I'm sorry, this thread is becoming very confusing ... and I'm adding confusion, really sorry. I made an awful typo.
HG you say: "No, this is not what Fergus said. He said the King could not go to h3 because h2 was attacked. h3 is not attacked. And what Fergus says contradicts what you say: according to Fergus the black Knight is actually considered to attack the black Bishop, a piece of its own color that he cannot capture. While you said: "Pieces are never attacking friendly pieces..."
Sorry sorry. I made a mistake. This is my correct sentence:
>>As Fergus said, in both cases, the Bishop on h2 being black or white, the King cannot jump on h3 because h2 is a square under threat.
Sorry, I meant h2 and I don't know why I wrote h3, which is absurd. As I said, I agree with Fergus.
The black Knight "attacks" h2. When a white piece is on h2, the black Knight obviously attacks that white piece. If it is a black piece which is on h2, then that piece is "protected" by the black Knight. You say "attack (by a friend)", I say "protected", this is just a different understanding of "attacking". "To attack" as something aggressive in my language, which is opposite to "to protect", but for the square which is concerned, it is the same.
No more complicated than that. If I define the rule relatively to the square which is or not under threat, I think it is clear.
I'm sorry, this thread is becoming very confusing ... and I'm adding confusion, really sorry. I made an awful typo.
HG you say: "No, this is not what Fergus said. He said the King could not go to h3 because h2 was attacked. h3 is not attacked. And what Fergus says contradicts what you say: according to Fergus the black Knight is actually considered to attack the black Bishop, a piece of its own color that he cannot capture. While you said: "Pieces are never attacking friendly pieces..."
Sorry sorry. I made a mistake. This is my correct sentence:
>>As Fergus said, in both cases, the Bishop on h2 being black or white, the King cannot jump on h3 because h2 is a square under threat.
Sorry, I meant h2 and I don't know why I wrote h3, which is absurd. As I said, I agree with Fergus.
The black Knight "attacks" h2. When a white piece is on h2, the black Knight obviously attacks that white piece. If it is a black piece which is on h2, then that piece is "protected" by the black Knight. You say "attack (by a friend)", I say "protected", this is just a different understanding of "attacking". "To attack" as something aggressive in my language, which is opposite to "to protect", but for the square which is concerned, it is the same.
No more complicated than that. If I define the rule relatively to the square which is or not under threat, I think it is clear.