|
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes 3 hours ago | parent | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | JohnKemeny 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 3.9.2: no piece can be moved if that exposes or leaves its own king in check. | | |
| ▲ | 333c 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's a consequence of not being allowed to put yourself in check (by any means). | | |
| ▲ | anamexis an hour ago | parent [-] | | The only way to put yourself in check is by moving. | | |
| ▲ | yifanl 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The only action you can ever take in chess is moving. | |
| ▲ | 333c 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Did you mean putting your opponent in check? In chess, you are not allowed to put yourself in check. | | |
| ▲ | anamexis 23 minutes 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | gobdovan 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You can also pin a pawn to a queen, but the pawn can still legally move. |
| |
|
| ▲ | munchler 2 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. |
| |
|
| ▲ | saberience an hour 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. |
