Check out Grant Acedrex, our featured variant for April, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Single Comment

Rules of Chess FAQ. Frequently asked chess questions.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Larry Moak wrote on Tue, Mar 6, 2012 03:42 AM UTC:
Based on the rules as I understand it, a King cannot move into Check.. period. end of statement. I got that. However, based on comments I read here, if a King (lets call it the White King) moves next to the black King it is an illegal move.. even if the white King moves into it's own protected area covered by it's own Bishop. How can it be an illegal move if the black King cannot (retaliate) Check the white King without moving into Check from the white kings bishop? The white King is not really moving into Check, (as he checks the black King), because the black king cannot move to (retaliate) check.. without moving into check from the white bishop. It doesn't seem consistent that suddenly the black King can threaten.. even though it would be illegal to do so. If this is truly the rule.. then it must suspend the check rule that is operational during all other times. The way I see it, the white King is safe moving into his own protected space next to, and checking the black king.. simply because the black King cannot move illegally into Check (from opposing white bishop that also protects the white king).. in order to retaliate/check the white king. What am I missing here? Why are the rules of Check.. suspended in this scenario?