2 player chess

2 Player Chess

Share and you will gain!
Strange name, real interests
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
masros 16 ( +1 | -1 )
true or not One of my chess friend say "You cannot checkmate your opponent's king while your king is in check".Just wonder this statement is true or not.
More: Chess
alberlie 48 ( +1 | -1 )
well, since checkmate immediately ends the game I guess one could argue that the check doesn't count, because your opponent wouldn't have time to "execute" the check... However, it says that checkmate by any _legal_ move decides the game immediately, and I would assume that there is a rule stating that in case of a check there are only those moves considered as being legal which neutralize the check...
misato 64 ( +1 | -1 )
not true You have to make a move which both
- defends your opponent's check against your king AND
- checkmates his king
simultaneously.
This is not against any chess rule!

Example:
White (3): Ke6, Qg7, Re7
Black (2): Ke8, Ra7
The black king is in chess and Black decides to move 1. - Rxe7+ instead of being mated after 1. - Kd8 2. Qf8 1-0. But the black check is now countered by a white mate: 2. Qxe7 1-0. No problem.

If your friend wanted to say that you cannot checkmate your opponent's king when you are in checkmate - then he is definitely right. The game is already over or according to the number 1 in our club: "the first checkmate wins always!"
alberlie 13 ( +1 | -1 )
there it is... article 3.5.b of the FIDE chess rules: "A player must not make a move which places or leaves his own king in check."
More: Chess
misato 42 ( +1 | -1 )
crazy situation Just change the example above with the white Queen on h7 (instead of g7). If your friend were right, White were not allowed to capture the black rook checking the white King (after 1. - Rxe7+). Not allowed because he would answer a "check" with "checkmate"!
So he would be forced to move his King out of the check and would certainly lose after
2. K somewhere Rxh7. Never!
alberlie 41 ( +1 | -1 )
his friend _is_ right, is he not? you can't checkmate while being in check yourself - there's nothing wrong with meting the check with mate on your part. I guess what his friend had in mind was something like your example without a black rook but a black bishop on c4. I guess what he wanted to ask is if you're still free to checkmate by Qe7# or if you have to meet the check Bc4+ first.
masros 10 ( +1 | -1 )
I am baffled.Can anybody give me actual game, no setup position.So I can proof to my friend his say is wrong.
alberlie 21 ( +1 | -1 )
He is right! You can't mate someone while still being in check yourself. You can however meet a check on your king with a move that at the same time checkmates your opponent.
misato 119 ( +1 | -1 )
"while" or "when"? (1):"You cannot checkmate your opponent's king WHILE your king is in check".
If the situation "my King in check" is still on the board after my move (even if pretended "checkmate") then my move is not legal as you quoted from the FIDE rules. So I have to take back this illegal move and think for another one which neutralizes the check. (By the way: If there is a chance to neutralize it with the token I touched with my first illegal attempt I must move this token - even if this is a very bad move!). If this situation is meant (your example with the bishop on c4 replacing black rook), then the friend is right!

(2):"You cannot checkmate your opponent's king WHEN your king is in check".
If I neutralize the check and (by accident or planned) the opponent's king is checkmated with this move (my example with the black rook on e7) then I killed two birds with one stone. No violation of any chess rule!

I didn't read the statement carefully enough, after your clarification I now think the friend was talking about situation (1) and that he is rehabilitated.
All people who can read definitely have a big advantage...
masros 14 ( +1 | -1 )
If my friend say "You cannot check/checkmate your opponent's king while your king is in checkmate". This is defenitly true.
alberlie 10 ( +1 | -1 )
sorry, I know I'm a bit slow but what exactly was the point of your initial post then...
chuckventimiglia 2 ( +1 | -1 )
Alberlie, now you know.... why I seldom post. :-))
alberlie 11 ( +1 | -1 )
true. :o) In particular, I wonder how someone got his 2000+ rating while he's not clear about such basic points...
se_santi 0 ( +1 | -1 )
... LOL
chilliman 69 ( +1 | -1 )
I think the point here is that it the friend made a technical play on words. you cannot checkmate your opponent while you are also in check. you can however respond to the check with a move that checkmates your opponent whilst either: 1 - taking the piece that had you in check; 2 - interposing a piece between your king and the opponent's piece that had checked you; or, 3 - takes your opponent's checking piece.

saying "You cannot checkmate your opponent's king while your king is in check" is a true statement as the initial check must be broken to allow the game to continue. why do I get the feeling that we have all wasted time on this most obvious statement?
masros 80 ( +1 | -1 )
Maybe I little bit confuse between WHILE and WHEN words like misato say.My friend told me in Malay and I have difficulties to translate it in English because my english is not good.I just make shortcut to what he say.I think what's he trying to say is:-

1.Your opponent just give you check and now it's your turn to move

2.In your move, you make one move that neutralize the check and at the same time checkmate your opponent.

My friend say this situation will never occur in actual game although it's can be proof by setup position.Who can find actual game that fit this situation.Just to proof what my friend is wrong.Hope you all will understand what I say.
misato 115 ( +1 | -1 )
now it is clear After your clarification I see that the first answer I gave was fitting to the problem you and your friend have. This move is legal, and this move (neutralizing the check and mating the opponent's king simultaneously) is the last action in the game, the winning move!

Ok, if you and your friend agree with that and the setup position I told you - I cannot understand why you need a real game with this end.
If someone says that you cannot checkmate the opponent's king with the castling move - why does it need a real game to disprove him?
Or I state that you (playing Black) cannot checkmate your opponent's king on e5 (black square) in move #64 by moving your bishop to b5 (white square). I hope you agree that this is possible, but I doubt you will find a game with these conditions. After your unsuccessful search for such a real game I cannot say "Ah, now you see that I was right!"

Or didn't I understand you again and your friend just wants a game notation disproving his statement, even if never played? This should be an easy task.
misato 201 ( +1 | -1 )
paradox situation Easter holidays have begun and I have only one undone game running at GK (waiting for new tournament rounds to start). So there is a lot of time to waste:
White (6): Kg4, Qa8, Rc5, Rg1, Ba3
Black (8): Kg8, Qc2, Rc8, Rh8, Pf6, f7, h4, h7.
White to move.

There is no doubt that this position can be reached in a normal game with all legal moves. I leave this easy job for practice (although boring).

White moves 1. Rxc8+ and forces the only legal answer 1. - Qxc8+. What should White do now to neutralize the check on his own King?
Taking the checking token 2. Qxc8 mates the black king - forbidden according to your friend's opinion!
There is no token to be put between the black Queen and the white King, so the only other chance is to move the white King (remember that 2. Qxc8 is forbidden). Unfortunately the King cannot move either to g3 nor to g5, so he must leave the g-file demasking the Rg1!
2. Kf3 (or 2. Kf4 or 2. Kxh4 or 2. Kh5) is immediately mate because the black Queen is pinned. Forbidden if your friend is right!

What is this paradoxon's solution?
Is White not allowed to move 1. Rxc8+ because all possible continuations lead to illegal second moves? But 1. Rxc8+ looks okay on first glance (even if 1. Qxc8 is mate in one). Who decides if
1. Rxc8+ is illegal (and when)? And if it is legal, how is the game to continue? Draw because of missing legal moves (something like stalemate)? (solution A)
Or is your friend just wrong? (solution B)
Don't take it personally (or your friend), choice (B) is the correct one.

This situation is possible in a legal game although I never saw such a game. But chess players are very inventive, and some have a strange humour, too. If this "paradoxon" wouldn't be covered by the rules, I am sure that two funny people will play such a game just to test or annoy the arbiter - sooner or later! And after that the rules would be adjusted.
But these thoughts are only theoretical phantoms, FIDE rules cover this problem.
doctor_knight 34 ( +1 | -1 )
ok. I remember one time I was watching two friends play a casual game of chess (they weren't the most learned players) and there was a position where one person parried a check with his own check on the enemy king. It actually worked quite well. Sorry, I can't remember the exact situation, but it can happen, though not often.
mrtrout 2 ( +1 | -1 )

*rolls eyes*
ccmcacollister 32 ( +1 | -1 )
mrtrout . . . You CAN roll your eyes when delivering Checkmate ...
But if you roll your eyes everytime you deliver check, your opponent may complain
to the TD that you are bothering him. (unless you grab the left side of your chest at the same time; but that IS more appropriate for receiving Check than delivering.)
}8-)
dokesa 24 ( +1 | -1 )
Here are the two record holders www.xs4all.nl/%7Etimkr/records/records.htm#Longest%20mutual%20series%20of%20checks