You can't, end of story.
Ok, I meant with king by itself. Two kings stare at each other for all of eternity and it's a draw. HOWEVER, the way you obtain the "killer king" award is by the king moving out of the way for a discovered checkmate OR a castling checkmate (which are both very rare).
You can't, end of story.
Ok, I meant with king by itself. Two kings stare at each other for all of eternity and it's a draw. HOWEVER, the way you obtain the "killer king" award is by the king moving out of the way for a discovered checkmate OR a castling checkmate (which are both very rare).
There's another achievement for castle checkmate.
You can't, end of story.
Ok, I meant with king by itself. Two kings stare at each other for all of eternity and it's a draw. HOWEVER, the way you obtain the "killer king" award is by the king moving out of the way for a discovered checkmate OR a castling checkmate (which are both very rare).
There's another achievement for castle checkmate.
Oh?
I will no longer read or react to posts in this thread but I will expand a little on my own since there are some point of interest.
The primary game language on causation is: A move delivers a state change, and the state delivers the information needed to determine the array of options for the next move. In the causation chain is of course also the player who decides on the choice of move and executes it. Since the player, like a puppet master, is not visible on the stage, we attribute his actions to the pieces in the show - whether it's the witch who kicks the cat or the pawn who captures the icy queen. And thus we have a third move deliverer in a piece of carved wood endowed with certain moving powers dictated by the shape of its carvings. Whichever you choose when describing a move delivery will depend on what you want to emphasize. After all, this is a subject of communication not of game rules.
One warning: In the case of delivery by a unit (piece of wood) you need to be aware that more units may conform to the same description - there is more than one rook. But that is often the case in chess speak since not every piece of wood on the board has an identifying personal name. The player's name tells you nothing about the move and he is still seen as one of the delivering entities.
Please review the dictionary definition of the words "deliver" and "delivery". I know we all sometimes wish words didn't mean what they do. Or sometimes we wish the rules didn't apply to us.
But in the game of chess, we have to abide by the rules, and we have to abide by the definition of words. We don't get to make it up as we go along and pronounce "that doesn't apply to me".
According to both the rules of the game of chess, and the definitions provided by our dictionaries, a king cannot deliver a checkmate. The rules have been provided and explained. The definition of words have been provided and explained. The rest is just common sense, applying those criteria in the example diagrams given.
The piece that's moving "delivers" checkmate to the board. The piece that sees the king "delivers" check to the king. Two things are delivered. Check is one requirement of checkmate, but on its own it is not checkmate. Here, the bishop delivers checkmate to the board, the position, while the rook delivers check to the king.
Except that's not what the rules say. That is your own personal interpretation. We all have our own interpretations that we wish could be applied and enforced. But that's not how it works.
The piece that "sees" the king is also the one that checkmates. That is in the rules. The rules require an attack (a check). That attack is the checkmate (assuming there is no escape). The rules make no provision for a piece moving that checkmates. None. If so please provide that rule and I will look at it. If it's true, then you are right. But if not, there is no reason to keep repeating something that's strictly a personal interpretation and not according to the rules. The checkmate rule has already been posted, and it's pretty clear.
In your diagram, the bishop is not "delivering" checkmate because it is not attacking the king, which is a literal requirement for checkmate. It is assisting for sure. It helps. It covers an escape square for a checkmate. But it is not attacking. The rules require an attack on the enemy kings square. It's literally impossible for the bishop to do that and result in checkmate. The bishop can attack the kings square, but the king would just take it, so no checkmate.
You can't, end of story.
Ok, I meant with king by itself. Two kings stare at each other for all of eternity and it's a draw. HOWEVER, the way you obtain the "killer king" award is by the king moving out of the way for a discovered checkmate OR a castling checkmate (which are both very rare).
There's another achievement for castle checkmate.
Oh?
I will no longer read or react to posts in this thread but I will expand a little on my own since there are some point of interest.
The primary game language on causation is: A move delivers a state change, and the state delivers the information needed to determine the array of options for the next move. In the causation chain is of course also the player who decides on the choice of move and executes it. Since the player, like a puppet master, is not visible on the stage, we attribute his actions to the pieces in the show - whether it's the witch who kicks the cat or the pawn who captures the icy queen. And thus we have a third move deliverer in a piece of carved wood endowed with certain moving powers dictated by the shape of its carvings. Whichever you choose when describing a move delivery will depend on what you want to emphasize. After all, this is a subject of communication not of game rules.
One warning: In the case of delivery by a unit (piece of wood) you need to be aware that more units may conform to the same description - there is more than one rook. But that is often the case in chess speak since not every piece of wood on the board has an identifying personal name. The player's name tells you nothing about the move and he is still seen as one of the delivering entities.
Please review the dictionary definition of the words "deliver" and "delivery". I know we all sometimes wish words didn't mean what they do. Or sometimes we wish the rules didn't apply to us.
But in the game of chess, we have to abide by the rules, and we have to abide by the definition of words. We don't get to make it up as we go along and pronounce "that doesn't apply to me".
According to both the rules of the game of chess, and the definitions provided by our dictionaries, a king cannot deliver a checkmate. The rules have been provided and explained. The definition of words have been provided and explained. The rest is just common sense, applying those criteria in the example diagrams given.
The piece that's moving "delivers" checkmate to the board. The piece that sees the king "delivers" check to the king. Two things are delivered. Check is one requirement of checkmate, but on its own it is not checkmate. Here, the bishop delivers checkmate to the board, the position, while the rook delivers check to the king.
Except that's not what the rules say. That is your own personal interpretation. We all have our own interpretations that we wish could be applied and enforced. But that's not how it works.
The piece that "sees" the king is also the one that checkmates. That is in the rules. The rules require an attack (a check). That attack is the checkmate (assuming there is no escape). The rules make no provision for a piece moving that checkmates. None. If so please provide that rule and I will look at it. If it's true, then you are right. But if not, there is no reason to keep repeating something that's strictly a personal interpretation and not according to the rules. The checkmate rule has already been posted, and it's pretty clear.
In your diagram, the bishop is not "delivering" checkmate because it is not attacking the king, which is a literal requirement for checkmate. It is assisting for sure. It helps. It covers an escape square for a checkmate. But it is not attacking. The rules require an attack on the enemy kings square. It's literally impossible for the bishop to do that and result in checkmate. The bishop can attack the kings square, but the king would just take it, so no checkmate.
That's not in the rules, or my own personal interpretation. It's simple logic, with the help of a dictionary. The rules say nothing about checkmate as an action, or which piece causes a checkmate position; all they do is define a checkmate position, or noun. You've even admitted this yourself. So stop trolling. You know the answer.
From the rules: (This is the exact same quote you've been using incorrectly.)
"4. Objective and Scoring
4A. Checkmate.
The objective of each of the two players in a game of chess is to win the game by checkmating the opponent’s king. A player’s king is checkmated when the square it occupies is attacked by one or more of the opponent’s pieces and the player has no move that escapes such attack. See also Rule 12, Check; 12C, Responding to check; and 13A, Checkmate."
Through the usage of the word "checkmated", the rules state that there is an action of checkmating. However, all it says is the definition of a king that has been checkmated, without specifying which piece did the checkmating.
From the rules: (This is the exact same quote you've been using incorrectly.)
"4. Objective and Scoring
4A. Checkmate.
The objective of each of the two players in a game of chess is to win the game by checkmating the opponent’s king. A player’s king is checkmated when the square it occupies is attacked by one or more of the opponent’s pieces and the player has no move that escapes such attack. See also Rule 12, Check; 12C, Responding to check; and 13A, Checkmate."
Through the usage of the word "checkmated", the rules state that there is an action of checkmating. However, all it says is the definition of a king that has been checkmated, without specifying which piece did the checkmating.
In your diagram, post number 305, notice the black king. "the square it occupies is attacked by one or more of the opponents pieces" Which white piece is attacking the square the black king occupies?
Since the rules require an attack on the enemy kings square, wouldn't it be logical the attacking piece is the checkmating piece? How much sense (regardless of the rules and definitions) does it make to have a passive, non attacking piece delivering checkmate?
If we go back to some of our examples, how logical would it be that the slowpoke who got out of the way be charged with manslaughter when it was the speeder behind him that crashed into the car? Which one "delivered" the collision? The one who got out of the way, or the one who collided with the victims car? Imagine this issue being settled in a court of law, how do you think a judge or jury would rule?
If you are conceding that the rules imply "there is an action of checkmating" then that leaves no question it is the rook checkmating, as checkmate requires the action of an attack. The bishop is not attacking, therefore not part of the checkmate. At least according to the rules.
Or, which car is attacking (colliding), the one that got out of the way, or the one that collided with the victims car?
The attacking piece is the checking piece, by definition. Check is different from checkmate. Checkmate is a whole position. It's only logical that the piece that causes checkmate is the piece that checkmates.
verb (used with object),check·mat·ed, check·mat·ing.
Chess. to maneuver (an opponent's king) into a check from which it cannot escape; mate.
The piece that moves maneuvers the opponent's king into a check from which it cannot escape. In case you're wondering, maneuver means to manipulate. In other words, which piece manipulates the king into an inescapable check?
The pawn, of course. The bishop checks, but the pawn manipulates the king into an inescapable check because its movement caused an inescapable check. Therefore, the pawn checkmated.
The attacking piece is the checking piece, by definition. Check is different from checkmate. Checkmate is a whole position. It's only logical that the piece that causes checkmate is the piece that checkmates.
verb (used with object),check·mat·ed, check·mat·ing.
Chess. to maneuver (an opponent's king) into a check from which it cannot escape; mate.
The piece that moves maneuvers the opponent's king into a check from which it cannot escape. In case you're wondering, maneuver means to manipulate. In other words, which piece manipulates the king into an inescapable check?
The pawn, of course. The bishop checks, but the pawn manipulates the king into an inescapable check because its movement caused an inescapable check. Therefore, the pawn checkmated.
Did you not understand the question?
I do agree that the piece that causes checkmate is the piece that checkmates. The speeding car that causes the collision is the car that collides. Not the slow car that gets out of the way.
This is also checkmate
I would call that a helpmate. It seems like pawn to h5 would have guaranteed a draw.
This is easy when you play with friend
OR unrated.
The attacking piece is the checking piece, by definition. Check is different from checkmate. Checkmate is a whole position. It's only logical that the piece that causes checkmate is the piece that checkmates.
verb (used with object),check·mat·ed, check·mat·ing.
Chess. to maneuver (an opponent's king) into a check from which it cannot escape; mate.
The piece that moves maneuvers the opponent's king into a check from which it cannot escape. In case you're wondering, maneuver means to manipulate. In other words, which piece manipulates the king into an inescapable check?
The pawn, of course. The bishop checks, but the pawn manipulates the king into an inescapable check because its movement caused an inescapable check. Therefore, the pawn checkmated.
Did you not understand the question?
I do agree that the piece that causes checkmate is the piece that checkmates. The speeding car that causes the collision is the car that collides. Not the slow car that gets out of the way.
Yes, the speeding car that collides is the equivalent of checking. Suppose a blue car is in front, a yellow car behind the blue car, and a purple car behind the yellow car. The yellow car moved out of the way. The purple car hit the blue car - checked. The yellow car's action of getting out of the way - the movement of the piece in our examples - caused the blue car to be hit - checkmated. If the yellow car hadn't moved out of the way, it would be hit by the purple car - a piece not checking the king because of a piece in its way. It's as simple as that.
I once had someone just walk there king to the end of the board and checkmate me with their queen
The attacking piece is the checking piece, by definition. Check is different from checkmate. Checkmate is a whole position. It's only logical that the piece that causes checkmate is the piece that checkmates.
verb (used with object),check·mat·ed, check·mat·ing.
Chess. to maneuver (an opponent's king) into a check from which it cannot escape; mate.
The piece that moves maneuvers the opponent's king into a check from which it cannot escape. In case you're wondering, maneuver means to manipulate. In other words, which piece manipulates the king into an inescapable check?
The pawn, of course. The bishop checks, but the pawn manipulates the king into an inescapable check because its movement caused an inescapable check. Therefore, the pawn checkmated.
Did you not understand the question?
I do agree that the piece that causes checkmate is the piece that checkmates. The speeding car that causes the collision is the car that collides. Not the slow car that gets out of the way.
Yes, the speeding car that collides is the equivalent of checking. Suppose a blue car is in front, a yellow car behind the blue car, and a purple car behind the yellow car. The yellow car moved out of the way. The purple car hit the blue car - checked. The yellow car's action of getting out of the way - the movement of the piece in our examples - caused the blue car to be hit - checkmated. If the yellow car hadn't moved out of the way, it would be hit by the purple car - a piece not checking the king because of a piece in its way. It's as simple as that.
Do you think that opinion would hold any weight in a court of law?
Do you think even an insurance company would hold the driver of the yellow car responsible? If the yellow car "caused" the collision by getting out of the way that would open a whole new arena of litigation in the US. In fact, I'll bet it's been tried.
I do agree that if the yellow car didn't get out of the way, it's likely the collision would not have happened. But that's not relevant to the action of the purple car colliding with the blue car. A court of law, a jury, insurance adjusters, etc. would never claim the driver of the yellow car causes the collision, would they? They wouldn't, and they don't, because it's unrelated to the acts of the blue car and purple car.
The reasons are pretty obvious. The yellow car is in no way obligated to remain a barrier between the two other cars. The driver could move out of the way for a hundred different reasons, none having anything to do with the act of the following purple car subsequently colliding with the blue car. Maybe he wanted to avoid a squirrel. Maybe he needed to make a right turn soon. Maybe he felt the purple car owner was driving too fast.
The yellow car moving out of the way allows the act of a collision to occur. Just as the bishop moving out of the way allows the act of check (or checkmate) to occur. Allowing is not cause.
I will no longer read or react to posts in this thread but I will expand a little on my own since there are some point of interest.
[...]
One warning: In the case of delivery by a unit (piece of wood)...
"piece of wood"... did he forget about plastic pieces?