The Chess Variant Pages
Custom Search




[ 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
This item is a reference work
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2003-02-05
 Author: Hans L. Bodlaender. Rules of Chess: Kings and check FAQ. Answers to frequently asked questions on the rules of chess regarding kings and check.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
doug wrote on 2007-12-27 UTC
okay thank you that's all I needed to know , guesse I was hoping for something else lol but it's all good.

David Howe wrote on 2007-12-26 UTC
FIDE laws of chess: 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. http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101

Gary Gifford wrote on 2007-12-26 UTC
You cannot put your own King into check. Never.

doug wrote on 2007-12-26 UTC
I'm in a game where the opponents knight is pinned between my queen & his king and therefore cannot move.He moved his queen next to my king in a position where IF he Could move his knight,I'd put my king in check by taking his queen.logic dictates to me that since he is unable to move his knight because it would put his king in check ,then my king should be allowed to take his queen.Is there a ruling for this? I'm sure this is'nt the 1st time this has happened but I've been unable to find any specific ruling for such an instance

gary wrote on 2007-06-03 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Nice and easy to understand Q&A based on real life where people do not the real rules of chess. Nice pictures made it much better.

Peter Aronson wrote on 2007-04-06 UTC
A Pawn can certainly attack a King (technically, Kings are not captured, but mated, since the game is over when the King is in a position where it can not avoid being captured, and the actual capture is not made). If a Pawn is in position to attack a King, then the King is in check and must be moved if possible to an unattacked square or the Pawn must be captured; if neither is possible, then it is checkmate.

Anonymous wrote on 2007-04-05 UTC
I was playing my friend and he siad that i cant take his king with my pawn. Is that true?

Doug Chatham wrote on 2005-11-19 UTC
To answer the last question: In your example, taking the white rook is not a legal move, since it would put the white king next to the black king (Read the answer to 'Can kings move next to kings?' on this Kings and Check FAQ page). Also, taking all the non-king pieces of the opponent does not automatically end the game.

Anonymous wrote on 2005-11-19 UTC
Ok so say there is white king in space 6b his the white rook is in 5c. Now the black king is in 4b and the black pawn is in 4c. If black moves his king to take the rook, is that game, because all the pieces are taken except the king?

Jared McComb wrote on 2005-02-06 UTC
In order to call check, the piece must have already been moved and your turn must be over. If, afterwards, you decide that the check is a 'bad move,' you are still stuck with it, as moves cannot be taken back according to the laws of Chess.

BUZ wrote on 2005-02-04 UTCGood ★★★★
Question, SAY I CALL CHECK, WITH THE KNIGHT (i.e OR ANY OTHER PEICE), BUT DECIDE THAT THE CHECK IS NOT A GOOD MOVE. DO I STILL HAVE TO PUT THAT PERSON IN CHECK, OR IS THERE SOME KIND OF PENALTY.

11 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.