How can you deliver checkmate with a king?

The white king's move delivers "the state where the black king is under attack by the rook", as it also delivers "a white king on the 7th rank" or any other feature of the new position (state) . Check the camera.

If capturing the king is allowed then black counter moves leaving the king under attack would have to be allowed first. The delivery of the king's capture would change to the white piece capturing the king which may or may not be have been the attacking piece before black's counter move. That would also be on camera.

Btw FIDE/USCF, when allowing the king's capture, would also need to resolve the impact on the distinction between checkmate and stalemate and the situation where black cannot play a legalized countermove. The way in which the termination process is now defined is totally modeled on the look-ahead concept. The most simple resolution would then be to eliminate stalemate alltogether. Not something I am waiting for.

So you seem to be agreeing, in the most non agreeable way possible, that if capturing the enemy king were allowed, moving the king out of the way to reveal the checkmating piece would NOT be the piece that delivers checkmate.

Because if capturing the king were allowed, a move that allows the king to be captured would also have to be allowed. So in our examples, in order, we would have white king moves out of the way, rook checks enemy black king, black king moves, white rook captures black king. Right?

But obviously the rules currently don't allow that. The white rook never captures the black king because the black king isn't allowed to move. The rules say game is over when the white rook checkmates the black king. The final two steps (black king moving and white rook capturing) are not allowed. So wouldn't it then make sense that the final act of the game is the white rook checkmating the black king?

Because in our examples, if the white rook were a white bishop, the game would not be over. The white king still moves, but black can now move. Wouldn't the FINAL act of the game be the attack on the black king? Not potential attack, but current attack.

LALLALLLALALALLLALALALALALALALALLALAA

Not with King but a King move.. just castle and rook gives checkmate.

The final act changes when the rules change - obviously. Checkmate cannot exist without an overhaul of definitions across the spectrum when king capture is allowed. You'd probably have to abolish it and play chess as draughts - it ain't over til it's over. What sort of weird exercise are you running? You ask "what if" and I answer it and then you pretend that I am breaking the rules.

Of course, an attack is not the potential to attack (you made that up) but the potential to capture or move there next - if there is no rule stopping it. Of the 12 occurences of the word attack in the FIDE laws there are NONE where it constitutes an act(ion). Though it is possible to use it that way, e.g. in: "the bishop on f1 attacks the king on e8 (by moving to b5)". That is action and it is on camera. But the rules prefer to reserve the term "check" for the action and "attack" for the state while they also allow "in check" as synonymous to "under attack" for a king.

But the bottom line is: to see a delivery, look at the action on the camera.

Dug up from the FIDE Rulebook:

"Article 5: The completion of the game
5.1 a. The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This
immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate
position was a legal move."

This is defining a game won by checkmate. It does not reference a piece attacking a king, that would be in the definition of a checkmate position. It does, however, reference the "move producing the checkmate position", meaning it is logical to assume the moving piece causes the checkmate!

https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf

Exactly. The king move produces the "checkmate position". The "checkmate position" is one in which the enemy king is attacked. The move (the king getting out of the way) is not part of the attacking position. It helps produce the position. Earlier we called this an accessory, or accomplice.

It allowed the checkmate position to happen, but is not responsible for the checkmate itself. Remember the yellow car. It "produced" the situation in which the purple car collides with the blue care. But it didn't actually attack (collide) with the blue car itself, but it allowed (or produced) the circumstances necessary.

FIDE apparently doesn't define checkmate in their rules. But maybe they define it somewhere else, I just haven't seen it. But USCF does define it. Also, the dictionary defines it.

Maybe FIDE doesn't define it because it's not necessary. There is no way for a checkmate to happen WITHOUT an attack on the enemy kings square. It would be impossible. Think of it this way. Because the rules don't allow capture the game ends with just the attack. Not the follow up capture. I suppose the analogy would be a soldier firing an arrow at the enemy king. Victory isn't determined by the arrow killing the king, it's determined by the soldier firing the arrow.

The fellow soldier, getting out of the way, is not the one who fired the arrow. Since we are talking about "deliver checkmate" the definition of deliver is probably important. "to send (something aimed or guided) to an intended target". So again, which piece is sending something to the intended target? The king, or the rook?

The dictionary defines checkmate as both a verb and a noun.

transitive verb

1
: to arrest, thwart, or counter completely
 
2
: to check (a chess opponent's king) so that escape is impossible
 
checkmate

2 of 2noun
1
a: the act of checkmating
b: the situation of a checkmated king
 
2
: a complete check

So again, which pieces is checking the opponents king? The definition says "to check". Is it the king that's checking the king, or is the rook checking the king? We know using the king is against the rules, so it has to be the rook, right?

It appears you know nothing about chess. A checkmate position is one in which the enemy king is under attack - That phrasing makes it easier for you to understand this very complicated concept - and has no escape. That is very important. Again, here's the definition of a game won by checkmate:

"Article 5: The completion of the game
5.1 a. The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This
immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate
position was a legal move."

The definition directly states that the checkmate is due to a move. And, if that move is a king move, then the checkmate is due to a king move. In other words, the king's move caused the checkmate position.

Yes, the king move revealed the checkmate position. But the king is not part of the checkmate position itself, is it? We agree the "checkmate position is one in which the enemy king is under attack". And has no escape. Those are your words and I agree 100%.

We also agree with the rule "produces" the checkmate position. It helped produce the position (just like the yellow car helped produce the collision scene) but is not part of the checkmate position itself because it is not a checking, or checkmating piece.

Whether you go by the rules of chess, or the dictionary, checkmate means a position where the enemy king is under attack and cannot escape. I am perfectly comfortable with your position that the moving king helps produce the checkmate position. I agree. But it seems like you do NOT agree that it's the rook that attacks the enemy king to checkmate. Yet it's the only option. The king cannot do it, it's against the rules.

The rules are accurate, the definitions in the dictionary are accurate. Delivery means to send or aim something to an intended target. Which is the rook, not the king. Checkmate, the verb, is to attack the enemy king from which there is no escape. Which again is the rook, not the king.

If it helps think of the analogies we have had so far. The rock and the laser. The rock getting out of the way of the laser. Or the fellow soldier getting out of the way so another soldier fires the arrow. Or the yellow car getting out of the way of the purple car which then collides with the blue car. In all cases the act of getting out of the way isn't the act that produces the final result.

The king moving out of the way produces the checkmate position. It's the checkmate position that is the ATTACK on the enemy king. It's laser that finds it's target, not the rock moving out of the way. It's the purple care that collides with the blue car, not the yellow care that got out of the way. And its soldier who fires the arrow (even though it doesn't kill the king) that is responsible for the attack. Not the fellow soldier that got out of the way.

lfPatriotGames Quote: "Exactly. The king move produces the "checkmate position". TRUE. Next quote: "The "checkmate position" is one in which the enemy king is attacked" ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT.

No-one cares what "checkmate" is and there is no disagreement about it. To identify production/delivery we only need to know that there is a checkmate. And then the first quote tells us what produced/delivered it.

Yesterday we watched the OSU/Colorado football game. I'm not a football fan but my daughter goes to OSU. There are times during football where someone has possession of the ball and they are trying to deliver a touchdown. But someone is in their way. They are prevented from delivering the touchdown because a fellow footballer is obstructing them. But lets say the fellow player gets out of the way. Lets say they fall down, move out of the way, or otherwise remove themselves from the path of the person who has the football.

If the person who is in the way doesn't get out of the way, there is no touchdown. But there are times when they DO get out of the way, and the person who has intentions on the target (the endzone) delivers the touchdown.

So who delivered the touchdown? The person who got out of the way, or the person who carried the football into the endzone?

Maybe a better example comes afterward. A kicker tries to make an extra point by kicking a football through two posts. But there is always someone who wants to get in the way. The kicker is trying to deliver (send something to an intended target) a football. So a bunch of people try to make sure the opposing team doesn't get in the way. So who delivers the extra point? The people who got out of the way, or the kicker who kicked it between the two posts?

Well the question is can a king deliver checkmate. So I would think what a checkmate is would be pretty relevant.

Can a king deliver check? You might say no one cares what a check is. But it's pretty relevant to figuring out if a king can do it or not. Like it or not, a checkmate, or checkmate position is one in which the enemy king is attacked and there is no escape. If you don't like it, take it up with the USCF, FIDE, and the people who write dictionaries.

It matters nothing who you believe delivered the checkmate or what is fair. The rule texts clearly identify the layer of the last brick as the producer of the complete house. Why? Because it wasn't a complete house without the last brick. Of course you can disagree with that appointment but you cannot disagree with the fact that the rules say so.

I agree 100% with what the rules say. I also agree with the dictionary. I agree with both the USCF and FIDE rules on checkmate. I agree even further with the dictionary definitions of both the words "deliver" and "checkmate".

Which is why I've listed them. Deliver is the act of sending something to an intended target. So is it the king or the rook that is sending something to the intended target (which is the enemy king)

A checkmate is an attack on the enemy kings square from which there is no escape. Is it the king or the rook that is attacking that enemy king?

That's why I'm comfortable using either chess rulebook, probably any dictionary. They all say pretty much the same thing. I have no problem with the piece moving out of the way to reveal the checkmating piece. Just as I have no problem with the yellow car moving out of the way to reveal the colliding purple car. Or the fellow soldier moving out of the way to reveal the attacking soldier. Etc, etc.

A king can move out of the way to discover a piece that delivers checkmate. But the rules prevent a king from checkmating another king. Since a king may not attack another king.

No, because there is no question on what "checkmate" is. The question is only on the generic relationship between X and Y in the language construction "X (move) delivers Y (state)" which is uniform throughout the chess rules and applies to all states.

The only point which remains open to some doubt is whether or not it is legitimate to replace "a king's move delivers" to "the king delivers". Which I addressed in other posts though most humans will consider that nitpicky..

Well there seems to be a LOT of questioning what checkmate is. I recall you going on and on about "entire position" which is not mentioned anywhere in the rules or the dictionary.

According to the definitions in the dictionary, a king cannot deliver checkmate. Because it is not sending or aiming anything to the intended target. It can move out of the way, we all agree on that (I hope). It can reveal the piece that delivers checkmate. But it cannot do it itself because that would defy the rules of chess, and run counter to the definitions in the dictionary.

A checkmate is an attack on the enemy kings square from which there is no escape. A king cannot attack another king. A delivery is sending or aiming something to the intended target. Again, the king cannot do that to another king. The rules are the rules. And definitions are definitions.

OAELOALOAEOLLAEEALOAELAOEAELOAEOAELOAELOAEAELO