info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Is a Rule Missing from Chess?
12 views
Skip to first unread message
Quadibloc
May 13, 2021, 10:00:30 AM5/13/21
to
The King may not move into check.
That's one of the basic rules of Chess.
One of the ways to _interpret_ the rules of Chess is to view them this way:
The object of the game of Chess is to capture the enemy King, except that:
- the move to capture the King doesn't actually get made;
- players can't lose the game by blundering the King into a position where it may be captured; and
- Stalemate is a draw instead of a win.
However, this interpretation actually *adds* a rule to Chess which isn't in the actual rules... yet, when people play Chess, they follow this added rule.
Or so it seems to me.
Imagine the following situation:
White Queen is on g7.
Black King is on h3.
White King is on f4.
Obviously, this is a trivial checkmate. Move the Queen down to drive the Black King into a corner.
But why can't one just mate in one, by moving the White King to g3?
After all, since the Black King cannot capture the King on g3, because he would be *moving into check* from the White Queen, the White King is *not in check* on g3, and so should be allowed to move there.
So there needs to be some explicit acknowledgement that the King can give check on squares it can't actually capture on because it would be moving into check to go to those squares to make the move of the White King to g3 in this situation illegal, as it is generally regarded.
Of course, it may well be that this is explicitly provided for in the official rules of Chess from FIDE, even if it is missing in many accounts of the rules of Chess in popular books on the subject.
John Savard
That's one of the basic rules of Chess.
One of the ways to _interpret_ the rules of Chess is to view them this way:
The object of the game of Chess is to capture the enemy King, except that:
- the move to capture the King doesn't actually get made;
- players can't lose the game by blundering the King into a position where it may be captured; and
- Stalemate is a draw instead of a win.
However, this interpretation actually *adds* a rule to Chess which isn't in the actual rules... yet, when people play Chess, they follow this added rule.
Or so it seems to me.
Imagine the following situation:
White Queen is on g7.
Black King is on h3.
White King is on f4.
Obviously, this is a trivial checkmate. Move the Queen down to drive the Black King into a corner.
But why can't one just mate in one, by moving the White King to g3?
After all, since the Black King cannot capture the King on g3, because he would be *moving into check* from the White Queen, the White King is *not in check* on g3, and so should be allowed to move there.
So there needs to be some explicit acknowledgement that the King can give check on squares it can't actually capture on because it would be moving into check to go to those squares to make the move of the White King to g3 in this situation illegal, as it is generally regarded.
Of course, it may well be that this is explicitly provided for in the official rules of Chess from FIDE, even if it is missing in many accounts of the rules of Chess in popular books on the subject.
John Savard
Edward Prochak
May 14, 2021, 7:38:24 PM5/14/21
to
On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 10:00:30 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> The King may not move into check.
>
> That's one of the basic rules of Chess.
>
> One of the ways to _interpret_ the rules of Chess is to view them this way:
> The object of the game of Chess is to capture the enemy King, except that:
> - the move to capture the King doesn't actually get made;
> - players can't lose the game by blundering the King into a position where it may be captured; and
> - Stalemate is a draw instead of a win.
>
> However, this interpretation actually *adds* a rule to Chess which isn't in the actual rules... yet, when people play Chess, they follow this added rule.
> Or so it seems to me.
You should look at the actual rules:
> The King may not move into check.
>
> That's one of the basic rules of Chess.
>
> One of the ways to _interpret_ the rules of Chess is to view them this way:
> The object of the game of Chess is to capture the enemy King, except that:
> - the move to capture the King doesn't actually get made;
> - players can't lose the game by blundering the King into a position where it may be captured; and
> - Stalemate is a draw instead of a win.
>
> However, this interpretation actually *adds* a rule to Chess which isn't in the actual rules... yet, when people play Chess, they follow this added rule.
> Or so it seems to me.
"The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game. Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king are not allowed."
>
> Imagine the following situation:
> White Queen is on g7.
> Black King is on h3.
> White King is on f4.
>
> Obviously, this is a trivial checkmate. Move the Queen down to drive the Black King into a corner.
>
> But why can't one just mate in one, by moving the White King to g3?
>
> After all, since the Black King cannot capture the King on g3, because he would be *moving into check* from the White Queen, the White King is *not in check* on g3, and so should be allowed to move there.
Quadibloc
May 16, 2021, 5:26:26 PM5/16/21
to
On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 5:38:24 PM UTC-6, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> No, it violates the rule "exposing one’s own king to attack" is not allowed.
And, of course, that does settle it, because in the case of every piece
> No, it violates the rule "exposing one’s own king to attack" is not allowed.
except the enemy King, exposing one's King to attack and exposing
one's King to possible capture are the same thing.
So by using 'attack' instead, the move in question is indeed illegal.
John Savard
0 new messages