Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old April 11th 04, 09:19 AM
Simon Brightwell
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rules question for you (newbie).

Please excuse my ignorance as a casual and irregular player. I am not
completely au fait with the less common rules.

Anyway, in my game yesterday I was in a position where I wanted to take the
opponent's rook with my king. However, the opponent's rook was (arguably)
being protected by his knight, although I felt it was not being protected
because the knight could not move because it would be putting his own king
in check! Was I allowed to take his rook, or was that putting myself in
check? We were playing over the net using Shockwave, and to my
disappointment it didn't allow me this move which I had deliberately set up.
So here I am hoping that shockwave is badly programmed, but have a sneaky
fealing that it isn't.

Hope I have explained the scenario well enough. I feal I should be allowed
to make the move because his knight could not possibly be protecting
anything if it may not move.

I look forward to any sensible comments and the correct ruling.

Cheers,
Simon, Rijswijk, The Netherlands.




  #2   Report Post  
Old April 11th 04, 09:24 AM
Remco Gerlich
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rules question for you (newbie).

The rook is protected by the knight, so your king can not take it.

That his knight can't move doesn't matter - why would it be
illegal for him to move his knight, but not for you to take the rook
:-)

You can't take the rook, for the same reason that his knight can't
move.

--
Remco Gerlich
  #3   Report Post  
Old April 11th 04, 09:51 AM
Simon Brightwell
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rules question for you (newbie).


"Remco Gerlich" wrote in message
...
The rook is protected by the knight, so your king can not take it.

That his knight can't move doesn't matter - why would it be
illegal for him to move his knight, but not for you to take the rook
:-)

You can't take the rook, for the same reason that his knight can't
move.

--
Remco Gerlich


That's pretty clear! Thanks Remco.

Simon.


  #4   Report Post  
Old April 11th 04, 01:02 PM
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rules question for you (newbie).


"Simon Brightwell" wrote in message
...

"Remco Gerlich" wrote in message
...
The rook is protected by the knight, so your king can not take it.

That his knight can't move doesn't matter - why would it be
illegal for him to move his knight, but not for you to take the rook
:-)

You can't take the rook, for the same reason that his knight can't
move.

--
Remco Gerlich


That's pretty clear! Thanks Remco.


To put it another way, a piece can still check the
King, even if is pinned. If, for example, his King
was checked by, say, your Bishop, and he moved
his Knight to simultaneously block your check and
attack your King with a check at the same time,
your King is still in check, and would have to move,
even though the Knight could never actually take
your King.

I've often considered the idea that Chess would be
made more interesting if checks were not forcing
and one could play on until the King was actually
captured, but alas, that's not how the game is played
today.

Bruce


  #5   Report Post  
Old April 11th 04, 03:03 PM
Remco Gerlich
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rules question for you (newbie).

On 2004-04-11, Bruce Sterling Woodcock wrote:
I've often considered the idea that Chess would be
made more interesting if checks were not forcing
and one could play on until the King was actually
captured, but alas, that's not how the game is played
today.


If we assume for a moment that players don't blunder and will notice
that a king is in check, then that would never change anything, would
it? Checks wouldn't be forcing, but ignoring a check would lose the
game.

I agree that it would simplify the rules a bit, but I don't see how it
would be more interesting. An extra chance that a beginner loses by
not noticing a check is hardly more interesting :-)

--
Remco Gerlich



  #6   Report Post  
Old April 11th 04, 06:57 PM
Kenneth Sloan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rules question for you (newbie).

"Simon Brightwell" writes:

Please excuse my ignorance as a casual and irregular player. I am not
completely au fait with the less common rules.

Anyway, in my game yesterday I was in a position where I wanted to take the
opponent's rook with my king. However, the opponent's rook was (arguably)
being protected by his knight, although I felt it was not being protected
because the knight could not move because it would be putting his own king
in check!


Nope, sorry. Look carefully at your argument. You are claiming that
you CAN take the rook (placing your own king in check) because your
opponent's Knight cannot move (placing *his* king in check). If you can
do it, why can't he?

The rule is that you many not leave your king on a square which is
attacked by any piece. Period. KxR is not a legal move.


Was I allowed to take his rook,


No

or was that putting myself in
check?


Yes.

We were playing over the net using Shockwave, and to my
disappointment it didn't allow me this move which I had deliberately set up.


Why are you disappointed that an illegal move was not allowed?


So here I am hoping that shockwave is badly programmed, but have a sneaky
fealing that it isn't.


"sneaky"? Precisely.


Hope I have explained the scenario well enough. I feal I should be allowed
to make the move because his knight could not possibly be protecting
anything if it may not move.


"should" is not the right word - but if you think you "should" be able
to make this move, you will need to start a campaign to change the basic
rules of chess. Good luck.


I look forward to any sensible comments and the correct ruling.


The correct ruling is: KxR is an illegal move, and you are probably
subject to a touch-move ruling (depending on what piece you touched
first).


Cheers,
Simon, Rijswijk, The Netherlands.





--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
  #7   Report Post  
Old April 11th 04, 07:00 PM
Kenneth Sloan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rules question for you (newbie).

"Bruce Sterling Woodcock" writes:

...
I've often considered the idea that Chess would be
made more interesting if checks were not forcing
and one could play on until the King was actually
captured, but alas, that's not how the game is played
today.


I don't believe the game was every played that way.

There is, in fact, a rather nice "story" that goes with the idea that
one does not every actually capture the King. In a world were there
were many actual Kings, the royal families preferred to discourage the
idea that Kings could be killed. It is much more palatable to think of
the King being restrained (not able to make a move), rather than "dead".


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
  #8   Report Post  
Old April 11th 04, 07:07 PM
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rules question for you (newbie).


"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...
"Bruce Sterling Woodcock" writes:

...
I've often considered the idea that Chess would be
made more interesting if checks were not forcing
and one could play on until the King was actually
captured, but alas, that's not how the game is played
today.


I don't believe the game was every played that way.


I didn't mean to imply that it ever was. Just that it is
not how it's played now (as opposed to, say, the future).

Bruce


  #9   Report Post  
Old April 11th 04, 08:11 PM
Simon Brightwell
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rules question for you (newbie).

his rook, or
was that putting myself in check?



For the official rules of chess:

http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101

One excerpt:

3.8 b. 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 cannot themselves move.

You also can download them in Dutch
http://www.schaakbond.nl/service/reglement.htm
if that would be appropriate.



Excellent! Many thanks indeed.

Just for the record I am English, but speak reasonably fluent Dutch, so both
links are very useful.

Cheers,
Simon.


  #10   Report Post  
Old April 12th 04, 12:25 AM
John DeMastri
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rules question for you (newbie).

Above absolute beginner level, it wouldn't change a thing.

Noone would make a move that left their king in check, because the next move
would be nxK, game over.

Noone would make a move that neglected to defend their king in check,
because the next move would be nxK, game over.

As a practical matter, your suggested change is no change at all.

- John


"Bruce Sterling Woodcock" wrote in message
. com...

"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...
"Bruce Sterling Woodcock" writes:

...
I've often considered the idea that Chess would be
made more interesting if checks were not forcing
and one could play on until the King was actually
captured, but alas, that's not how the game is played
today.


I don't believe the game was every played that way.


I didn't mean to imply that it ever was. Just that it is
not how it's played now (as opposed to, say, the future).

Bruce




Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017