The Rook did.
Did you even read my post? Apparently it's more complicated than "the piece that causes checkmate, checkmates." If a piece moves and, by moving, causes checkmate, it is the piece that checkmates, even if a different piece sees the king. So, let me ask again: Which piece moved, and by moving, caused checkmate?
Can we just cut to the chase and say if your King moving puts your opponent in checkmate right after, than that is how you get Killer King?
That has already been done, but @lfPatriotGames still has never heard of "common sense".
Not according to philosophy or "folklore". But the rules of chess.
The rules of chess state: "The purpose of the game is to checkmate the opponent's king. This happens when the king is put into check and cannot get out of check."[1]
Which piece caused the king to be put into check and cannot get out of check, in the position below?
Is it the bishop? The rook? The king? The knight? Or the queen on the other side of the tournament hall?
Apparently understanding which piece is moving is more complicated than I thought.
It's none. The king is not in check. No piece is checking the king at the moment.
The rules of chess state
"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, "
In your example no piece is attacking the the square the king occupies. So it's not in check, nor is it in checkmate. Now, lets say the bishop moves. Then which piece is attacking the square the black king occupies? At least according to the rules of chess.
The Rook did. Can we just cut to the chase and say if your King moving puts your opponent in checkmate right after, than that is how you get Killer King?
That is exactly right. Moving the king out of the way allows the rook to check (or checkmate and achieve a killer king award). The rook is the checking piece, but it's the king that moves out of the way to allow a check from another piece. Therefore it is the rook that is delivering checkmate. Since checkmate can only be delivered by a checking piece, one that attacks the enemy square the king occupies.
The Rook did.
Did you even read my post? Apparently it's more complicated than "the piece that causes checkmate, checkmates." If a piece moves and, by moving, causes checkmate, it is the piece that checkmates, even if a different piece sees the king. So, let me ask again: Which piece moved, and by moving, caused checkmate?
The checking piece, per the rules of chess, cause the checkmate. There is no allowance in the rules of chess for a piece that moves out of the way and reveals the checking piece. The rules of chess only recognize the piece that is attacking the square the enemy king occupies. Which in this case is the rook. The rules do not recognize HOW it came to be the checking piece.
It could have been a promotion, in some cases it could be en passant. It could have been a discovered check. It could have just been an ordinary move. In all cases it is the piece that actually attacks the square the enemy king occupies that delivers the checkmate. It doesn't matter HOW that piece came to be the checkmating piece, only that it is the piece that is attacking the king.
Not according to philosophy or "folklore". But the rules of chess.
The rules of chess state: "The purpose of the game is to checkmate the opponent's king. This happens when the king is put into check and cannot get out of check."[1]
Which piece caused the king to be put into check and cannot get out of check, in the position below?
Is it the bishop? The rook? The king? The knight? Or the queen on the other side of the tournament hall?
Apparently understanding which piece is moving is more complicated than I thought.
It's none. The king is not in check. No piece is checking the king at the moment.
The rules of chess state
"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, "
In your example no piece is attacking the the square the king occupies. So it's not in check, nor is it in checkmate. Now, lets say the bishop moves. Then which piece is attacking the square the black king occupies? At least according to the rules of chess.
"No piece is checking the king"...
"NO PIECE IS CHECKING THE KING"???
If you don't even know whether or not the king is in check, what gives you the authority to try to convince me that the piece that moves is not the one that checkmates?
Not according to philosophy or "folklore". But the rules of chess.
The rules of chess state: "The purpose of the game is to checkmate the opponent's king. This happens when the king is put into check and cannot get out of check."[1]
Which piece caused the king to be put into check and cannot get out of check, in the position below?
Is it the bishop? The rook? The king? The knight? Or the queen on the other side of the tournament hall?
Apparently understanding which piece is moving is more complicated than I thought.
It's none. The king is not in check. No piece is checking the king at the moment.
The rules of chess state
"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, "
In your example no piece is attacking the the square the king occupies. So it's not in check, nor is it in checkmate. Now, lets say the bishop moves. Then which piece is attacking the square the black king occupies? At least according to the rules of chess.
"No piece is checking the king"...
"NO PIECE IS CHECKING THE KING"???
If you don't even know whether or not the king is in check, what gives you the authority to try to convince me that the piece that moves is not the one that checkmates?
Yes. In your first diagram, post number 103, no piece is checking the king. So it's not in check. In this recent post, number 110, the rook is checking the king.
So to emphasize, in regards to your capitalized question "no piece is checking the king"?? That's correct, no piece is checking the king in that diagram.
Also, I asked you if the bishop moves (which you indicated it would by your notation) then which piece is checking the king. If the bishop moves, the rook then checks the king. Because it is attacking the square the black king occupies. Which is how the rules say check works. The bishop never delivers check because it is impossible for the bishop to attack the black king. The white bishop is on a light square, the black king is on a dark square. So in this example it is impossible for the white bishop to check the black king.
The correct chess expression is "the bishop checks" or "the bishop gives check" without mentioning the king. It is inserted by lfPatriotGames only to suggest a special relationship between the bishop and the king in the checking action which does not exist. "The rook checks the king" is equally wrong language but it is true in the last diagram with regard to the state of check which is a special relationship between the rook and the king."The rook checkmates the king" is again incorrect chess language and it is both untrue as an action and as a state. The rook didn't act and it has no checkmate relationship with the black king as the checkmate state comes from the whole board position.
Ignoring the distinction between action and state ignores the two definitions KieferSmith quoted from the dictionary (post #75) and makes it impossible to resolve the issue . The two definitions apply to the expressions "check", "checkmate" "give check" , "give checkmate" but not to "is checking" or "is checkmating" or "is giving check" or "is giving checkmate" which are only states! "Delivery" is clearly an action which tells you that the bishop delivered checkmate in the last move though all units contribute to the state of checkmate in the diagram.
Not according to philosophy or "folklore". But the rules of chess.
The rules of chess state: "The purpose of the game is to checkmate the opponent's king. This happens when the king is put into check and cannot get out of check."[1]
Which piece caused the king to be put into check and cannot get out of check, in the position below?
Is it the bishop? The rook? The king? The knight? Or the queen on the other side of the tournament hall?
Apparently understanding which piece is moving is more complicated than I thought.
It's none. The king is not in check. No piece is checking the king at the moment.
The rules of chess state
"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, "
In your example no piece is attacking the the square the king occupies. So it's not in check, nor is it in checkmate. Now, lets say the bishop moves. Then which piece is attacking the square the black king occupies? At least according to the rules of chess.
"No piece is checking the king"...
"NO PIECE IS CHECKING THE KING"???
If you don't even know whether or not the king is in check, what gives you the authority to try to convince me that the piece that moves is not the one that checkmates?
Yes. In your first diagram, post number 103, no piece is checking the king. So it's not in check. In this recent post, number 110, the rook is checking the king.
So to emphasize, in regards to your capitalized question "no piece is checking the king"?? That's correct, no piece is checking the king in that diagram.
Also, I asked you if the bishop moves (which you indicated it would by your notation) then which piece is checking the king. If the bishop moves, the rook then checks the king. Because it is attacking the square the black king occupies. Which is how the rules say check works. The bishop never delivers check because it is impossible for the bishop to attack the black king. The white bishop is on a light square, the black king is on a dark square. So in this example it is impossible for the white bishop to check the black king.
You should read @Arisktotle's last post, which further details the state and action of check and checkmate. Also you should maybe learn how to use your eyeballs... The first position I uploaded is exactly the same as the second one, but you need to click the arrow to see white's move.
I did read Arisktotles post. He is wrong. The rules of chess do not say anything about what he is suggesting. What he wishes as far as "state" and "action" simply are not recognized by the rules of chess. That's his own personal interpretation or desire.
The rules of chess state that when a piece attacks the square the enemy king occupies, that is check. In our example it's simply impossible for the bishop to do that. The bishop is on a light colored square, the king is on a dark colored square. I understand and appreciate your thoughts on what constitutes both check, and checkmate, but I have to ultimately refer to the rules of chess, not the personal wishes of a chess player.
I did read Arisktotles post. He is wrong. The rules of chess do not say anything about what he is suggesting. What he wishes as far as "state" and "action" simply are not recognized by the rules of chess. That's his own personal interpretation or desire.
The rules of chess state that when a piece attacks the square the enemy king occupies, that is check. In our example it's simply impossible for the bishop to do that. The bishop is on a light colored square, the king is on a dark colored square. I understand and appreciate your thoughts on what constitutes both check, and checkmate, but I have to ultimately refer to the rules of chess, not the personal wishes of a chess player.
Ha. Ironic you think he's wrong when you don't even think black is in check in the position below.
@lfPatriotGames, answer this question: Is the bishop the piece that is moving below?
I did read Arisktotles post. He is wrong. The rules of chess do not say anything about what he is suggesting. What he wishes as far as "state" and "action" simply are not recognized by the rules of chess. That's his own personal interpretation or desire.
The rules of chess state that when a piece attacks the square the enemy king occupies, that is check. In our example it's simply impossible for the bishop to do that. The bishop is on a light colored square, the king is on a dark colored square. I understand and appreciate your thoughts on what constitutes both check, and checkmate, but I have to ultimately refer to the rules of chess, not the personal wishes of a chess player.
Ha. Ironic you think he's wrong when you don't even think black is in check in the position below.
As I said before, black was not in check in the diagram you referenced. However, if the bishop moves out of the way, then the rook checks the king.
I did read Arisktotles post. He is wrong. The rules of chess do not say anything about what he is suggesting. What he wishes as far as "state" and "action" simply are not recognized by the rules of chess. That's his own personal interpretation or desire.
The rules of chess state that when a piece attacks the square the enemy king occupies, that is check. In our example it's simply impossible for the bishop to do that. The bishop is on a light colored square, the king is on a dark colored square. I understand and appreciate your thoughts on what constitutes both check, and checkmate, but I have to ultimately refer to the rules of chess, not the personal wishes of a chess player.
Ha. Ironic you think he's wrong when you don't even think black is in check in the position below.
As I said before, black was not in check in the diagram you referenced. However, if the bishop moves out of the way, then the rook checks the king.
The bishop DID move out of the way, genius!
@lfPatriotGames, answer this question: Is the bishop the piece that is moving below?
In the diagram, nothing is moving. It's a diagram, not a video. So I would say no. But since you are indicating the bishop will be moving, then the bishop will be moving.
I did read Arisktotles post. He is wrong. The rules of chess do not say anything about what he is suggesting. What he wishes as far as "state" and "action" simply are not recognized by the rules of chess. That's his own personal interpretation or desire.
The rules of chess state that when a piece attacks the square the enemy king occupies, that is check. In our example it's simply impossible for the bishop to do that. The bishop is on a light colored square, the king is on a dark colored square. I understand and appreciate your thoughts on what constitutes both check, and checkmate, but I have to ultimately refer to the rules of chess, not the personal wishes of a chess player.
Ha. Ironic you think he's wrong when you don't even think black is in check in the position below.
As I said before, black was not in check in the diagram you referenced. However, if the bishop moves out of the way, then the rook checks the king.
The bishop DID move out of the way, genius!
And when that happens, the rook checks the king. Two different positions, two different diagrams.
The Rook did. Can we just cut to the chase and say if your King moving puts your opponent in checkmate right after, than that is how you get Killer King?