How can a Knight be pinned and attack at the same time? • page 1/2 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

Can anyone explain what's going on here? I'm playing white and my king attacked by a rook. Knight is pinned and cannot protect the rook but I can't capture it. Why? This is the first time I have seen such a situation.

Board on screen https://i.ibb.co/jWzTM07/pin.jpg

Yes if king captures the rook he will be in check but knight cannot attack my king because he will open a check for his king.

I didn't see anything about this in the chess rules. Can you give any guidance?

Can anyone explain what's going on here? I'm playing white and my king attacked by a rook. Knight is pinned and cannot protect the rook but I can't capture it. Why? This is the first time I have seen such a situation. Board on screen https://i.ibb.co/jWzTM07/pin.jpg Yes if king captures the rook he will be in check but knight cannot attack my king because he will open a check for his king. I didn't see anything about this in the chess rules. Can you give any guidance?

JuicyChickenNO1

#2

It's just how the rules work. Just because he's pinned doesn't mean that it wouldn't be check, and you're not allowed to move into check. Or if you think it in another way, there's three reactions to a check (capturing, blocking, and moving) and pinning the piece is not one of them.

Nomoreusernames edited

#3

@shprot00
From the FIDE Laws of Chess:
3.9.1 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 the square occupied by the king because they would then leave or place their own king in check.

@shprot00 From the FIDE Laws of Chess: 3.9.1 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 the square occupied by the king because they would then leave or place their own king in check.

NM MrPushwood

#4

Because after all if you lose your king, the game is over...and you can't retaliate.

Or consider it this way: imagine a string of forced moves that would eventually lead to the capture of the opponent's king (if yours were captured). It would become cumbersome indeed to keep track of all that. ;)

Because after all if you lose your king, the game is over...and you can't retaliate. Or consider it this way: imagine a string of forced moves that would eventually lead to the capture of the opponent's king (if yours were captured). It would become cumbersome indeed to keep track of all that. ;)

greysensei edited

#5

@MrPushwood said in #4:

Because after all if you lose your king, the game is over...and you can't retaliate.

Or consider it this way: imagine a string of forced moves that would eventually lead to the capture of the opponent's king (if yours were captured). It would become cumbersome indeed to keep track of all that. ;)

I agree that's a good way to think about it - in my club we often play with the "capture king" rule. If your opponent doesn't see that they're in check then you can capture the king and win the game. In the position above, if that rule was used, if you played Kxd7, then the opponent could play Nxd7 and yes, you could capture their king also, but they captured yours first!

@MrPushwood said in #4: > Because after all if you lose your king, the game is over...and you can't retaliate. > > Or consider it this way: imagine a string of forced moves that would eventually lead to the capture of the opponent's king (if yours were captured). It would become cumbersome indeed to keep track of all that. ;) I agree that's a good way to think about it - in my club we often play with the "capture king" rule. If your opponent doesn't see that they're in check then you can capture the king and win the game. In the position above, if that rule was used, if you played Kxd7, then the opponent could play Nxd7 and yes, you could capture their king also, but they captured yours first!

OctoPinky

#6

@greysensei said in #5:

you can capture the king and win the game

What if you don't see you can capture? Game continues as if nothing happened?

@greysensei said in #5: > you can capture the king and win the game What if you don't see you can capture? Game continues as if nothing happened?

greysensei

#7

@OctoPinky said in #6:

What if you don't see you can capture? Game continues as if nothing happened?

Never had that happen - usually the player who makes the check definitely knows they're making one. But I suppose that if they don't, then yes, the game would continue.

@OctoPinky said in #6: > What if you don't see you can capture? Game continues as if nothing happened? Never had that happen - usually the player who makes the check definitely knows they're making one. But I suppose that if they don't, then yes, the game would continue.

bobbydiniro

#8

Chess is not a democratic republic. It is a kingdom. The last standing king will rule the board. All hail the king Leoric.

HPC10411038

#9

When I explain to children (or when I explained to my mother long time ago):
You do not move simultaneously!
If you took his rook, his knight takes your king. If you had moved simultaneously,
you could capture his king now but with game rules you have lost your king.
There is no king to tell the rook to kill his king. Then it is not a true "pin".

When I explain to children (or when I explained to my mother long time ago): You do not move simultaneously! If you took his rook, his knight takes your king. If you had moved simultaneously, you could capture his king now but with game rules you have lost your king. There is no king to tell the rook to kill his king. Then it is not a true "pin".

Katoh1

#10

Some really weird explanations in this thread. Like have can take the king if the knight is pinned? Could you take another with a pinned knight? No, so you cant take the king either.