| More Information on this item |
Our Featured Variant: Try the Chinese game of Xiangqi, one of the most popular and enduring Chess variants in the world.
Rate this page! | Skip to comments
There is a stalemate when the player whose turn it is to move
- is not in check
- has no legal move
Consider for example the following position:
Suppose it is the turn of black to move. Black has no legal move: his pawn cannot move, and his king also cannot move as every place it could go is attacked by white. The knight also cannot move, as moving the knight would mean that the white rook would give check. Also, white does not give check to black, so it is a stalemate.
In case of a stalemate, the game is a draw: 1/2 - 1/2.
This is checkmate. The king is attacked, and there is no legal move to go out of check. So the game is won for the player that gives the check.Consider the following position. White to move. White is in check, and the only positions the white king can move to are g1 and g2, but both are not allowed because the king would be in check there as he would be next to the opponents king. So white is mated and black won the game.
A move that does not lift the check is illegal. So, if this move does not lift the check, then: no.However, the following could happen: the player can take the piece that gives the check and mates at the same time.
Consider the position above. The white queen can take the black rook, thus lifting the check and giving mate at the same time.
I told her my previous move had to be annulled since the king couldn't be exposed. Is this correct?
This is indeed correct. A move which leaves your king in check is illegal, and should be taken back, and another, legal, move should be made. The player that made the illegal move does not lose the game.The touched piece rule applies however, so, if possible, if there is a legal move with the piece that was first illegally moves, then such a move should be done. See for example the following diagram.
Suppose white moves his king to c1, the square with the red circle. This move is illegal, and the bishop then checks the king. The move should be taken back, and white must instead move his king to a1, the square with the green circle; he is no longer allowed to move a pawn.An exception to this is when the rules of speed chess are used. In this form of chess, used when playing with clocks with only a few (e.g., 3 or 5) minutes per player for the entire game, the touched piece rule does not apply; a rule is final when the clock is punched, and a player can claim a win when the opponent makes an illegal move. (Speed chess rules apply only when these are agreed on before the game.)
No, he doesn't lose the game. If there is no legal move with the bishop (and moving such that your king is in check is illegal), then he doesn't have to play it. See for example this diagram.If white touches his bishop, then this has no consequences, as the bishop has no legal move. So, white can instead play his king (e.g., King b1-a2.)
No, this is not a true rule. When in check, each of the following is a legal way to get out of check:Of course, a condition is that your king is no longer in check after the move. So, taking a checking piece is legal, and common.
- Moving the king to a position where it is not in check
- Taking the piece that checks
- Moving a piece between the checking piece (rook, bishop, or queen) and the king
There is no winner. The game is a draw: 1/2 - 1/2.
No. When done accidentally, there is no consequence; the game just continues.When done on purpose, then an arbiter could punish you, as this would be a case of distracting the opponent, and/or making unreasonable claims.
No. Actually, saying check is not obligatory, but just polite.Note however that if the other player fails to see he is in check, and moves without lifting the check, that player also does not lose, but has to make a different move. (See other questions on this webpage.)
For author and/or inventor information on this item see: this item's information page.
Created on: February 10, 2003. Last modified on: February 10, 2003.
This item has comments. View all comments for this item.
Provide feedback on this page!
|
|
Last modified: Monday, December 22, 2008