On 6 May 2003 at 16:09, asimovd@aol.com wrote:
I don't think this comes up often in practice, but unless I'm mistaken one's king may not be on a square that is attacked by any of the opponent's pieces.
AFAIK, this even includes the situation when the said opponent's piece is immobilized due to its being pinned against its own king.
That's my understanding of the rules....
Thus a checkmate could occur even when the checkmate hinges on a king's being forbidden to escape to a square "attacked" by an opponent's piece that is at the time immobilized by a king pin.
I think the problem here is that you are viewing 'immobilized' stronger than I took the rule. As I understood the overarching rule, it was simple: you cannot commit suicide in chess... if you want the game to end, you must resign. From that view, a 'pinned' piece cannot move not because of some fancy rule about pinning, but only because moving the piece would be a suicide with the opponent's next move... *IF* the opponent has a next move! In the case of moving the king to a square attacked by a pinned piece, you will have *already*lost* [because your king was taken], and so you'll not get a chance to execute the taking of the other side's king from the unpin and so that taking was legal [since it was not a suicide move]. /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <--