@Oxytocinblb if it was "simple enough" we wouldn't have posts like this would we now???? I understand the rule, and have nothing against it, I'm just curious about why a captured king doesn't exist, it doesn't matter really.
nice example @ProfDrHack . i think the question now is, why the Queen can't capture any other piece along the e file except the king
The King moves the pieces. No commander, no one moves at all. ;)
The king must remain on the board as the functions of the other pieces is to help capture the enemy king and to protect their own from capture. No king, no reason for the other pieces to move. Game over.
@AlphaZeroAII
Because the game is over immediately after Qe3#, as others have said. There will be no more moves.
Also, because there are no other pieces on the e-file to capture to begin with.
I don't quite understand where the problem is. The rules do NOT say that a piece pinned to their king is to be considered "dead" in any way. They say that a player is not allowed to make a move that leaves their king in check. It just follows from that rule that a player is not allowed to move away pinned pieces as s/he pleases if that leaves their king in check. But the pieces still keep their influence on the opposing king.
(And let's not forget, pinned pieces CAN sometimes move - directly towards or away from their attacker)
Somehow, the fact that a capture is involved seems to be confusing.
But whether or not the king would capture a queen while marching onto a rook's file is absolutely irrelevant.
The situation as described in your initial post:
lichess.org/study/eGZPuKrm/FSboyA7p#0
Compare to this one:
lichess.org/study/eGZPuKrm/xXsMsaow#0
Would you allow the move Kf7 in the second example?
Because the game is over immediately after Qe3#, as others have said. There will be no more moves.
Also, because there are no other pieces on the e-file to capture to begin with.
I don't quite understand where the problem is. The rules do NOT say that a piece pinned to their king is to be considered "dead" in any way. They say that a player is not allowed to make a move that leaves their king in check. It just follows from that rule that a player is not allowed to move away pinned pieces as s/he pleases if that leaves their king in check. But the pieces still keep their influence on the opposing king.
(And let's not forget, pinned pieces CAN sometimes move - directly towards or away from their attacker)
Somehow, the fact that a capture is involved seems to be confusing.
But whether or not the king would capture a queen while marching onto a rook's file is absolutely irrelevant.
The situation as described in your initial post:
lichess.org/study/eGZPuKrm/FSboyA7p#0
Compare to this one:
lichess.org/study/eGZPuKrm/xXsMsaow#0
Would you allow the move Kf7 in the second example?
Some further topics for discussion: Why may a king not capture the opposing king? Why may a king not check an opposing king? Why may a pawn not be promoted to another king? Why may you not sacrifice your king, even for a very good position? Why may a king not sleep with the opposing queen, and perhaps make little pawns (if she is still young enough) who will be allowed to choose their allegiance when they get older? Why is chess neither backgammon or checkers? Why doesn't anyone want to discuss my actual chess problem on another thread?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.