9 ms·
That's a consequence of not being allowed to put yourself in check (by any means).
by 333c 4mo ago
That's a consequence of not being allowed to put yourself in check (by any means).
- anamexis 4mo agoThe only way to put yourself in check is by moving.
- 333c 4mo agoDid you mean putting your opponent in check? In chess, you are not allowed to put yourself in check.
- anamexis 4mo agoYou said “ That's a consequence of not being allowed to put yourself in check (by any means).” My point is that there are no other means.
- 333c 4mo agoI was replying to a comment quoting an official rule saying "no piece can be moved if that exposes or leaves its own king in check." I was pointing out that that specific rule (read to mean that moving a piece pinned against a king is not allow) is not strictly necessary. Putting oneself in check is not allowed regardless of whether it's because you moved a piece that was pinned against your king or moved your king directly into the line of sight of an opponent's piece. These are the different "means." As a sibling comment points out, "The only action you can ever take in chess is moving," so it's not particularly meaningful to say that the only way to put yourself in check is by moving.
- anamexis 4mo agoAnd likewise, it's not particularly meaningful to say "That's a consequence of not being allowed to put yourself in check (by any means)." The rule, "3.9.2: no piece can be moved if that exposes or leaves its own king in check." covers both the case of moving a pinned piece as well as moving the king into check, i.e. it covers all "means" of putting yourself into check.
- yifanl 4mo agoThe only action you can ever take in chess is moving.
- PowerElectronix 4mo agoYou can resign, too.
- thejokeisonme 4mo agoYou can put yourself in check by moving the king. That has nothing to do with pinning. Adding a rule for pinning is redundant.
- anamexis 4mo agoIt isn’t an added rule for pinning. It’s the only rule about putting yourself in check.