4 ms·
As an experienced chess player, there are some situations in which people who know the rules still might get tripped up on. For example, consider the situation:
by gamegoblin 12y ago
As an experienced chess player, there are some situations in which people who know the rules still might get tripped up on. For example, consider the situation:
K R r
_ _ _
k _ _
Can `k` move to the right? Someone who isn't familiar with this situation might think so, because `R` is pinned to `K` by `r`, but it turns out that even though `R` can't move to the square right of `k`, `R` can still give check to it, so the move would be illegal.
Then you also get people who don't know about rules regarding castling through check, etc.
Basically what I'm getting at is, there are moves that even people who casually play chess might misunderstand, so OP was implying that they were not one of these people.
- ionforce 12y agoSorry, could you describe what the colors and pieces are? I'm unclear as to what you are illustrating. Edit: Thanks for the clarifications. lowercase = one color, uppercase = other color. K = king, R = rook The question is... does the rook R still provide attack/check even though it is pinned by rook r to King K? The answer is yes.
- nebulous1 12y agoI think he's saying there are two kings and two rooks, one color in capitals and the other in lower case. His situation is correct, however I don't think any experienced chess player would not know that.
- gamegoblin 12y agoI use that example specifically because it came up on /r/chess the other day, and I've had newer players ask me once or twice. I agree that an experienced player should know, but casual players may not.
- gamegoblin 12y agoLowercase and capitals, just like the python program in the post uses.
- baddox 12y agoI learned the rules of chess from a children's book in third grade, but have never played a full game as far as I can remember. Yet this situation seems extremely obvious to me. One of the most fundamental rules from my children's book was that you cannot make a move that puts yourself in check. Moving k to the right would clearly do that. And it's pretty obvious when you think through what would happen if k moved to the right. R would capture k, which would not put R in check, because the game would be over.
- gamegoblin 12y agoIt only trips people up because the R can't actually move to that square. So if the k were say, a queen, the queen would be safe on that square. The opposing rook would not be allowed to capture it, because they would be putting their own king in check. If one thinks about chess as if the goal were to capture the opponent's king before one's own king is captured, this makes perfect sense. But sometimes the concept of checkmate muddles peoples' intuitions.
- kghose 12y agoIt would only trip people up if they memorize the rule: "You can't make a move that exposes your king to check" but then, for some strange reason, forget that it applies to the other guy too.
- raverbashing 12y agoYeah, this might be a stretch, I had never heard about the checking piece needing to be able to actually capture the King for the check to be valid.
- ff_ 12y agoIf the King cannot escape AND he's not checked it's a draw. It's a common mistake that is likely to be made in finals from beginners.