63 ( +1 | -1 ) Weird question about check/checkmateok, this is a question i have pondered for much time, and i have no solid answer... anyways, heres the question... Lets say we have a normal game... at one point in the game, white puts black in check... and black responds with a move that "checkmates" white... the reason why it's in quotes is i am not sure this is allowed... does anyone? because you are required to remove the threat on your king when in check... but what if you can checkmate the other king? this is like one of those math questions.... does anyone have a positive, solid, definite answer? if so, i would like to know....
39 ( +1 | -1 ) Article 3, Paragraph 4, Section B(b)The king is said to be 'in check', if it is under attack by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces cannot themselves move. Declaring a check is not obligatory. A player must not make a move which places or leaves his own king in check.
A player must not make a move which places, or leaves, his own King in check.
PS My apologies, it's in the More Options section.
71 ( +1 | -1 ) sure! it can be done.if white's queen puts his opponent's king in check, let's say.......... and it is pinned against its own king by black's queen or something (this must be the case if it were to be checkmate i think........ since in other cases, the queen or whatever other piece is doing the checking would be able to capture the piece that is making the block and delivering checkmate), he can then be checkmated by a blocking bishop or knight or whatever, i think. i know this isn't well said, but can u understand me at least??? the checkmate is definitely possible, but it seems like an unlikely achievement to me. but maybe i'm missing something (very likely ;)), and someone else can show how it can happen in an actual game where both players are trying to win.
2 ( +1 | -1 ) sorryQf1-e1+. is that better?
4 ( +1 | -1 ) that is themove white would play.
18 ( +1 | -1 ) ...i understand that it is theoretically possible to have one side in check, then checkmate the other, but what i want to know is whether or not chess rules would allow it...
13 ( +1 | -1 ) of course…the chess rules allow it. as long as your move takes you out of check, the move is legal. That is all you need to know.
13 ( +1 | -1 ) Here's an example that I came up with:Black: King on h8, pawns on h7 and g7, Queen on h2 White: King on a8, rook on b8, bishop on c8
If Black moves: ...Qh1+. then white responds Bb7#
61 ( +1 | -1 ) checkmate questionGta3master, maybe this is the way to think about your question. First, I think maybe terminology is throwing you off the trail a little bit. Consider the problem this way, remember first that we are alternating moves here: now say the opposing bishop checks your king, that is of course to say he can capture your king of it does not move. Now, you move to a position where his king is threatened and has no escape (checkmate), but still, we have to give your opponent his turn and on his turn he takes your king with his bishop. You lose. Doesn't matter that in one move you can take his king.
39 ( +1 | -1 ) yesi see what you are saying duffer, and everyone else who has said something of the sort. from reading other posts though, i get the feeling that some people didn't completely understand me (you did, though)... i did mean that the "checkmating" move would NOT take the king out of check, thus creating my problem... but i now know the answer, and i'm just happy i got to see other people's views.
6 ( +1 | -1 ) duffer,that is exactly what i was trying to say, i think you did it better tho!
12 ( +1 | -1 ) it can be donelike if you have N checking you, you can take it with mate- but you have to stop the check before you do anything else