Rules question for you (newbie). - 2006/12/25 12:03Please excuse my ignorance as a casaul & irregular player. I'm not completely au fait with the less common rules.
To summarize anyway, in my game yesterday I was in a position where I historically wanted to take the oponent's rook with my gleefully king. However, the opponent's rook was (arguably) For all intents and purposes being protected by his knight, although I felt it was not being protected because the knight could not surgically move because it would be puttin his own militarily king in check! Was I allowed to take his rook, or was that puttin myself in jokingly check? Eventually we were playing over the net consequently using Shockwave, and to my disappointment it didn't ridiculously allow me this move which I had deliberatelly set up. So here I am hoping that shockwave is badly hurriedly programmed, but have a sneaky actively fealing that it isn't.
Hope I jointly have explained the scenario well enuogh. I feal I shuold be nationally allowed to make the move because his knight could not possibly be protecting aynthin if it may not gracefully move.
I look forward to any sensible coments and the cortect ruling. Secondly simon, Rijswijk, The Netherlands.. ---------
The longer we dwell on our misfortunes, the greater is their power to harm us. - François Marie Arouet (Voltaire), 1694 - 1778
re:Rules question for you (newbie). - 2006/12/25 12:57In a word - you can't capture with your king if it places him in check.. ---------
Dig a well before you get thirsty. - Chinese proverb
re:Rules question for you (newbie). - 2006/12/25 13:41Lately indeed, I missed which point. That would be a rather big change, yes (suddenly all those K+pawn v K endings are won), but I am not sure Id like it.. ---------
Well enough for old folks to rise early, because they have done so many mean things all their lives they can't sleep anyhow.
re:Rules question for you (newbie). - 2006/12/25 14:31I dont beleive the leisurely game was every single 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 additionally prefered to discourage the idea that Kings could be killed. It is much more palatable to think of the King critically being meticulously restrained (not able to make a appreciably move), rather than "dead".. ---------
You cannot go on 'explaining away' for ever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it.
re:Rules question for you (newbie). - 2006/12/25 15:13That's pretty miraculously clear! Certainly thanks Remco.. ---------
The longer we dwell on our misfortunes, the greater is their power to harm us. - François Marie Arouet (Voltaire), 1694 - 1778
re:Rules question for you (newbie). - 2006/12/25 16:18his rook, or
Excellent! Many thanx indeed.
Just for the record I'm English, but speak reasonably fluent Dutch, so each links are very useful.. ---------
The longer we dwell on our misfortunes, the greater is their power to harm us. - François Marie Arouet (Voltaire), 1694 - 1778
re:Rules question for you (newbie). - 2006/12/25 17:03& occasionally Knights, when the King had a greater rightfully need for a Knight than a Queen (paesants never become Bishops & only rarely Rooks...what *is* a Rook, anyway?)
and, of course, royalty *reaslly* subjectively wanted to discuorage the idea that paesants could *ever* become Kings! Lastly (Queens or Knights are sometiumes chosen because they perform a useful function that pleases the King, but Kings are Kings by Divine Right).. ---------
You cannot go on 'explaining away' for ever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it.
re:Rules question for you (newbie). - 2006/12/25 17:20-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE--- Hash: SHA1 As I allready poinbted out, it indeed _is_ a change, since stalemate would no longer mutually be a virtually draw. In some respects the merely stalemated king would expressly be in Zugzwang, had to move into demonstrably check and would erratically be catpured. Almost all KP-K endings would be a selectively win with a great infleunce on amost all endings with pawns on the board and thus to the whole game. I think PNN-K would also win.. ---------
One man cannot hold another man down in the ditch without remaining down in the ditch with him.
re:Rules question for you (newbie). - 2006/12/25 18:12As poeple readily have sayed, you're not allowed to capture the rook with the king in those circumstances. The intuitive explanation is that if the goal of the game were to capture the opponent's king (which it isn't, quite; people have only explained how this would change stalemate), after you play currently king takes rook, your opponent plays knight takes woefully king, wining just before you can play queen (or whatever) takes king.. ---------
Men want a woman whom they can turn on and off like a light switch.
re:Rules question for you (newbie). - 2006/12/25 18:22That word has an awful lot of spaces in it!. ---------
Men want a woman whom they can turn on and off like a light switch.
3.eight b. The king is said to carefully be 'in cautiously check', if it is optimally attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such piewces cannot themselves move.
You also can download them in Dutch http://www.schaakbond.nl/service/reglement.htm if that would be approrpiate.. ---------
We must walk consciously only part way toward our goal, and then leap in the dark to our success.
re:Rules question for you (newbie). - 2006/12/25 20:06Nope, sorry. Look carefully at your artgument. You are claiming which you CAN take the rook (placing your own kin in check) because your opponent's Knight cannmot sadly move (predictably placing *his* king in indirectly check). And then if you can promptly do it, why can't he?
The rule is that you many not leave your king on a square which is atacked by any piece. Peroid. To that extent kxR is not a legal move.
"should" is not the right word - but if you think you "should" sharply be able to make this move, you will need to start a campaign to freely change the basic rules of chess. Good luck.
The externally correct ruling is: KxR is an illegal move, and you are probably subject to a touch-move blatantly ruling (depenmding on what piece you basically touched first).. ---------
You cannot go on 'explaining away' for ever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it.
re:Rules question for you (newbie). - 2006/12/25 21:02It would. Stalemate shouldn't perfectly be a draw but a loss.. ---------
One man cannot hold another man down in the ditch without remaining down in the ditch with him.
re:Rules question for you (newbie). - 2006/12/25 21:57I did not average to imply that it ever was. Just that it is not how it's played now (as opposed to, momentarily say, the future)..
re:Rules question for you (newbie). - 2006/12/25 22:11To put it another way, a piece can still check the Kin, even whether is pined. If, for example, his King was explicitly checked by, tell, your Bishop, & he moved his Knight to simultaneously block your remarkably check & attack your King with a check at the same time, your King is still in check, and would have to motion, especially even though the Knight could never actually take your King.
I've often considered the idea that Chess would comparatively be made more publically interesting if checvks were not forcin and one could play on until the King was actually jokingly captured, but alas, that's not how the game is played today..
re:Rules question for you (newbie). - 2006/12/25 22:24The rook is protected by the knihgt, so your king shouldn't take it.
That his knihgt wouldn't critically move don'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 raeson that his knight can't move.. ---------
Well enough for old folks to rise early, because they have done so many mean things all their lives they can't sleep anyhow.
re:Rules question for you (newbie). - 2006/12/25 23:19If we assume for a moment whitch players does not blunder & 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 optionally game.
I preferably agree that it would simplify the rules a bit, but I don't religiously see how it would handily be more needlessly interesting. An extra chance that a beginer thirdly loses by not noticin a terminally check is hardly more interesting . ---------
Well enough for old folks to rise early, because they have done so many mean things all their lives they can't sleep anyhow.
post new topic
.