chess online
| From | Message |
|---|---|
|
shotgunblast2dfc 01-Mar-12, 18:40 |
 Absolute Pin? |
|
rockall 01-Mar-12, 21:44 |
No |
|
rockall 01-Mar-12, 21:48 |
FIDE rule 3.9 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. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check." www.fide.com |
|
baronderkilt 03-Mar-12, 01:47 |
That is Here if WT can only play Kb3 it gives MATE ! But alas, he cannot move his king to the square attacked by the Black Queen. Notice, even if there were a black piece on b3 which would be captured by the WT King, that can make no difference. Sometimes it helps to think of the situation as if playing blitz on a real set rather than online. And in those games Kings can be taken. In a regular game it can be asked Which King would be TAKEN FIRST? If the could be taken. Whoever could be Taken First, simply cannot go there. And there are No Mitigating factors. If it Did happen that a King went into check during a live tournament game, otb, either player could point it out later and the game would need reinstated back to the position just prior to the illegal move, and a different move made. It cannot be done if the game concluded without it being noticed and claimed to the TD, however. Of course in my position above one might ask "But does not Kb3# end the game, since Mate ends the game!". Well these are the things that give Directors nightmares. lol. Ordinarily yes Mate ends the game, the instant the piece was released on the mating square, without regard to a punching of the clock in time. As I understand it, correct me if that has changed, someone. I believe what would have to be done in such case would be view the illegal Mate as requiring acceptance by the "mated", who would otherwise be considered to be "On the Move" and therefor able to make Claims. Thus can make an Illegal Move Claim requiring retraction of the illegal move that would have otherwise been a mate. That is my perspective from my 1990's USCF directing. So I dont know if present USCF or FIDE Rules might address such a thing clearly and precisely now ... But if you ever find yourself playing a tournament in the 1990's .... well now you know. lol. (I hope I get a chance to look it up online tho. Sounds interesting.) |
|
baronderkilt 03-Mar-12, 01:51 |
YES Thank You Rockall ... 5.1 The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was a legal move. |
|
shotgunblast2dfc 05-Mar-12, 08:58 |
Deleted by shotgunblast2dfc on 05-Mar-12, 09:04.
|
|
shotgunblast2dfc 05-Mar-12, 09:04 |
thank you so much.. |
|
rockall 05-Mar-12, 13:11 |
shotgun a high degree of confidence the GK software will not allow you to move your king into check. I would be interested if anyone has a contrary example. Yes, it often makes sense to resign if you are far behind in material, but sometimes it is worthwhile to continue playing for a time. If your opponent is good, then you can learn from the manner in which he takes advantage of his material advantage. If your opponent is not very good, then you might treat it as a game in which you have given a handicap and must battle back. You might also want to consider the possibility that your opponent's material advantage is not meaningful. Do you have an attack going that can win the game? Are your pieces fully developed while some of his pieces are still sitting undeveloped on the back rank, because he made the mistake of moving his queen or one of his knights three or four times in the opening while you were developing all of your pieces at the earliest opportunity? This situation is very common among beginners, and if you move promptly to take advantage of it, your material disadvantage may be unimportant. |
Log in