,
but several players here do not fit into that category, so it
will also benefit them as well.
Many people may claim that writing a chess program is
not difficult, but they are only fooling themselves. On top
of the complexity of the movements of the various men,
there are seemingly endless rules and exceptions which
must all be properly taken into account. Just one of the
many exceptions is the castling move, where two men
are moved on the same turn, to peculiar squares. What
a messed up game chess is! I should have been born that
guy who was the sole human yet unconquered by computers
at checkers. The last man standing, until he died.
-- help bot