[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments/Ratings for a Single Item Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier⇩ Earliest⇧ Rules of Chess FAQ. Frequently asked chess questions.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Navjot singh wrote on 2017-10-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Can we move any one of our player piece like rook , queen , hourse, or king or pawn in a relevant box and put it back to its postiton if we did not placed that piece permanently on any postiton. And then move any other player. John Lawson wrote on 2013-05-17 UTCNo, castling can only be done with the rook. The king is moved two spaces toward the rook, and the rook is then placed on the other side of the king. There are other limitations as well, all detailed in the rules. konmanon wrote on 2013-05-17 UTCIts possible to castle using knight on b1? I heard the idea of castling is the remove king from center, and the relative position between the place king start and the knight on b1 is the same as the position of kingslide rook and king Jeremy Lennert wrote on 2012-06-28 UTCIf it is black's turn, his king is in check, and he has no legal moves, then it is checkmate and he loses the game. You can never have a stalemate while you are in check. I can only assume that either the computer you played with had a bug, or you aren't remembering the details of that situation correctly. Nicholas Waldorf wrote on 2012-06-28 UTCAlright. So, here's my scenario: I played a game where the Black King was alone, against a White King, White Queen & a White Pawn. The Black King avoids moving into check. Meanwhile, the the White Pawn gets promoted to White Queen (2). Once this happens, that piece (i.e. White Queen (2)) is then putting the Black King in check (and being guarded by White Queen (1)). So, it is the Black player's turn but he has no legal moves & is now in check... I'm assuming this means that he IS in check mate, but I've seen this maneuver on the computer-ages ago-& it ruled this a stalemate. I can kinda see the argument that it IS the Black player's turn & he has no legal move. However, since he IS in check, I'd think this is a checkmate... Which is correct? Doug Chatham wrote on 2012-03-07 UTCArticle 3, section 9 of the FIDE Laws of Chess: 3.9Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 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. Larry Moak wrote on 2012-03-06 UTCBased on the rules as I understand it, a King cannot move into Check.. period. end of statement. I got that. However, based on comments I read here, if a King (lets call it the White King) moves next to the black King it is an illegal move.. even if the white King moves into it's own protected area covered by it's own Bishop. How can it be an illegal move if the black King cannot (retaliate) Check the white King without moving into Check from the white kings bishop? The white King is not really moving into Check, (as he checks the black King), because the black king cannot move to (retaliate) check.. without moving into check from the white bishop. It doesn't seem consistent that suddenly the black King can threaten.. even though it would be illegal to do so. If this is truly the rule.. then it must suspend the check rule that is operational during all other times. The way I see it, the white King is safe moving into his own protected space next to, and checking the black king.. simply because the black King cannot move illegally into Check (from opposing white bishop that also protects the white king).. in order to retaliate/check the white king. What am I missing here? Why are the rules of Check.. suspended in this scenario? Rodrigo Zanotelli wrote on 2012-01-01 UTCThanks for the info. EDIT: Anyway, found the answer for my own question From f.i.d.e. '5.1 The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponentâ€™s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was a legal move.' '....This IMMEDIATELY ends the game.' This means the other player checkmates him and he lost, and not that he WILL lose in a turn that where he is checkmated because he will not be able to get out of it and then player will capture him. Jeremy Lennert wrote on 2011-12-31 UTCThe FIDE rules cover situations that can occur in FIDE Chess. If a variant allows new situations to arise (such as having multiple Kings, or two pieces in the same square, or Pawns on the first rank), it has to specify how to resolve them; they are not covered simply by saying 'FIDE rules apply'. (Ralph Betza once attempted to codify a few rules that were used often in variants as 'Rule Zero', but while he undoubtedly used those rules a lot, I'm not sure whether they're any more common in general than other options, and in any case are not extensive enough to save very much repeating.) If you're trying to discern the 'spirit' of the rule, I believe it came about something like this: Initially, the goal of the game was to capture the enemy King, and 'check' didn't matter. People got annoyed when an interesting game ended prematurely because one player made a dumb mistake that allowed his King to immediately be captured, so they decided to prevent that by making it illegal. Thus, if you make a move that would cause you to lose on the VERY next turn, you must take it back and do something else (if you have any other choice). To get the current FIDE rules, you need to add the additional rule that a player who is not in check but who cannot move without placing himself in check (that is, a player in 'stalemate') receives a draw instead of a loss. It's not obvious (at least to me) why this should be so, and historically various players have resolved stalemates in just about every different way you could imagine, but the modern accepted resolution is a draw. So the 'spirit' of the rule (in my opinion) is 'the REAL goal of the game is to capture the enemy king, but as a safety net, you're not allowed to make any move that would allow your opponent to win on the very next move.' In a variant that nullifies this safety net and allows you to place yourself in check, the most natural rule would be that the game is won by capturing the King, and placing yourself in 'check' is generally a poor strategy but otherwise has no special significance. Rodrigo Zanotelli wrote on 2011-12-31 UTCI was talking about variants that follow 'all f.i.d.e rules except...', or when someone want to follow f.i.d.e. chess logics/rules/idea while he is creating his own variant. Jeremy Lennert wrote on 2011-12-31 UTCUm. They're called 'variants' because they all have different rules. There's no one rule that all variants follow, on that or any other point. Rodrigo Zanotelli wrote on 2011-12-31 UTCThanks for the answer. Now I see that the situation of both players being in check at the same time is impossible to happen in f.i.d.e. chess. But, and for variants that because of their rules changes, allow the situation of both players being in check to happen, what would happen in this situation? A player that becomes in check and cant get out of it would lose the game or he will only lose if the other player can capture his king? M Winther wrote on 2011-12-27 UTCBoth players cannot be in check at the same time. The players must have missed that either party was in check and continued to play. They should go back to the position where the first check occurred and begin anew from there. /Mats Rodrigo Zanotelli wrote on 2011-12-25 UTCOne question. If I cant get out of a check I lose? I am asking that because of that situation: A game is on White player turn and he is in check, but dont have a way to get out of it. Then black turn start and he is also in check and can get out of check, but that means that he will not be able to capture the white king. What would happen in this situation? White would lose anyway because he was not able to get out of check, or the check=loss part of the rules just means that you need you are forced to try to get out of check? richard wrote on 2011-11-30 UTCWhen you are stupid enough to lose to an eleven year old, is it okay to claim that he can not claim the win because he was stupid too and said check instead of checkmate? Jeremy Lennert wrote on 2011-10-04 UTCIt sounds like his Rook was captured en passant, which would indeed be a computer error. Hard to be certain without a more precise description, though. Fergus Duniho wrote on 2011-10-04 UTCIt's hard to tell what is going on from your description. If you could provide before and after diagrams, that would help. Rob Enggist wrote on 2011-10-03 UTCHi, I play the computer at expert level, and I need to know this rule, if it is a rule, otherwise it is comp. fluke: I had a powerful position with Queen and Rook, then I proceeded to move the Rook past his Pawn that had not moved from its original position. As I moved the Rook the past the Pawn, the computer just swiped my Rook (of course diagonally) . . I was dumbfounded. I can see the validity of this rule (if it indeed is one) . . if you have moved your Pawn all the way down, and then you try to pass the computer's pawn without striking. I NEED HELP ON THIS ONE! THANKS. [email protected] NerdyGeek. wrote on 2011-07-03 UTCOddly enough nerd or geek are the two highest forms of compliments you could ever give. quentin wrote on 2010-05-28 UTCRe answer from 2007 'Cindy: the Black Queen cannot move since that would expose the Black King to check, which is not allowed. This is a very useful tactic.' The queen can move so long as it stays on the same row, between the rook and the king. hitesh pant wrote on 2010-02-03 UTCAverage ★★★does king play alone while all other are captured Fergus Duniho wrote on 2009-02-21 UTCYour friend is incorrect. The King does not have to be attacked before it can capture. The only restriction on the King's ability to move or capture is that it cannot place itself in check with its move. confused player wrote on 2009-02-21 UTCGood ★★★★Ok so my friend says that a king can not capture a piece if the king is not being attacked. Example. The knight moves directly in front is he allowed to take the knight or no. Write back as soon as possible our game depends on it. Sincerely confused player David Paulowich wrote on 2009-02-04 UTCFergus writes: 'It is possible to use repeated checks to force the same position to repeat three times.' See this page for a moving diagram of perpetual check. It is worth noting that sometimes the 50 moves rule will apply before the 3-times repetition rule. As I wrote back on [2004-08-27], in my database is the game [R. Pert - M. Franklin, 1996] in which both players have two rooks on the board. Black sets up a possible stalemate position on move 33 by advancing his passed Pawn to h3. All White needs to do is sacrifice both Rooks. After 21 consecutive Rook checks, they agreed to a draw. Of course, Black can always end the checks (and stalemate White) by capturing the last Rook. Fergus Duniho wrote on 2009-02-03 UTCNo, there is not. First, stalemate is a specific condition that, by the rules of Chess, results in a draw. Stalemate is when the King is not in check and the player cannot make any legal move. In some Chess variants, such as Chinese Chess, stalemate is a win for the player who delivers it. But in Chess it is a draw for both players. Your question can more accurately be phrased by asking whether putting your opponent into check a specified number of times causes the game to end in a draw. Again, the answer is no. There is no rule to precisely this effect, but there is a rule that can cause the game to end in a draw due to repeated checks. This is the 3-times repetition rule: 'If the same position with the same player to move is repeated three times in the game, the player to move can claim a draw.' It is possible to use repeated checks to force the same position to repeat three times. 25 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier⇩ Earliest⇧Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.