Chess Anamoly

A game I played the other day made me think of the following situation:



So white to play, bishop checkmate. The black king can't move to a7/b8 because of the knight. But often we think of a check as being "the attacking piece can take the king on the next move".
In the case of the Knight doing this would leave the white king in check - so should it really be considered a valid check?

I have thought of this sort of thing before, and if you actually played it out to NxK RxK as you suggest, White takes out the opponent's king first, this winning. @zz9

A check is when an attacking piece directly attacks the enemy king, the king can never be taken and any move (by the player whose king is in check) which does not lift the check is illegal, so in you case K to a7/b8 is illegal - not permitted by the rules of the game

But often we think of a check as being "the attacking piece can take the king on the next move". ummm How did u come up with that ?:)

I dont understand the anomaly? Its checkmate black has no legal moves.

If you are saying it might not be mate because of the knight being pinned the thinking is wrong. Checkmate should be thought of as the king will be captured.
Lets say you play Bb7# and I illegally by the way play Ka7. Ill still take your king Nxa7 before you play Rxc1.