upvote

points

by yewenjie8 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby JohnKemeny8 hours ago|
next
[-]
Well, if a piece is pinned it's illegal to move it.

Rule 3.9.2: No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.

reply
upvoteby wavemode3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That rule doesn't mean it's illegal to move a piece that's pinned. It just means that it's illegal to move it to a square that would expose the king. For example a pawn that's pinned vertically can still push forward, it just can't capture diagonally.

That's why treating colloquial concepts like "pinning" as though they are rules in and of themselves is not really precise or productive.

reply
upvoteby TheOtherHobbes7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Unlike en-passant and castling, pinning and discovered checks are consequences of lower-level rules.

At the "Is this move legal?" level, they don't need unique rules of its own if the lower-level rules are specified correctly.

reply
upvoteby JohnKemeny7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
3.9.2: no piece can be moved if that exposes or leaves its own king in check.
reply
upvoteby 333c7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That's a consequence of not being allowed to put yourself in check (by any means).
reply
upvoteby anamexis5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The only way to put yourself in check is by moving.
reply
upvoteby thejokeisonme2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
You can put yourself in check by moving the king. That has nothing to do with pinning. Adding a rule for pinning is redundant.
reply
upvoteby yifanl5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
The only action you can ever take in chess is moving.
reply
upvoteby PowerElectronix4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You can resign, too.
reply
upvoteby 333c5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Did you mean putting your opponent in check? In chess, you are not allowed to put yourself in check.
reply
upvoteby anamexis5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You 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.
reply
upvoteby 333c4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I 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.

reply
upvoteby anamexis4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
And 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.

reply
upvoteby gobdovan7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
You can also pin a pawn to a queen, but the pawn can still legally move.
reply
upvoteby HiroProtagonist6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You're both right, depending on whether you mean relative pin vs absolute pin.
reply
upvoteby munchler7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
The point is that, logically, the first part of that rule (“expose the king”) is implied by the second part (“leave that king”), so the first part is redundant. You could simplify the rule to:

No piece can be moved that will leave the king of the same color in check.

reply
upvoteby gpm3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Pedantically I disagree, to leave something in a condition it must have been in that condition in the first place. We could have a game where you're allowed to place your king in check, but if it is in check at the start of your turn you must fix that.

While we're being pedantic though it's not a property of the piece that might be able to be moved that will place the king in check. It's a property of the move. For example we might imagine you have a rook between an enemy rook and your king. You can move the rook along the line between the enemy rook and the king, but not perpendicular to it.

The rule should be:

No move can be made where the moving players king is in check in the resulting position

reply
upvoteby 3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby emil-lp6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
You should submit it to FIDE.
reply
upvoteby saberience6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Pinning isn’t a rule, it’s just something that arises from other rules.

Also, pinning can happen with pieces that don’t include a king, which means you can just move out of the pin and expose whatever other piece.

It’s just a chess tactic, not a rule. It’s like saying a chess skewer is a rule too.

reply
upvoteby juujian7 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
And discovered check means that it is not sufficient to check the position of the piece you have moved, you also need to check the position of other pieces to see whether there is a new check.
reply