ummm, no
king vs king
Sort:
Dec 8, 2022
0
#3
A King can't move into a position where it is in Check, therefore two Kings can never be on adjacent squares. A King could move to reveal an attack on the opposing King from another piece which could be Checkmate or a King could Castle leading to a Checkmate from the paired Rook.
?
Dec 9, 2022
0
#5
Yes. Don’t listen to people who say it can’t be done. They just don’t want you to know the secret.
Dec 9, 2022
0
#7
Any other piece can checkmate alone, with the help of enemy pieces. With the exception of the pawn I suppose (unless the checkmating move promotes the pawn).
ik but what about a cheat code
Dec 10, 2022
0
#9
Impossible but captures the king and not assuming to capture it (which is known as checkmate)!!!
game no kings
What happened here
no king
no, that's bishop mates king,
If you're using the logic of the king is blocking the escape then it could also be called king's own pawn mates it's king
tobstar123 wrote:
no, that's bishop mates king,
If you're using the logic of the king is blocking the escape then it could also be called king's own pawn mates it's king
No, the bishop only checks the king. Checkmates, checks and stalemates are always attributed to the unit making the move. Even if the king controls no square adjacent to the opposing king, it's still the checkmating piece!
The piece that checks is the one checkmating, not the one that is taking away the escape square.
You are simply stubborn. This is not a point of opinion but an established fact. You can probably even find it in the chess rules and otherwise in the common communications of players and problemists.
Try to answer this question. If checkmate is attributed to the checking piece then what is stalemate attributed to?
can a king checkmate a king